I have a table with 100 million rows and I want to make inserts to this table faster. Unfortunatelly, I cant use insert with APPEND hint, because locking table is forbidden.
Table has two indexes, so, will inserts be faster if i try to rebuild index or coalesce? Or maybe I should SHRINK this table ?
And will coalesce or rebuild index online lock this table?
Related
This is a general question about the Oracle MERGE INTO statement with a particular scenario, on Oracle RDBMS 12c.
Daily data will be loaded to StagingTableA - about 10m rows.
This will be MERGEd INTO TableA.
TableA will vary between 0 to 10m rows (matcing StagingTableA).
There may be times when TableA will be pruned/emptied and left with 0 rows.
Clearly, when TableA is empty, a straight INSERT will do the job, but the procedure has been written to use a MERGE INTO method to handle all scenarios.
The MERGE .. MATCH is on a indexed column.
My question is an uncertainty about how the MERGE handles the MATCH in circumstances where TableA will start empty, and then grow hugely during the MERGE execution. The MATCH on indexed columns will use a FTS as the stats will show the table has 0 rows.
At some point during the MERGE transaction, this will become inefficient.
Is the MERGE statement clever enough to detect this and change the execution plan, and start using the index instead of the FTS?
If this was done the old way with CURSOR, UPDATE and INSERT then we could potentially introduce a ANALYZE at a appropriate point (say after 50,000 processed) on the TableA to switch to a optimal plan.
I haven't been able to find any documentation dealing with this specific question.
Hopefully you've got a UNIQUE index on that table, which is based on the incoming data. If I was you, rather than using a simple MERGE I'd:
Mark all indexes on the table as UNUSABLE, except for the unique index.
INSERT all records
Catch the DUPLICATE VALUE ON INDEX exception at the time of INSERT and issue the appropriate UPDATE.
DELETE processed rows from the input record.
Commit every N records (1000? 10000? 100000? Your choice...), calling DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS for the table you've inserted into after each COMMIT.
Best of luck.
I have a situation like to update a column(all rows) in a table having 150 million records.
Creation of duplicate table with updates and dropping of previous table is the best way but there is no available disk space to hold the duplicate table.
So how to perform the update in less time? Partitions are there on the table.
I am using oracle 12c
The cleanest approach is NOT updating the table, but creating a new table with the new column of updated rows. For instance, let's say I needed to update a column called old_value with the max of some value, instead of updating the old_table one does:
create new_table as select foo, bar, max(old_value) from old_table;
drop table old_table;
rename new_table as old_table.
If you need even more speed, you can do this creation using a parallel query with nologging thereby generating very little redo and no undo logs. More details can be ascertained here: https://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::NO::P11_QUESTION_ID:6407993912330
Consider this Oracle docs about indexes, this about speed of insert and this question on StackOverflow lead me to conclusion that:
Indexes helps us locate information faster
Primary and Unique Keys are indexed automatically
Inserting with indexes can cause worse performance
However every time indexes are discussed there are only SELECT operations shown as examples.
My question is: are indexes used in INSERT and UPDATE operations? When and how?
My suggestions are:
UPDATE can use index in WHERE clause (if the column in the clause has index)
INSERT can use index when uses SELECT (but in this case, index is from another table)
or probably when checking integrity constraints
but I don't have such deep knowledge of using indexes.
For UPDATE statements, index can be used by the optimiser if it deems the index can speed it up. The index would be used to locate the rows to be updated. The index is also a table in a manner of speaking, so if the indexed column is getting updated, it obviously needs to UPDATE the index as well. On the other hand if you're running an update without a WHERE clause the optimiser may choose not to use an index as it has to access the whole table, a full table scan may be more efficient (but may still have to update the index). The optimiser makes those decisions at runtime based on several parameters such as if there are valid stats against the tables and indexes in question, how much data is affected, what type of hardware, etc.
For INSERT statements though the INSERT itself does not need the index, the index will also need to be 'inserted into', so will need to be accessed by oracle. Another case where INSERT can cause the index to be used is an INSERT like this:
INSERT INTO mytable (mycolmn)
SELECT mycolumn + 10 FROM mytable;
Insert statement has no direct benefit for index. But more index on a table cause slower insert operation. Think about a table that has no index on it and if you want to add a row on it, it will find table block that has enough free space and store that row. But if that table has indexes on it database must make sure that these new rows also found via indexes, So to add new rows on a table that has indexes, also need to entry in indexes too. That multiplies the insert operation. So more index you have, more time you need to insert new rows.
For update it depends on whether you update indexed column or not. If you are not updating indexed column then performance should not be affected. Index can also speed up a update statements if the where conditions can make use of indexes.
I want to delete around 1 million records from a table which is partitioned and table size is around 10-13 millions , As of now only 2 partition exist in the table containining July month data and august month data, and i want to delete from July month.Can you please let me know if a simple delete from table paritition (0715) is ok to do ? Possibilities of fragmentation ? or any best way out?
Thank you
DELETE is rather costly operation on large partitioned tables (but 10M is not realy large). Typically you try to avoid it and remove the data partition-wise using drop partition.
The simplest schema is rolling window, where you define a range partitioning schema by dropping the oldest partitian after the retention interval.
If you need more controll you may use CTAS and exchange back approach.
Instead of deleting a large part of a partition create a copy of it
create table TMP as
select * from TAB PARTITION (ppp)
where <predicate to filter out records to be ommited for partition ppp>
Create indexes on the TMP table in the same structure as the LOCAL indexes of the partitioned table.
Than exchange the temporary table with the partition
ALTER TABLE TAB
EXCHANGE PARTITION ppp WITH TABLE TMP including indexes
WITHOUT VALIDATION
Note no fragmenatation as a result, in contrary you may use it to reorganize the partition data (e.g. with ORDER BY in CTAS or with COMPRESS etc.)
You can delete truncate the partition from the given table. Delete also you can perform if you want to delete few rows from the partition. Plz share your table structure along with the partition details so that it will be easy for people here to assist you.
So, I have a .NET program doing batch loading of records into partitioned tables using array bound stored procedure calls via Oracle ODP.NET, but that's neither here nor there.
What I would like to know is: because I have a partitioned index on said tables, the speed of the batch load is pretty slow. I fully understand that I cannot drop an index partition, but I would obviously prefer not to have to drop and rebuild the entire index since that will take considerably more time to execute. Is this my only recourse?
Is there a fairly simple way to drop the partition itself and then rebuild the partition and index partition that would save time and go about accomplishing my goal?
Are you loading an entire partition at once? Or are you merely adding new rows to an existing partition? Are all the indexes equipartitioned with the table?
Normally, if you are loading data into a partitioned table, your partitioning scheme is chosen so that each load will put data into a fresh partition. If that is the case, you can use partition exchange to load the data. In a nutshell, you load data into an (unindexed) staging table whose structure matches the real table, you create the indexes to match the indexes on the real table, and then do
ALTER TABLE partitioned_table
EXCHANGE PARTITION new_partition_name
WITH TABLE staging_table_name
WITHOUT VALIDATION;