其实这个现象是由于这个例子的特殊性造成的。T表是根据DBA_USERS创建，这张表很小。HASH JOIN中第一步也就是第一张表的全表扫描是无法应用STOPKEY的，这就是上面提到的NESTED LOOP比HASH JOIN优势的地方。但是，这个例子中，恰好第一张表很小，对这张表的全扫描的代价极低，因此，显得HASH JOIN效率更高。但是，这不具备共性，如果两张表的大小相近，或者Oracle错误的选择了先扫描大表，则使用HASH JOIN的效率就会低得多。
SQL> SELECT USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
2 FROM
3 (
4 SELECT ROWNUM RN, USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
5 FROM
6 (
7 SELECT /*+ ORDERED */ T.USER_ID, T.USERNAME, T1.NAME
8 FROM T1, T
9 WHERE T.USERNAME = T1.OWNER
10 )
11 WHERE ROWNUM <= 20
12 )
13 WHERE RN >= 11;
已选择10行。
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=951 Card=20 Bytes=1200)
1 0 VIEW (Cost=951 Card=20 Bytes=1200)
2 1 COUNT (STOPKEY)
3 2 HASH JOIN (Cost=951 Card=96985 Bytes=2909550)
4 3 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T1' (Cost=826 Card=96985 Bytes=1842715)
5 3 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T' (Cost=2 Card=12 Bytes=132)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
8585 consistent gets
7310 physical reads
0 redo size
601 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
503 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed
通过HINT提示，让Oracle先扫描大表，这回结果就很明显了。NESTED LOOP的效果要比HASH JOIN好得多。
下面，继续比较一下两个分页操作的写法，为了使结果更具有代表性，这里都采用了FIRST_ROWS提示，让Oracle采用NESTED LOOP的方式来进行表连接：
SQL> SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS */ USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
2 FROM
3 (
4 SELECT ROWNUM RN, USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
5 FROM
6 (
7 SELECT T.USER_ID, T.USERNAME, T1.NAME
8 FROM T, T1
9 WHERE T.USERNAME = T1.OWNER
10 )
11 WHERE ROWNUM <= 20
12 )
13 WHERE RN >= 11;
已选择10行。
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=HINT: FIRST_ROWS (Cost=97811 Card=20 Bytes=1200)
1 0 VIEW (Cost=97811 Card=20 Bytes=1200)
2 1 COUNT (STOPKEY)
3 2 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=97811 Card=96985 Bytes=2909550)
4 3 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T1' (Cost=826 Card=96985 Bytes=1842715)
5 3 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T' (Cost=1 Card=1 Bytes=11)
6 5 INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'PK_T' (UNIQUE)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
28 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
574 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
503 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed
SQL> SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS */ USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
2 FROM
3 (
4 SELECT ROWNUM RN, USER_ID, USERNAME, NAME
5 FROM
6 (
7 SELECT T.USER_ID, T.USERNAME, T1.NAME
8 FROM T, T1
9 WHERE T.USERNAME = T1.OWNER
10 )
11 )
12 WHERE RN BETWEEN 11 AND 20;
已选择10行。
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=HINT: FIRST_ROWS (Cost=97811 Card=96985 Bytes=5819100)
1 0 VIEW (Cost=97811 Card=96985 Bytes=5819100)
2 1 COUNT
3 2 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=97811 Card=96985 Bytes=2909550)
4 3 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T1' (Cost=826 Card=96985 Bytes=1842715)
5 3 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T' (Cost=1 Card=1 Bytes=11)
6 5 INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'PK_T' (UNIQUE)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
105571 consistent gets
7299 physical reads
0 redo size
574 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
503 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed
两种写法的效率差别极大。关键仍然是是否能将STOPKEY应用到最内层查询中。
对于表连接来说，在写分页查询的时候，可以考虑增加FIRST_ROWS提示，它有助于更快的将查询结果返回。
其实，不光是表连接，对于所有的分页查询都可以加上FIRST_ROWS提示。不过需要注意的时，分页查询的目标是尽快的返回前N条记录，因此，无论是ROWNUM还是FIRST_ROWS机制都是提高前几页的查询速度，对于分页查询的最后几页，采用这些机制不但无法提高查询速度，反而会明显降低查询效率，对于这一点使用者应该做到心中有数。
