Would any one please advise on the mechanism behind the two different settings for the Oracle GTT?
1) on commit preserve rows
2) on commit delete rows
For now I know there 'facts':
a) the records inserted into these 2 types of GTT have different lifecycle.
b) the definition of both types of GTT remains until we drop the GTT <REF>.
However, what I would like to know i whether there is any difference between the 2 types of GTT in terms of the fact b)?
I was told that, for the 'preserve' type of GTT, the table's definition will not only remain but will accumulate by the times of usage (i.e. if there are 10 sessions using the GTT, 10 copies of the table's definition will be created and won't be disappear until we drop the GTT). And if we don't drop the 'preserve' GTT on a regular basis, the SQL statement's performance will become slower and slower.
Please could anyone demystify?
【2018.08.21】
Thanks all for answering the question. Please allow me to refine the question, it is not the table definition of the GTT is being duplicated, but the tablespace being allocated by every sessions using the same GTT that wont be released by the end of session but a dedicated drop of the GTT. Would that be the truth?
You can check the temporary segments associated with the GTTs in v$tempseg_usage:
create global temporary table demo_gtt_preserve (id int) on commit preserve rows;
create global temporary table demo_gtt_delete (id int) on commit delete rows;
insert into demo_gtt_preserve values (1);
insert into demo_gtt_delete values (1);
select s.sql_text, tu.tablespace, tu.contents, tu.segtype, tu.segfile#, tu.segblk#
from v$tempseg_usage tu
join v$sql s on s.sql_id = tu.sql_id_tempseg
where tu.username = user
and tu.segtype = 'DATA'
and tu.session_num = dbms_debug_jdwp.current_session_serial;
Result:
SQL_TEXT TABLESPACE CONTENTS SEGTYP SEGFILE# SEGBLK#
---------------------------------------- ---------- --------- ------ -------- ----------
insert into demo_gtt_delete values (1) TEMP TEMPORARY DATA 401 438528
insert into demo_gtt_preserve values (1) TEMP TEMPORARY DATA 401 438400
Now if you commit and rerun the query, you only get one row:
SQL_TEXT TABLESPACE CONTENTS SEGTYPE SEGFILE# SEGBLK#
---------------------------------------- ---------- --------- ------- -------- ---------
insert into demo_gtt_preserve values (1) TEMP TEMPORARY DATA 401 438400
(Somewhat unhelpfully, v$tempseg_usage identifies the session by session_addr and session_num, which correspond to saddr and serial# in v$session, neither of which are exposed via sys_context. You could extend the query above by joining to v$session and filtering on sid = sys_context('userenv','sid') or audsid = sys_context('userenv','sessionid') if you want to limit it to your own session.)
The only way to clear the remaining entry is to disconnect the session, or drop or truncate the table.
Regarding the performance question, note the way this works: when your session uses a GTT, a completely new temporary segment is created just for you. If other sessions do the same thing, they each get their own separate temporary segments. As those sessions commit or disconnect, the corresponding temporary segments are dropped. There is nothing shared between sessions, because each session has its own separate instance of the temporary table. Therefore, the rumour that if we don't drop the 'preserve' GTT on a regular basis, the SQL statement's performance will become slower and slower doesn't make sense.
Related
Probably I ask for the impossible, but I'll ask anyway.
Is there an easy way to select from one Oracle session and then insert/commit into another?
(I guess, technically it could be done with pl/sql procedure calls and PRAGMA AUTONOMUS Transactions, but it would be a hassle)
I have the following scenario:
I run some heavy calculations and update / insert into some tables.
After the process is completed I would like to 'backup' the results
(create table as select or insert into another temp table) and then rollback my current session without loosing the backups.
Here is desired/expected behavior:
Oracle 11g
insert into TableA (A,B,C) values (1,2,3);
select * from TableA
Result: 1,2,3
create table [in another session] TempA
as select * from TableA [in this session];
rollback;
select * from TableA;
Result null
select * from TempA;
Result 1,2,3
Is this possible?
Is there an easy way to select from one Oracle session and then insert/commit into another?
Create a program in a third-party language (C++, Java, PHP, etc.) that opens two connections to the database; they will have different sessions regardless of whether you connect as different users or both the same user. Read from one connection and write to the other connection.
you can insert your "heavy calculation" into a Oracle temp Table .
CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE HeavyCalc (
id NUMBER,
description VARCHAR2(20)
)
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS;
the trick is that when you commit the transaction all rows are deleted from temporary table.
Then you first insert data into the temp table, copy the result to you backup table and commit the transaction.
Objective
Verify if it is true that insert records without PK/index plus create thme later is faster than insert with PK/Index.
Note
The point here is not about indexing takes more time (it is obvious), but the total cost (Insert without index + create index) is higher than (Insert with index). Because I was taught to insert without index and create index later as it should be faster.
Environment
Windows 7 64 bit on DELL Latitude core i7 2.8GHz 8G memory & SSD HDD
Oracle 11G R2 64 bit
Background
I was taught that insert records without PK/Index and create them after insert would be faster than insert with PK/Index.
However 1 million record inserts with PK/Index was actually faster than creating PK/Index later, approx 4.5 seconds vs 6 seconds, with the experiments below. By increasing the records to 3 million (999000 -> 2999000), the result was the same.
Conditions
The table DDL is below. One bigfile table space for both data and
index.
(Tested a separate index tablespace with the same result & inferior overall perforemace)
Flush the buffer/spool before each run.
Run the experiment 3 times each and made sure the results
were similar.
SQL to flush:
ALTER SYSTEM CHECKPOINT;
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH SHARED_POOL;
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH BUFFER_CACHE;
Question
Would it be actually true that "insert witout PK/Index + PK/Index creation later" is faster than "insert with PK/Index"?
Did I make mistakes or missed some conditions in the experiment?
Insert records with PK/Index
TRUNCATE TABLE TBL2;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 DROP CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 CASCADE;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 ADD CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 PRIMARY KEY(COL1) ;
SET timing ON
INSERT INTO TBL2
SELECT i+j, rpad(TO_CHAR(i+j),100,'A')
FROM (
WITH DATA2(j) AS (
SELECT 0 j FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT j+1000 FROM DATA2 WHERE j < 999000
)
SELECT j FROM DATA2
),
(
WITH DATA1(i) AS (
SELECT 1 i FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT i+1 FROM DATA1 WHERE i < 1000
)
SELECT i FROM DATA1
);
commit;
1,000,000 rows inserted.
Elapsed: 00:00:04.328 <----- Insert records with PK/Index
Insert records without PK/Index and create them after
TRUNCATE TABLE TBL2;
ALTER TABLE &TBL_NAME DROP CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 CASCADE;
SET TIMING ON
INSERT INTO TBL2
SELECT i+j, rpad(TO_CHAR(i+j),100,'A')
FROM (
WITH DATA2(j) AS (
SELECT 0 j FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT j+1000 FROM DATA2 WHERE j < 999000
)
SELECT j FROM DATA2
),
(
WITH DATA1(i) AS (
SELECT 1 i FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT i+1 FROM DATA1 WHERE i < 1000
)
SELECT i FROM DATA1
);
commit;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 ADD CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 PRIMARY KEY(COL1) ;
1,000,000 rows inserted.
Elapsed: 00:00:03.454 <---- Insert without PK/Index
table TBL2 altered.
Elapsed: 00:00:02.544 <---- Create PK/Index
Table DDL
CREATE TABLE TBL2 (
"COL1" NUMBER,
"COL2" VARCHAR2(100 BYTE),
CONSTRAINT "PK_TBL2_COL1" PRIMARY KEY ("COL1")
) TABLESPACE "TBS_BIG" ;
The current test case is probably good enough for you to overrule the "best practices". There are too many variables involved to make a blanket statement that "it's always best to leave the indexes enabled". But you're probably close enough to say it's true for your environment.
Below are some considerations for the test case. I've made this a community wiki in the hopes that others will add to the list.
Direct-path inserts. Direct-path writes use different mechanisms and may work completely differently. Direct-path inserts can often be significantly faster than regular inserts, although they have some complicated restrictions (for example, triggers must be disabled) and disadvantages (the data is not immediately backed-up). One particular way it affects this scenario is that NOLOGGING for indexes only applies during index creation. So even if a direct-path insert is used, an enabled index will always generate REDO and UNDO.
Parallelism. Large insert statements often benefit from parallel DML. Usually it's not worth worrying about the performance of bulk loads until it takes more than several seconds, which is when parallelism starts to be useful.
