【求助】从大表中删除小表中存在的记录问题

A表:30万,主键ID
B表:300万,主键ID
从B表中删除ID=A表ID的记录。

DELETE FROM B WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM (SELECT ID FROM (SELECT T.ID, ROWNUM RN FROM A) WHERE RN > 0 AND RN <= 50000) AB WHERE A.ID = B.ID);
但执行计划显示COST较大,且瓶颈是B表的全表扫描。

需求是这里有B1 ... B10多个B表(都是300万),串行操作相当于10次B表的全表扫描,因为磁盘IO性能较差,执行单个DELETE时都可能占据较大CPU,所以不能并行。

是否还有优化空间呢?请高手指点,谢谢!

Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3752040547

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation               | Name          | Rows  | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT        |               |   225K|    15M|       | 18309  (1)| 00:03:40 |
|*  1 |  HASH JOIN RIGHT SEMI   |               |   225K|    15M|  4168K| 18309  (1)| 00:03:40 |
|*  2 |   VIEW                  |               |   133K|  2604K|       |    88  (2)| 00:00:02 |
|   3 |    COUNT                |               |       |       |       |     |          |
|   4 |     INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| P_A                |   133K|   911K|       |    88  (2)| 00:00:02 |
|   5 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL     | B                |  3598K|   171M|       |  7448  (1)| 00:01:30 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - access("A"."ID"="ID")
   2 - filter("RN">0 AND "RN"<=50000)


Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
          1  recursive calls
          0  db block gets
      27479  consistent gets
          0  physical reads
          0  redo size
      11651  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
        645  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
         13  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0  sorts (memory)
          0  sorts (disk)
        168  rows processed

原文地址:https://www.cnblogs.com/riskyer/p/3347916.html