一个SQL的优化

最近看到一个问题（原帖地址：http://topic.csdn.net/u/20120604/09/b56a0996-3c5a-4c35-9423-8b68d1284db6.html）

-- 表TB1
  START_ID     END_ID
---------- ----------
         1          3
         4          6
         7          9
        10         12
        13         15
        16         18
        19         21
        22         24
        25         27
        28         30

-- 表TB2
       TID
----------
         1
         2
         3
        31

-- 查询TB2的结果是在TB1的范围中
-- 期望结果：
       TID
----------
         1
         2
         3

简单的写法：

SELECT t2.tid
  FROM tb1 t1,
       tb2 t2
 WHERE t2.tid BETWEEN t1.start_id AND t1.end_id

俩个表数据少的情况，该写法没有什么问题，数据稍微大的话，再看看什么结果。构造tb1的数据1w条，构造tb2的数据10w条。
插入语句：

INSERT INTO tb1
SELECT s ,e
  FROM (SELECT LEVEL s,
               LEVEL + 2 e
          FROM DUAL
        CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 30000) m
 WHERE MOD(m.s-1, 3) = 0;

INSERT INTO tb2
    SELECT LEVEL
      FROM DUAL
    CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 100000;

执行上面sql,查看autotrace

SELECT t2.tid
  FROM tb1 t1,
       tb2 t2
 WHERE t2.tid BETWEEN t1.start_id AND t1.end_id;

30074行が選択されました。

経過: 00:02:18.07

実行計画
----------------------------------------------------------
   0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=1538 Card=2640000 Bytes=102960000)
   1    0   MERGE JOIN (Cost=1538 Card=2640000 Bytes=102960000)
   2    1     SORT (JOIN) (Cost=90 Card=10000 Bytes=260000)
   3    2       TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TB1' (TABLE) (Cost=13 Card=10000 Bytes=260000)
   4    1     FILTER
   5    4       SORT (JOIN) (Cost=571 Card=105600 Bytes=1372800)
   6    5         TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TB2' (TABLE) (Cost=54 Card=105600 Bytes=1372800)

統計
----------------------------------------------------------
          9  recursive calls
          1  db block gets
        352  consistent gets
          0  physical reads
        176  redo size
     481806  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      22547  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       2006  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          4  sorts (memory)
          0  sorts (disk)
      30074  rows processed

上面SQL执行了2分18秒，效率很不好，看一下执行计划，tb1和tb2进行了FILTER操作，（FILTER类似NESTED LOOP，它内部维护一个hash table，当一个值满足条件时，把这个值放到hash中，下次遇到相同的值时，直接去hash中去取，避免再一次全表扫描，所以效率优于NESTED LOOP。）。tb1有10000条记录，tb2有100000条记录，最坏的情况10000*100000次全表扫描，这就是效率慢的原因。
思路：为了避免嵌套循环，考虑使用hash join 来减少全表扫描次数，由于hash join只能用于等值连接，将tb1表数据缺失的条件构造出来，使Oracle选择hash join。
优化后的SQL

SELECT m2.tid
  FROM (SELECT t1.start_id + t2.lv tid
          FROM tb1 t1,
               (SELECT LEVEL - 1 lv
                  FROM (SELECT MAX(end_id - start_id) + 1 g
                          FROM tb1)
                CONNECT BY LEVEL <= g) t2
         WHERE t1.end_id >= t1.start_id + t2.lv) m1,
       tb2 m2
 WHERE m1.tid = m2.tid;
30074行が選択されました。

経過: 00:00:00.02
実行計画
----------------------------------------------------------
   0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=83 Card=960 Bytes=
          49920)
   1    0   HASH JOIN (Cost=83 Card=960 Bytes=49920)
   2    1     NESTED LOOPS (Cost=27 Card=500 Bytes=19500)
   3    2       VIEW (Cost=13 Card=1 Bytes=13)
   4    3         CONNECT BY (WITHOUT FILTERING)
   5    4           COUNT
   6    5             VIEW (Cost=13 Card=1 Bytes=13)
   7    6               SORT (AGGREGATE)
   8    7                 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TB1' (TABLE) (Cost=13 Card=10000 Bytes=260000)
   9    2       TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TB1' (TABLE) (Cost=13 Card=500Bytes=13000)
  10    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TB2' (TABLE) (Cost=54 Card=105600 Bytes=1372800)

統計
----------------------------------------------------------
         14  recursive calls
          0  db block gets
       2583  consistent gets
          0  physical reads
          0  redo size
     419088  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      22547  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       2006  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          3  sorts (memory)
          0  sorts (disk)
      30074  rows processed

上面SQL执行了0.02秒，效率很好，m1和m2进行hash join，分别进行一次全表扫描。