Bitmap indexes are not meant for large DML. Inserts or updates to a table with a bitmap index can lock the whole table and lead to disastrous performance. It might be helpful to limit the test case to b-tree indexes.
Add alter system switch logfile;? Log file switches can sometimes cause performance issues. The tests would be somewhat more consistent if they all started with empty logfiles.
Move data generation logic into a separate step. Hierarchical queries are useful for generating data but they can have their own performance issues. It might be better to create in intermediate table to hold the results, and then only test inserting the intermediate table into the final table.
It's true that it is faster to modify a table if you do not also have to modify one or more indexes and possibly perform constraint checking as well, but it is also largely irrelevant if you then have to add those indexes. You have to consider the complete change to the system that you wish to effect, not just a single part of it.
Obviously if you are adding a single row into a table that already contains millions of rows then it would be foolish to drop and rebuild indexes.
However, even if you have a completely empty table into which you are going to add several million rows it can still be slower to defer the indexing until afterwards.
The reason for this is that such an insert is best performed with the direct path mechanism, and when you use direct path inserts into a table with indexes on it, temporary segments are built that contain the data required to build the indexes (data plus rowids). If those temporary segments are much smaller than the table you have just loaded then they will also be faster to scan and to build the indexes from.
the alternative, if you have five index on the table, is to incur five full table scans after you have loaded it in order to build the indexes.
Obviously there are huge grey areas involved here, but well done for:
Questioning authority and general rules of thumb, and
Running actual tests to determine the facts in your own case.
Edit:
Further considerations -- you run a backup while the indexes are dropped. Now, following an emergency restore, you have to have a script that verifies that all indexes are in place, when you have the business breathing down your neck to get the system back up.
Also, if you absolutely were determined to not maintain indexes during a bulk load, do not drop the indexes -- disable them instead. This preserves the metadata for the indexes existence and definition, and allows a more simple rebuild process. Just be careful that you do not accidentally re-enable indexes by truncating the table, as this will render disabled indexes enabled again.
Oracle has to do more work while inserting data into table having an index. In general, inserting without index is faster than inserting with index.
Think in this way,
Inserting rows in a regular heap-organized table with no particular row order is simple. Find a table block with enough free space, put the rows randomly.
But, when there are indexes on the table, there is much more work to do. Adding new entry for the index is not that simple. It has to traverse the index blocks to find the specific leaf node as the new entry cannot be made into any block. Once the correct leaf node is found, it checks for enough free space and then makes the new entry. If there is not enough space, then it has to split the node and distribute the new entry into old and new node. So, all this work is an overhead and consumes more time overall.
Let's see a small example,
Database version :
SQL> SELECT banner FROM v$version where ROWNUM =1;
BANNER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Database 12c Enterprise Edition Release 12.1.0.1.0 - 64bit Production
OS : Windows 7, 8GB RAM
With Index
SQL> CREATE TABLE t(A NUMBER, CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY (A));
Table created.
SQL> SET timing ON
SQL> INSERT INTO t SELECT LEVEL FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <=1000000;
1000000 rows created.
Elapsed: 00:00:02.26
So, it took 00:00:02.26. Index details:
SQL> column index_name format a10
SQL> column table_name format a10
SQL> column uniqueness format a10
SQL> SELECT index_name, table_name, uniqueness FROM user_indexes WHERE table_name = 'T';
INDEX_NAME TABLE_NAME UNIQUENESS
---------- ---------- ----------
PK_A T UNIQUE
Without Index
SQL> DROP TABLE t PURGE;
Table dropped.
SQL> CREATE TABLE t(A NUMBER);
Table created.
SQL> SET timing ON
SQL> INSERT INTO t SELECT LEVEL FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <=1000000;
1000000 rows created.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.60
So, it took only 00:00:00.60 which is faster compared to 00:00:02.26.
I have a big table with lot of data partitioned into multiple partitions. I want to keep a few partitions as they are but delete the rest of the data from the table. I tried searching for a similar question and couldn't find it in stackoverflow. What is the best way to write a query in Oracle to achieve the same?
