I am working with hive driver in which the executeUpdate() record does not return the affected record count. Is there any alternate way in which this can be obtained? We need to get the effected record value for further processing.
If I am not mistaken Hive does not show (or even know?!) the number of updated records. Therefore extracting this directly is likely not going to work.
Workaround
First run a count query using the exact where statement and log the result
Then do the actual update
Naturally this incurs significant overhead.
Related
I'm trying to benchmark two databases (different types, different locations).
My select benchmarks are working fine, but I'm having trouble with my inserts, updates and deletes.
I tried saving the key (GUID) I use for the insert in a class field of type Queue<string> but when my update benchmark is run this field is reset and thus empty, the same in my delete benchmark.
I don't want to call the delete statement after the insert statement in my insert benchmark or an insert statement in my delete benchmark because then the time results are off.
How to handle this situation?
I thought of creating a list of GUIDs in the [GlobalSetup] but when I change the number of iterations I need to increase or decrease this list.
Any advice will be much appreciated.
I've fixed this myself by saving the keys in a text file on GlobalCleanup and reading this file on GlobalSetup.
I have a table in Hbase named 'xyz' . When I do an update operation on this table , it updates a table even though it is same record .
How can I control second record to not be added.
Eg:
create 'ns:xyz',{NAME=>'cf1',VERSIONS => 5}
put 'ns:xyz','1','cf1:name','NewYork'
put 'ns:xyz','1','cf1:name','NewYork'
Above put statements are giving 2 records with different timestamp if I check all versions. I am expecting that it should not add 2nd record because it have same value
HBase isn't going to look through the entire row and work out if it's the same as the data you're adding. That would be an expensive operation, and HBase prides itself on its fast insert speeds.
If you're really eager to do this (and I'd ask if you really want to do this), you should perform a GET first to see if the data is already present in the table.
You could also write a Coprocessor to do this every time you PUT data, but again the performance would be undesirable.
As mentioned by #Ben Watson, HBase is best known for it's performance in write since it doesn't need to check for the existence of a value as multiple versions will be maintained by default.
One hack what you can do is, you can use custom versioning. As show in the below screenshot, you have two versions already for a row key. Now if you are going to insert the same record with the same timestamp. HBase would be overwriting the same record with just the value.
NOTE: It is left to your application to get the same timestamp for a particular value.
I am writing some data loading code that pulls data from a large, slow table in an oracle database. I have read-only access to the data, and do not have the ability to change indexes or affect the speed of the query in any way.
My select statement takes 5 minutes to execute and returns around 300,000 rows. The system is inserting large batches of new records constantly, and I need to make sure I get every last one, so I need to save a timestamp for the last time I downloaded the data.
My question is: If my select statement is running for 5 minutes, and new rows get inserted while the select is running, will I receive the new rows or not in the query result?
My gut tells me that the answer is 'no', especially since a large portion of those 5 minutes is just the time spent on the data transfer from the database to the local environment, but I can't find any direct documentation on the scenario.
"If my select statement is running for 5 minutes, and new rows get inserted while the select is running, will I receive the new rows or not in the query result?"
No. Oracle enforces strict isolation levels and does not permit dirty reads.
The default isolation level is Read Committed. This means the result set you get after five minutes will be identical to the one you would have got if Oracle could have delivered you all the records in 0.0000001 seconds. Anything committed after you query started running will not be included in the results. That includes updates to the records as well as inserts.
Oracle does this by tracking changes to the table in the UNDO tablespace. Provided it can restrict the original image from that data your query will run to completion; if for any reason the undo information is overwritten your query will fail with the dreaded ORA-1555: Snapshot too old. That's right: Oracle would rather hurl an exception than provide us with an inconsistent result set.
Note that this consistency applies at the statement level. If we run the same query twice within the one transaction we may see two different results sets. If that is a problem (I think not in your case) we need to switch from Read Committed to Serialized isolation.
The Concepts Manual covers Concurrency and Consistency in great depth. Find out more.
So to answer your question, take the timestamp from the time you start the select. Specifically, take the max(created_ts) from the table before you kick off the query. This should protect you from the gap Alex mentions (if records are not committed the moment they are inserted there is the potential to lose records if you base the select on comparing with the system timestamp). Although doing this means you're issuing two queries in the same transaction which means you do need Serialized isolation after all!
I am new to Teradata & fortunately got a chance to work on both DDL-DML statements.
One thing I observed is Teradata is very slow when time comes to UPDATE the data in a table having large number of records.
The simplest way I found on the Google to perform this update is to write an INSERT-SELECT statement with a CASE on column holding values to be update with new values.
But what when this situation arrives in Data Warehouse environment, when we need to update multiple columns from a table holding millions of rows ?
Which would be the best approach to follow ?
INSERT-SELECT only OR MERGE-UPDATE OR MLOAD ?
Not sure if any of the above approach is not used for this UPDATE operation.
Thank you in advance!
At enterprise level, we expect volumes to be huge and updates are often part of some scheduled jobs/scripts.
With huge volume of data, Updates comes as a costly operation that involve risk of blocking table for some time in case the update fails (due to fallback journal). Although scripts are tested well, and failures seldom happen in production environments, it's always better to have data that needs to be updated loaded to a temporary table in required form and inserted back to same table after deleting matching records to maintain SCD-1 (Where we don't maintain history).
When merging two tables in PowerQuery an evaulation is run to determine the possible number of matches. I run pretty large tables (merge a 10K record table with a 500K record table) so this can take a long time.
I know there will be matches because I have done this before and I am not a beginner. Yet PowerQuery insists on running this behaviour.
Is there anyway to baypass this step? It almost feels like when you just need to turn automatic calculation off in Excel so that you can get on with actually doing something.
Any ideas?
I would add in an upstream filter to limit the rows e.g. Keep Rows / Keep Top Rows / 100. You may need to do this on both Queries. Ideally you Keep enough rows or use a specific filter to get some matches, to help your downstream Query design work.
Then once the query design is finished, I would remove the filter(s) and let it rip.
This is what PQ should be doing in the Query Editor, but it does seem to go rogue on Merge in particular.