Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
32 recursive calls
0 db block gets
72 consistent gets
266 physical reads
0 redo size
424 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
419 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
SQL> select count(*) from t_bmap where status='VALID';
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 516980546
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 5 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 5 | | |
| 2 | BITMAP CONVERSION COUNT | | 62928 | 307K| 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | BITMAP INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| STATUS_BMAP | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - filter("STATUS"='VALID')
Note
-----
- dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
6 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
424 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
419 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
从上面的查询中，我们可以得到，分别给两张内容一样的表做查询的时候，在执行第二次的时候是属于软解析：
从一致性读上比较，B-Tree索引的consistent gets是180，BitMap的是6；
从Cost的消耗上看，B-Tree索引的COST是49，而BitMap的是3。
在索引键是高重复率键值(status)的时候情况下BitMap索引的效率要优于B-Tree索引。