It is easy to delete data from a specific partition: this statement clears down all the data for February 2012:
delete from t23 partition (feb2012);
A quicker method is to truncate the partition:
alter table t23 truncate partition feb2012;
There are two potential snags here:
Oracle won't let us truncate partitions if we have foreign keys referencing the table.
The operation invalidates any partitioned Indexes so we need to rebuild them afterwards.
Also, it's DDL, so no rollback.
If we never again want to store data for that month we can drop the partition:
alter table t23 drop partition feb2012;
The problem arises when we want to zap multiple partitions and we don't fancy all that typing. We cannot parameterise the partition name, because it's an object name not a variable (no quotes). So leave only dynamic SQL.
As you want to remove most of the data but retain the partition structure truncating the partitions is the best option. Remember to invalidate any integrity constraints (and to reinstate them afterwards).
declare
stmt varchar2(32767);
begin
for lrec in ( select partition_name
from user_tab_partitions
where table_name = 'T23'
and partition_name like '%2012'
)
loop
stmt := 'alter table t23 truncate partition '
|| lrec.partition_name
;
dbms_output.put_line(stmt);
execute immediate stmt;
end loop;
end;
/
You should definitely run the loop first with execute immediate call commented out, so you can see which partitions your WHERE clause is selecting. Obviously you have a back-up and can recover data you didn't mean to remove. But the quickest way to undertake a restore is not to need one.
Afterwards run this query to see which partitions you should rebuild:
select ip.index_name, ip.partition_name, ip.status
from user_indexes i
join user_ind_partitions ip
on ip.index_name = i.index_name
where i.table_name = 'T23'
and ip.status = 'UNUSABLE';
You can automate the rebuild statements in a similar fashion.
" I am thinking of copying the data of partitions I need into a temp
table and truncate the original table and copy back the data from temp
table to original table. "
That's another way of doing things. With exchange partition it might be quite quick. It might also be slower. It also depends on things like foreign keys and indexes, and the ratio of zapped partitions to retained ones. If performance is important and/or you need to undertake this operation regularly then you should to benchmark the various options and see what works best for you.
You must very be careful in drop partition from a partition table. Partition table usually used for big data tables and if (and only if) you have a global index on the table, drop partition make your global index invalid and you should rebuild your global index in a big table, this is disaster.
For minimum side effect for queries on the table in this scenario, I first delete records in the partition and make it empty partition, then with
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP PARTITION partition_name UPDATE GLOBAL INDEXES;
drop empty partition without make my global index invalid.
We have a stored procedure in Oracle that uses global temporary tables. In most of our other stored procedures, first thing we do is delete data from global temporary tables. However, in few of the stored procedures we do not have the delete's.
Are there any other options other than adding the delete statements? Can something be done on the Server side to forcefully delete data from those temporary tables when that SP is ran?
the GTT's are defined with ON COMMIT PRESERVE ROWS;
I think your title is misleading: the problem is not "getting data from different session", it is re-using the same session. Terminating a session always flushes a temporary table:
SQL> conn apc
Enter password:
Connected.
SQL> create global temporary table tmp_23 (username varchar2(30))
2 on commit preserve rows
3 /
Table created.
SQL> insert into tmp_23 values (user)
2 /
1 row created.
SQL> commit
2 /
Commit complete.
SQL> select * from tmp_23
2 /
USERNAME
------------------------------
APC
SQL> conn apc
Enter password:
Connected.
SQL> select * from tmp_23
2 /
no rows selected
SQL>
From within a session there is no way to flush a temporary table which has PRESERVE ROWS except by deletion of truncation. There is no way to annotate a stored procedure in the manner you suggest. So I'm afraid that if you are experiencing the problem as you describe it you will have to bite the bullet and add the DELETE (or TRUNCATE) calls to your procedures. Or define the tables with DELETE ROWS; but that probably won't suit your processing.
Incidentally, it seems like you are using temporary tables quite heavily. This is unusual in Oracle systems, because temporary tables are relatively expensive objects (all those writes to disk) and there is normally a more performant way approaching things: e.g. caching data in PL/SQL collections or just using SQL. It is common for developers coming from a non-Oracle background - especially SQL Server - to overuse temporary tables because they are used to that way of working.
I have read that one should not analyze a temp table, as it screws up the table statistics for others. What about an index? If I put an index on the table for the duration of my program, can other programs using the table be affected by that index?
