I have a similar problem here:
Non-negligible execution plan difference with Oracle when using jdbc Timestamp or Date
In my example it essentially comes down to the fact that when using JDBC Timestamp, an INTERNAL_FUNCTION
is applied to the filter column, not the bind variable. Thus, the index cannot be used for RANGE SCANS
or UNIQUE SCANS
anymore:
// execute_at is of type DATE.
PreparedStatement stmt = connection.prepareStatement(
"SELECT /*+ index(my_table my_index) */ * " +
"FROM my_table " +
"WHERE execute_at > ? AND execute_at < ?");
These two bindings result in entirely different behaviour (to exclude bind variable peeking issues, I actually enforced two hard-parses):
// 1. with timestamps
stmt.setTimestamp(1, start);
stmt.setTimestamp(2, end);
// 2. with dates
stmt.setDate(1, start);
stmt.setDate(2, end);
1) With timestamps, I get an INDEX FULL SCAN
and thus a filter predicate
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name |
--------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | |
|* 1 | FILTER | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| my_table |
|* 3 | INDEX FULL SCAN | my_index |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter(:1<:2)"
3 - filter((INTERNAL_FUNCTION(""EXECUTE_AT"")>:1 AND
INTERNAL_FUNCTION(""EXECUTE_AT"")<:2))
2) With dates, I get the much better INDEX RANGE SCAN
and an access predicate
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name |
--------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | |
|* 1 | FILTER | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| my_table |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | my_index |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter(:1<:2)"
3 - access(""EXECUTE_AT"">:1 AND ""EXECUTE_AT""<:2)
Solving this problem inside third-party APIs
For the record, this problem can also be solved within third-party APIs for instance in Hibernate:
Or in jOOQ: