We are working on 2 AIX 7 server and 2 Oracle databases 12.1.0.2.
1 database (called in this topic DB1) is our central PROD db.
The second database (called in this topic DB2) is a production DB too, but for used for a non critical application.
We want to isolate traitement (impact as less as possible DB1) executed on DB2 (with joins) from the central production database DB1.
These traitements uses DBLINK to read DB1 datas.
So the question is:
If we perform a query like
select col1, col2 from table1#dblink_DB1, table2#dblink_DB1 where JOIN DB1/DB2
On which server the JOIN treatment is executed?
Are only reads occurring on DB1 (so low performance case) and JOIN treatment is executed with SGA/CPU on DB2?
Or is everything executing on DB1?
Such queries (which can be executed fully remotely, without access to local database) usually work on the remote db link site and it's much better than if it work on local database, since in this case it would read leading table and run (Select * from table#dblink_DB1 where col=:a) so many times as a number of rows returned from table1#dblink_DB2. Of course, you can force it run locally using hint driving_site, but this case it would be far less effective for both databases. Read more about driving_site hint. And also you should now that dml statements (update/delete/merge/insert) work always on the database where you change data.
Related
I'd like to know what is my RAC cluster name using SQL query. I've found out that it can be retrieved using Oracle tool cemutlo -n or just ocrdump (see http://www.br8dba.com/tag/how-to-display-oracle-cluster-name/). However, it's not possible in this case, because on target environment, I can only execute SQL queries and I don't have access to DBMS installation directory.
I've found out (here https://community.oracle.com/thread/2510788?tstart=0) that it can be done using some unusual queries:
SELECT a.ID, a.CLUSTER_ID FROM TABLE(DBMS_DATA_MINING.GET_MODEL_DETAILS_OC('CLUS_OC_1_15',NULL,NULL,1,0,0)) a
select * from table(dbms_data_mining.get_model_details_km('CLUS_KM_1_25'))
However, they don't work on my environment and I'm unable to create new model.
Most preferably, I'd just read this from some kind of v$/gv$ tables - but I can't find it there. I guess that's because cluster is far below DBMS.
Finally, I found out that there is no way to do that :(.
I have the same database on 2 different Oracle servers, one is 11.2.0.1.0 and the other is 11.2.0.4.0.
I have the same 2 geometry tables in both databases and run the following query on both servers. When run on an 11.2.0.1.0 version of Oracle, the query runs for a few minutes and I get results, the same query when run on 11.2.0.4.0 runs for about 3 seconds and returns no results.
The BLPUs table holds 36 million points and the PD_B2 table holds a polygon. I am trying to find all the points that fall in the polygon.
Other spatial queries do return rows but it takes hours and hours whereas the table join suggested in the Oracle Spatial documentation, takes 15 minutes to return all the points.
SELECT /*+ ordered */ a.uprn
FROM TABLE(SDO_JOIN('BLPUS', 'GEOLOC', 'PD_B2', 'GEOLOC','mask=ANYINTERACT')) c, blpus a, PD_B2 b
WHERE c.rowid1 = a.rowid
AND c.rowid2 = b.rowid;
The spatial queryies below return SDO_ROWIDSET() when run on the 11.2.0.4 server
select SDO_JOIN('BLPUS', 'GEOLOC', 'PD_B2', 'GEOLOC','mask=ANYINTERACT')
from dual;
select SDO_JOIN('BLPUS', 'GEOLOC', 'PD_B2', 'GEOLOC')
from dual;
On the 11.2.0.1 server they return results.
I have discovered that a much smaller table of points will work on 11.2.0.4 so it seems that there is a size limit on 11.2.0.4 when using SDO_JOIN where as 11.2.0.1 seems to cope with the large table.
Does anyone know why this is or if there is an actual limit on table size when using SDO_JOIN?
This is strange. I see no reason why SDO_JOIN will not work the same way in 11.2.0.4. At least I have not seen that sort of behavior before. It looks like a bug to me and I suggest you file a service request with Oracle Support so we can take a look. You may need to provide a dump of the tables - or at least of a small enough subset that demonstrates the problem.
That said there are a few things to check: did you apply the 11.2.0.4 patch on the same database ? I.e. nothing changed in terms of table structures or content, grants, etc ?
When you say that the query returns no rows, does it do so immediately ? Or does it perform some processing before completing without anything being returned ?
How large is the PD_B2 table ?
What happens when you do:
select SDO_JOIN('BLPUS', 'GEOLOC', 'PD_B2', 'GEOLOC','mask=ANYINTERACT')
from dual;
Does this also return nothing ?
What happens if you do
select SDO_JOIN('BLPUS', 'GEOLOC', 'PD_B2', 'GEOLOC')
from dual;
Both should return something that looks like this:
SDO_ROWIDSET(SDO_ROWIDPAIR('AAAW3LAAGAAAADmAAu', 'AAAW3TAAGAAAAg7AAC'), SDO_ROWIDPAIR('AAAW3LAAGAAAADmABE', 'AAAW3TAAGAAAAgrAAA'),...)
You will see this if you run the query in sqlplus. [If you use a GUI (like TOAD or SQLDeveloper) then you may not see that. All those GUIs have problems dealing with objects or arrays.]
But the fact that your 11.2.0.4 tests complete very quickly probably means that you get an empty result back, maybe like this:
SDO_ROWIDSET()
and that confirms that something did not work.
Now, from what you say PD_B2 only contains one row ? If so then there is no reason whatsoever to go via SDO_JOIN. A straightforward spatial query is easier to write. SDO_JOIN only makes sense when both tables being joined contain multiple rows. Then again, if one of the tables is very small (like the PD_B2 table in your case), then it anyway falls back to a simple query.
A simple query would look like this:
SELECT a.uprn
FROM blpus a, PD_B2 b
WHERE sdo_anyinteract (a.geoloc, b.geoloc) = 'TRUE';
Does this return what you expect in 11.2.0.4 ?
You may also want to examine the cost of the query and the query plan used. In sqlplus, do this:
set timing on
set autotrace traceonly
then run the above query. The effect is that sqlplus will not display any results - but it will still fetch and format the output: it will just not print them. At the end you will get a printout of the query plan used as well as some execution statistics and the elapsed time. Please add those results to your question.
Running the query from within your application should have a similar profile: similar response time and database-side costs - assuming you do fetch all the 1.3 million rows.
BTW, what do you do with those results ? Do you show them out as a report ? Do you save them into a table for later analysis ? Surely you do not want to show them all on a map ?
To clarify: SDO_JOIN is only for matching many to many geometries. For matching one to many, the simple SDO_ANYINTERACT() is what you need. As a matter of fact, SDO_JOIN will automatically fall back to a simple SDO_ANYINTERACT when one of the sets is very much smaller than the other. I can't see how SDO_JOIN could be faster in your circumstances (i.e. when searching for all objects that match one object) since it will perform the same as an SDO_ANYINTERACT and will require extra joins to the two tables.
Going back to the original issue - that of a difference in behavior in SDO_JOIN between 11.2.0.1 and 11.2.0.4 that IMO is definitely a bug that you need to report to Oracle Support.
The problem I am trying to solve:
I have a SAS dataset work.testData (in the work library) that contains 8 columns and around 1 million rows. All columns are in text (i.e. no numeric data). This SAS dataset is around 100 MB in file size. My objective is to have a step to parse this entire SAS dataset into Oracle. i.e. sort of like a "copy and paste" of the SAS dataset from the SAS platform to the Oracle platform. The rationale behind this is that on a daily basis, this table in Oracle gets "replaced" by the one in SAS which will enable downstream Oracle processes.
My approach to solve the problem:
One-off initial setup in Oracle:
In Oracle, I created a table called testData with a table structure pretty much identical to the SAS dataset testData. (i.e. Same table name, same number of columns, same column names, etc.).
On-going repeating process:
In SAS, do a SQL-pass through to truncate ora.testData (i.e. remove all rows whilst keeping the table structure). This ensure the ora.testData is empty before inserting from SAS.
In SAS, a LIBNAME statement to assign the Oracle database as a SAS library (called ora). So I can "see" what's in Oracle and perform read/update from SAS.
In SAS, a PROC SQL procedure to "insert" data from the SAS dataset work.testData into the Oracle table ora.testData.
Sample codes
One-off initial setup in Oracle:
Step 1: Run this Oracle SQL Script in Oracle SQL Developer (to create table structure for table testData. 0 rows of data to begin with.)
DROP TABLE testData;
CREATE TABLE testData
(
NODENAME VARCHAR2(64) NOT NULL,
STORAGE_NAME VARCHAR2(100) NOT NULL,
TS VARCHAR2(10) NOT NULL,
STORAGE_TYPE VARCHAR2(12) NOT NULL,
CAPACITY_MB VARCHAR2(11) NOT NULL,
MAX_UTIL_PCT VARCHAR2(12) NOT NULL,
AVG_UTIL_PCT VARCHAR2(12) NOT NULL,
JOBRUN_START_TIME VARCHAR2(19) NOT NULL
)
;
COMMIT;
On-going repeating process:
Step 2, 3 and 4: Run this SAS code in SAS
******************************************************;
******* On-going repeatable process starts here ******;
******************************************************;
*** Step 2: Trancate the temporary Oracle transaction dataset;
proc sql;
connect to oracle (user=XXX password=YYY path=ZZZ);
execute (
truncate table testData
) by oracle;
execute (
commit
) by oracle;
disconnect from oracle;
quit;
*** Step 3: Assign Oracle DB as a libname;
LIBNAME ora Oracle user=XXX password=YYY path=ZZZ dbcommit=100000;
*** Step 4: Insert data from SAS to Oracle;
PROC SQL;
insert into ora.testData
select NODENAME length=64,
STORAGE_NAME length=100,
TS length=10,
STORAGE_TYPE length=12,
CAPACITY_MB length=11,
MAX_UTIL_PCT length=12,
AVG_UTIL_PCT length=12,
JOBRUN_START_TIME length=19
from work.testData;
QUIT;
******************************************************;
**** On-going repeatable process ends here *****;
******************************************************;
The limitation / problem to my approach:
The Proc SQL step (that transfer 100 MB of data from SAS to Oracle) takes around 5 hours to perform - the job takes too long to run!
The Question:
Is there a more sensible way to perform data transfer from SAS to Oracle? (i.e. updating an Oracle table from SAS).
First off, you can do the drop/recreate from SAS if that's a necessity. I wouldn't drop and recreate each time - a truncate seems easier to get the same results - but if you have other reasons then that's fine; but either way you can use execute (truncate table xyz) from oracle or similar to drop, using a pass-through connection.
Second, assuming there are no constraints or indexes on the table - which seems likely given you are dropping and recreating it - you may not be able to improve this, because it may be based on network latency. However, there is one area you should look in the connection settings (which you don't provide): how often SAS commits the data.
There are two ways to control this, the DBCOMMMIT setting and the BULKLOAD setting. The former controls how frequently commits are executed (so if DBCOMMIT=100 then a commit is executed every 100 rows). More frequent commits = less data is lost if a random failure occurs, but much slower execution. DBCOMMIT defaults to 0 for PROC SQL INSERT, which means just make one commit (fastest option assuming no errors), so this is less likely to be helpful unless you're overriding this.
Bulkload is probably my recommendation; that uses SQLLDR to load your data, ie, it batches the whole bit over to Oracle and then says 'Load this please, thanks.' It only works with certain settings and certain kinds of queries, but it ought to work here (subject to other conditions - read the documentation page above).