Does an index affect my process, and all other processes using the table?
or Does it affect my process alone?
None of the responses have been authoritative, so I am offering said bribe.
Does an index effect my process, and all other processes using the table? or Does it effect my process alone?
I'm assuming we are talking of GLOBAL TEMPORARY tables.
Think of a temporary table as of multiple tables that are created and dropped by each process on the fly from a template stored in the system dictionary.
In Oracle, DML of a temporary table affects all processes, while data contained in the table will affect only one process that uses them.
Data in a temporary table is visible only inside the session scope. It uses TEMPORARY TABLESPACE to store both data and possible indexes.
DML for a temporary table (i. e. its layout, including column names and indexes) is visible to everybody with sufficient privileges.
This means that existence of the index will affect your process as well as other processes using the table in sense that any process that modifies data in the temporary table will also have to modify the index.
Data contained in the table (and in the index too), on the contrary, will affect only the process that created them, and will not even be visible to other processes.
IF you want one process to use the index and another one not to use it, do the following:
Create two temporary tables with same column layout
Index on one of them
Use indexed or non-indexed table depending on the process
I assume you're referring to true Oracle temporary tables and not just a regular table created temporarily and then dropped. Yes, it is safe to create indexes on the temp tables and they will be used according to the same rules as a regular tables and indexes.
[Edit]
I see you've refined your question, and here's a somewhat refined answer:
From:
Oracle® Database Administrator's Guide
10g Release 2 (10.2)
Part Number B14231-02
"Indexes can be created on temporary tables. They are also temporary and the data in the index has the same session or transaction scope as the data in the underlying table."
If you need the index for efficient processing during the scope of the transaction then I would imagine you'll have to explicitly hint it in the query because the statistics will show no rows for the table.
You're asking about two different things, indexes and statistics.
For indexes, yes, you can create indexes on the temp tables, they will be maintained as per usual.
For statistics, I recommend that you explicitly set the stats of the table to represent the average size of the table when queried. If you just let oracle gather stats by itself, the stats process isn't going to find anything in the tables (since by definition, the data in the table is local to your transaction), so it will return inaccurate results.
e.g. you can do:
exec dbms_stats.set_table_stats(user, 'my_temp_table', numrows=>10, numblks=>4)
Another tip is that if the size of the temporary table varies greatly, and within your transaction, you know how many rows are in the temp table, you can help out the optimizer by giving it that information. I find this helps out a lot if you are joining from the temp table to regular tables.
e.g., if you know the temp table has about 100 rows in it, you can:
SELECT /*+ CARDINALITY(my_temp_table 100) */ * FROM my_temp_table
Well, I tried it out and the index was visible and used by the second session. Creating a new global temporary table for your data would be safer if you really need an index.
You are also unable to create an index while any other session is accessing the table.
Here's the test case I ran:
--first session
create global temporary table index_test (val number(15))
on commit preserve rows;
create unique index idx_val on index_test(val);
--second session
insert into index_test select rownum from all_tables;
select * from index_test where val=1;
You can also use the dynamic sampling hint (10g):
select /*+ DYNAMIC_SAMPLING (3) */ val
from index_test
where val = 1;
See Ask Tom
You cannot create an index on a temporary table while it is used by another session, so answer is: No, it cannot affect any other process, because it is not possible.
An existing Index affects only your current session, because for any other session the temporary table appears empty, so it cannot access any index values.
Session 1:
SQL> create global temporary table index_test (val number(15)) on commit preserve rows;
Table created.
SQL> insert into index_test values (1);
1 row created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>
Session 2 (while session 1 is still connected):
SQL> create unique index idx_val on index_test(val);
create unique index idx_val on index_test(val)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-14452: attempt to create, alter or drop an index on temporary table already in use
SQL>
Back to session 1:
SQL> delete from index_test;
1 row deleted.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>
Session 2:
SQL> create unique index idx_val on index_test(val);
create unique index idx_val on index_test(val)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-14452: attempt to create, alter or drop an index on temporary table already in use
SQL>
still failing, you first have to disconnect session 1 or table has to be truncated.
Session 1:
SQL> truncate table index_test;
Table truncated.
SQL>
Now you can create the index in Session 2:
SQL> create unique index idx_val on index_test(val);
Index created.
SQL>
This index of course will be used by any session.