Low Cardinality != Bitmap Index
What I found were hundreds of thousands of db file sequential read wait events to insert a single row. I checked out the data dictionary for any supporting indexes and found 10 indexes on the table, 4 of which were bitmap indexes. Fortunately, this was a 10g database, so the object number associated with the sequential reads were easily plucked using a simple AWK script.
wait #22: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 377 file#=17 block#=20988904 blocks=1 obj#=725386 tim=2691112678912
I found that nearly 99.99% of these wait events were owed to this object, a bitmap index.This application is not your standard OLTP as the underlying table gets loaded with thousands of rows each day with SINGLE ROW inserts. The dreaded concurrency and deadlocking did not come into play, well, because the load process is single threaded. However, all queries against this table need to perform very quickly. So, in that sense it has an OLTP face. Here is the rub. First, I asked if these indexes (in particular the bitmap indexes) could be dropped prior to their "load" and recreated after. The answer I received was essentially, "no, that is the way the application works." I then asked them to tell me why this index was a bitmap index. The developer stated the rationale was the fact that the data was uniformly distributed over 6 distinct values. I suppose that seems reasonable. I then asked the developer if this column was used in join conditions for other queries. The answer was a resounding NO.
Not to my surprise the index built as a standard b*tree index was just as efficient and lacked the horrific index maintenance overhead associated with SINGLE ROW inserts. The only reason the index was defined as a bitmap index was its cardinality and nothing more. I had them drop the index. The load that was taking 20+ hours to complete finished in under a minute. The lesson here is: Know your data, know your code and then evaluate the use of bitmap indexes to support your table access. The simple fact of low cardinality does not alone justify the use of a bitmap index. As a matter of fact, this bitmap index was so chubby that after it was re-created post load, it had been reduced in size by 99%. I suppose that is another point: Bitmap indexes aren't necessarily space savers either if used in an improper context.
BTW, the hundreds of thousands of blocks reads were not what you might have thought: locks against rows with the same bitmap as the inserted value for the bitmap column. Oracle was ranging over the index nonsensically looking for the proper place to dump the row. As the hundreds of thousands of sequential reads rolled by not a single TM lock was obtained and ZERO db block changes had accumulated. It was only when the row finally inserted that a few blocks changes showed up. This is just another example of a peculiarity with bitmap indexes that can crop up if used unlawfully.