If you're using BULKLOAD, then you may be up against network latency. 5 hours for 100 MB seems slow, but I've seen all sorts of things in my (relatively short) day. If BULKLOAD didn't work I would probably bring in the Oracle DBAs and have them troubleshoot this, starting from a .csv file and a SQL*LDR command file (which should be basically identical to what SAS is doing with BULKLOAD); they should know how to troubleshoot that and at least be able to monitor performance of the database itself. If there are constraints on other tables that are problematic here (ie, other tables that too-frequently recalculate themselves based on your inserts or whatever), they should be able to find out and recommend solutions.
You could look into PROC DBLOAD, which sometimes is faster than inserts in SQL (though all in all shouldn't really be, and is an 'older' procedure not used too much anymore). You could also look into whether you can avoid doing a complete flush and fill (ie, if there's a way to transfer less data across the network), or even simply shrinking the column sizes.
I'm using Oracle SQL Developer version 4.02.15.21.
I need to write a query that accesses multiple databases. All that I'm trying to do is get a list of all the IDs present in "TableX" (There is an instance of Table1 in each of these databases, but with different values) in each database and union all of the results together into one big list.
My problem comes with accessing more than 4 databases -- I get this error: ORA-02020: too many database links in use. I cannot change the INIT.ORA file's open_links maximum limit.
So I've tried dynamically opening/closing these links:
SELECT Local.PUID FROM TableX Local
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb1.PUID FROM TableX#db1 Xdb1;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db1
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb2.PUID FROM TableX#db2 Xdb2;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db2
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb3.PUID FROM TableX#db3 Xdb3;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db3
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb4.PUID FROM TableX#db4 Xdb4;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db4
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb5.PUID FROM TableX#db5 Xdb5;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db5
However this produces 'ORA-02081: database link is not open.' On whichever db is being closed out last.
Can someone please suggest an alternative or adjustment to the above?
Please provide a small sample of your suggestion with syntactically correct SQL if possible.
If you can't change the open_links setting, you cannot have a single query that selects from all the databases you want to query.
If your requirement is to query a large number of databases via database links, it seems highly reasonable to change the open_links setting. If you have one set of people telling you that you need to do X (query data from a large number of tables) and another set of people telling you that you cannot do X, it almost always makes sense to have those two sets of people talk and figure out which imperative wins.
If we can solve the problem without writing a single query, then you have options. You can write a bit of PL/SQL, for example, that selects the data from each table in turn and does something with it. Depending on the number of database links involved, it may make sense to write a loop that generates a dynamic SQL statement for each database link, executes the SQL, and then closes the database link.
If you want need to provide a user with the ability to run a single query that returns all the data, you can write a pipelined table function that implements this sort of loop with dynamic SQL and then let the user query the pipelined table function. This isn't really a single query that fetches the data from all the tables. But it is as close as you're likely to get without modifying the open_links limit.
select max(Key) from MyTable with(nolock)
I have this T-SQL statement but need to use one statement for both SQL Server and Oracle as well, of course the “with (nolock)” is not recognised by Oracle. Is there a way having this statement that will run on both databases. By either an Oracle ignoring the “with (nolock)” or only Sqlserver using this part of the statement or a way or coded that both with understand.
The reason why I am using No lock is because multiple users are accessing the same table and I need to find the max value during the transactions.
Oracle does things a bit differently so I do not have to worry about table locks.
Your queries are doing different things. What are the semantics of the query supposed to be? Is it supposed to return max(Key) including the effect of uncommitted transactions as your SQL Server version indicates? If so
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;
select max(Key)
from MyTable;
Is the same semantics. The syntax should work fine on both AFAIK.
If instead you want the last committed max(Key) you would need to change the SQL Server database to use read committed snapshot isolation by default so it behaves more similarly to Oracle. Or alternatively you could achieve similar semantics with ROWLOCK,READPAST hints but then you are back to needing two different queries.