Informatica 9.5.1, huge table (scd1) - oracle

I have a table(in oracle) size about 860 million records (850gb) on top we are getting about 2 -3 million records as source (flatfile).
we are doing a lookup on target if record already exist it will update if it is a new record it will insert(scd1).
The transformations we using are unconnectedlookup, sorter, filter and router, update strategy transformations, it was fine all this time, but as the table is huge and growing huge, it is taking for ever to insert and update, last night it took 19 hrs to 2.4 million records (2.1 millions were new so inserted and the rest are updates).
Today I got about 1.9 millions to go through i am not sure how long it will take any suggestions or help how can we handle this ?

1) Use just a connected lookup to oracle table, after SQ matching on primary key and filter out nulls (records missing in Oracle table) or not null (updates). Dont check for other columns for update. Skip sorter and filter. Just use update strategy.
2) Or use joiner and make flat file pipeline as master. Then check for nulls to find insert or updates.
3) Check if your target table dont have any trigger etc on it. If yes then check its logic and implement it in ETL.

Since you are dealing with 850mil data, you have two major bottlenecks - target lookup and writing into target.
You can think of this strategy -
Mapping 1 - Create a new mapping to load flat file data into a temp table TMP1.
Mapping 2 - Modify existing mapping. Just modify lookup query and join TMP1 and target (860mil)table in SQL Override. This will reduce time, I/O, lookup cache.
Also, please make sure you have an index on key columns in target. And you drop-create all other index while loading. Skipping sorter will help but adding joiner will not help much.
Regards,
Koushik

How many inserts vs updates do you have?
With just a few updates, try using Update else Insert target
property.
If there are many updates and few inserts, perform update
just if a key is found, without checking if anything has changed
If there are many source rows matching what you already have (i.e. an update that doesn't change anything) try to eliminate them. But don't compare all columns - use a hash instead. Just create an additional computed column that will contain a MD5 calculated on all columns. Then all you need to do is compare one column instead of all to detect a change.

1) Try using a merge statement if source and targets are in same database.
2) We can also use sql loader connection to improve the performance.

Clearly the bottleneck is in the target lookup and target load (update to be specific).
Try the following to tune the existing code:
1) Try to remove any unwanted lookup ports if you have in the lookup transformation. Keep only the fields that are used in the lookup condition as you are using it just to check if the record exists.
2) Try adding an index to the target table for the fields you are using for the update
3) Increase the commit interval of the session to a higher value.
4) Partial Pushdown optimization:
You can pushdown some of the processing to database which might be faster instead of doing it in Informatica
Create a staging table to hold the incoming data for that load.
Create a mapping to load the incoming file to the staging table. Truncate it before the start of the load to clear the records of the previous run.
In the SQL override of the existing mapping do a left join between the staging table and target table to find insert/updates. This will be faster than the Informatica lookup and eliminates the time taken to build the Informatica lookup cache.
5) Using MD5 to eliminate unwanted updates
For using MD5 you need to add a new field in the target table and do a mapping to update the existing records one time.
Then in your existing mapping add a step to compute MD5 for the incoming column.
If the record is identified for update then check if the MD5 computed for the incoming column is same as that of the target column. If the checksum also matches then don't update the record. Only if the check sum is different update the record. By this way you will filter out the unwanted updates. If there is no lookup match then insert the record.
Advantages: You are reducing the unwanted updates.
Disadvantages: You have to do an one time process to populate MD5 values for the existing records in the table.
If none of this works check with your database administrator to see if there is any issue in the database side that might slow down the load.

Related

Data cleanup in Oracle DB is taking long time for 300 billion records

Problem statement:
There is address table in Oracle which is having relationship with multiple tables like subscriber, member etc.
Currently design is in such a way that when there is any change in associated tables, it increments record version throughout all tables.
So new record is added in address table even if same address is already present, resulting into large number of duplicate copies.
We need to identify and remove duplicate records, and update foreign keys in associated tables while making sure it doesn't impact the running application.
Tried solution:
We have written a script for cleanup logic, where unique hash is generated for every address. If calculated hash is already present then it means address is duplicate, where we merge into single address record and update foreign keys in associated tables.
But the problem is there are around 300 billion records in address table, so this cleanup process is taking lot of time, and it will take several days to complete.
We have tried to have index for hash column, but process is still taking time.
Also we have updated the insertion/query logic to use addresses as per new structure (using hash, and without version), in order to take care of incoming requests in production.
We are planning to do processing in chunks, but it will be very long an on-going activity.
Questions:
Would like to if any further improvement can be made in above approach
Will distributed processing will help here? (may be using Hadoop Spark/hive/MR etc.)
Is there any some sort of tool that can be used here?
Suggestion 1
Use built-in delete parallel
delete /*+ parallel(t 8) */ mytable t where ...
Suggestion 2
Use distributed processing (Hadoop Spark/hive) - watch out for potential contention on indexes or table blocks. It is recommended to have each process to work on a logical isolated subset, e.g.
process 1 - delete mytable t where id between 1000 and 1999
process 2 - delete mytable t where id between 2000 and 2999
...
Suggestion 3
If more than ~30% of the table need to be deleted - the fastest way would be to create an empty table, copy there all required rows, drop original table, rename new, create all indexes+constraints. Of course it requires downtime and it greatly depends on number of indexes - the more you have the longer it will take
P.S. There are no "magic" tools to do it. In the end they all run the same sql commands as you can.
It's possible use oracle merge instruction to insert data if you use clean sql.

Stop Hbase update operation if it have same value

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.

Is there an advantage to using a local index on a partitioned table in Oracle?

I assume the answer is "no" in this scenario, but I figured I'd ask and see if there was something I was missing:
I have an Oracle table which is partitioned for ease of data loading -- data is loaded into six separate tables and then partition-switched into the main table. The only thing differentiating these loading tables is the source of the data, so each one has a unique datasource column which is used to partition the main table. We occasionally have some ad hoc queries which look at this datasource in the main table, but the standard reports querying this table ignore this column entirely. Nothing insert/update/deletes individual records from this table, so there's no concern about updating any indexes.
In this case, is there any reason to use local indexes instead of global ones?
A local index makes a lot of sense - if you use partitioning for performance reasons.
If your queries always contain the partition key then a Oracle will only scan that specific partition (that is known as "partition pruning").
If you then have additional conditions that would benefit from an index lookup, the database only needs to check the local index which is much smaller then a global index and thus the lookup will be faster.
In your case, if you never (or almost never) include the partition key in the queries, you are right that the local index wouldn't be helpful.

Does postgresql index update on inserting new row?

Sorry if this is a dumb question but do i need to reindex my table every time i insert rows, or does the new row get indexed when added?
From the manual
Once an index is created, no further intervention is required: the system will update the index when the table is modified
http://postgresguide.com/performance/indexes.html
I think when you insert rows, the index does get updated. It maintains the sort on the index table as you insert data. Hence there are performance issues or downtimes on a table, if you try adding large number of rows at once.
On top of the other answers: PostgreSQL is a top notch Relational Database. I'm not aware of any Relational Database system where indices are not updated automatically.
It seems to depend on the type of index. For example, according to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/brin-intro.html, for BRIN indexes:
When a new page is created that does not fall within the last summarized range, that range does not automatically acquire a summary tuple; those tuples remain unsummarized until a summarization run is invoked later, creating initial summaries. This process can be invoked manually using the brin_summarize_new_values(regclass) function, or automatically when VACUUM processes the table.
Although this seems to have changed in version 10.

Deleting large number of rows of an Oracle table

I have a data table from company which is of 250Gb having 35 columns. I need to delete around 215Gb of data which
is obviously large number of rows to delete from the table. This table has no primary key.
What could be the fastest method to delete data from this table? Are there any tools in Oracle for such large deletion processes?
Please suggest me the fastest way to do this with using Oracle.
As it is said in the answer above it's better to move the rows to be retained into a separate table and truncate the table because there's a thing called HIGH WATERMARK. More details can be found here http://sysdba.wordpress.com/2006/04/28/how-to-adjust-the-high-watermark-in-oracle-10g-alter-table-shrink/ . The delete operation will overwhelm your UNDO TABLESPACE it's called.
The recovery model term is rather applicable for mssql I believe :).
hope it clarifies the matter abit.
thanks.
Dou you know which records need to be retained ? How will you identify each record ?
A solution might be to move the records to be retained to a temp db, and then truncate the big table. Afterwards, move the retained records back.
Beware that the transaction log file might become very big because of this (but depends on your recovery model).
We had a similar problem a long time ago. Had a table with 1 billion rows in it but had to remove a very large proportion of the data based on certain rules. We solved it by writing a Pro*C job to extract the data that we wanted to keep and apply the rules, and sprintf the data to be kept to a csv file.
Then created a sqlldr control file to upload the data using direct path (which wont create undo/redo (but if you need to recover the table, you have the CSV file until you do your next backup anyway).
The sequence was
Run the Pro*C to create CSV files of data
generate DDL for the indexes
drop the indexes
run the sql*load using the CSV files
recreate indexes using parallel hint
analyse the table using degree(8)
The amount of parellelism depends on the CPUs and memory of the DB server - we had 16CPUs and a few gig of RAM to play with so not a problem.
The extract of the correct data was the longest part of this.
After a few trial runs, the SQL Loader was able to load the full 1 billion rows (thats a US Billion or 1000 million rows) in under an hour.

Resources