I have a simple Query:
DELETE FROM TABLE1 WHERE ID=1
This table is referred by at least 90 (X) other table :
ADD CONSTRAINT FK_TABLEX_TABLE1
FOREIGN KEY (ID)
REFERENCES "db"."TABLE1"(ID)
Looking at the plan for the given query, it's really large.
We have DIRECT RI FILTER Operator (VA = 103) has 98 children. and then a bunch of SCAN Operator (VA = X) FROM TABLE TABLEX ...
The problem is that when we use batch deletion (JDBC) and reach immediately the procedure cache limit (which we did try to increase a lot, but the solution is not ok because children tables number is meant to increase).
However, my DELETE queries should only look into 5 tables for each different batch (I know that IDs XXX,YYY and ZZZ are referred by TABLEX, TABLEX+1, ... TABLEX+4). Is there a way to force the query plan to limit the scan to some tables ?
Modifying the data model is not really an option.
Sybase 15.0.3
JConnect3d 6.0.5
I did reduce the number of queries done in the batch and going from 1000 to 100 won't crash anymore. It's a solution but I would like to reduce the query plan, not the batch.
Finally we ended up having a batch size computed from the number of child tables.
The more table the less update in the same batch.
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.
In our one of production database, we have 4 column table and there are no PK,UK constraints on it. only one notnull constraint on one column. The inserts are slow on this table and when I checked the indexes , there is one index which is built on all columns.
It is a normal table and not IOT. I really don't see a need of all column index, but wondering why the developers has created it?
Appreciate your thoughts?
It might be usefull, i.e. if you (mainly) query all columns oracle doesn't have to access the table at all, but can get all the data from the index. Though inserts take longer because a larger index has to be maintained by the dbms everytime.
One case where it could be useful is,
Say for example, you are trying to check the existence of records in this table and for that you have to have joins on all four columns. So in such a case if you have written a correlated query like below,
SELECT <something>
FROM table_1 t1
WHERE EXISTS
(SELECT 1 FROM table_t2 t2 where t1.c1=t2.c1 and t1.c2=t2.c2 and t1.c3=t2.c3 and t1.c4=t2.c4)
Apart from above case, it looks an error to me from developer's side.
Indexes are good to better query optimization but causes slow updates/inserts because the indexes needs to be updated at each modification.
If these tables first use is querying and inserts happens only in a specific periods like a batch at the beginning or the end of the day only, then you can remove the indexes before updating tables and then restore them.
In addition, all the queries all these tables need to be analysed to see which indexes are useful and which are not?
Anyway, You need to ask developers before removing these indexes.
I am working on doing a diff between tables in postgresql, it takes a long time, as each table is ~13GB...
My current query is:
SELECT * FROM tableA EXCEPT SELECT * FROM tableB;
and
SELECT * FROM tableB EXCEPT SELECT * FROM tableA;
When I do a diff on the two (unindexed) tables it takes 1:40 hours (1 hour and 40 minutes) In order to get both the new and removed rows I need to run the query twice, bringing the total time to 3:30 hours.
I ran the Postgresql EXPLAIN query on it to see what it was doing. It looks like it is sorting the first table, then the second, then comparing them. Well that made me think that if I indexed the tables they would be presorted and the diff query would be much faster.
Indexing each table took 45 minutes. Once Indexed, each Diff took 1:35 hours.
Why do the indexes only shave off 5 minutes off the total diff time? I would assume that it would be more than half, since in the unindexed queries I am sorting each table twice (I need to run the query twice)
Since one of these tables will not be changing much, it will only need to be indexed once, the other will be updated daily. So the total runtime for the indexed method is 45 minutes for the index, plus 2x 1:35 for the diff, giving a total of 3:55 hours, almost 4hours.
What am I doing wrong here, I can't possibly see why with the index my net diff time is larger than without it?
This is in slight reference to my other question here: Postgresql UNION takes 10 times as long as running the individual queries
EDIT:
Here is the schema for the two tables, they are identical except the table name.
CREATE TABLE bulk.blue
(
"partA" text NOT NULL,
"type" text NOT NULL,
"partB" text NOT NULL
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
In the statements above you are not using the indexes.
You could do something like:
SELECT * FROM tableA a
FULL OUTER JOIN tableB b ON a.someID = b.someID
You could then use the same statement to show which tables had missing values
SELECT * FROM tableA a
FULL OUTER JOIN tableB b ON a.someID = b.someID
WHERE ISNULL(a.someID) OR ISNULL(b.someID)
This should give you the rows that were missing in table A OR table B
Confirm you indexes are being used (they are likely not in such a generic except statement), but you are not joining against a specified column(s) so likely that lack of explicit join will not make for an optimized query:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/indexes-examine.html
This will help you view the explain analyze more clearly:
http://explain.depesz.com
Also, make sure you do an analyze on the table after you create the index if you want it to perform well right away:}
The queries as specified require a comparison of every column of the tables.
For example if tableA and tableB each have five columns then the query is having to compare tableA.col1 to tableB.col1, tableA.col2 to tableB.col2, . . . tableA.col5 to tableB.col5
If there are just few columns that uniquely identify a record instead of all the columnS in the table then joining the tables on the specific columns that uniquely identify a record will improve your performance.
The above statement assumes that a primary key has not been created. If a primary key has been defined to indicated which columns uniquely identify a record then I believe the EXCEPT statement would take that into consideration.
What kind of index did you apply? Indexes are only useful to improve WHERE conditions. If you're doing a select *, you're grabbing all the fields and the index is probably not doing anything, but taking up space, and adding a little more processing behind the scenes for the db-engine to compare the query to the index cache.
Instead of SELECT *, you can try selecting your unique fields and create an index for those unique fields
You can also use an OUTER JOIN to show results from both tables that did not match on the unique fields
You may want to consider is clustering your tables
What version of Postgres are you running?
When was the last time you vacuumed?
Other than the above, 13GB is pretty large, so you'll want to check your config settings. It shouldn't take hours to run that, unless you don't have enough memory on your system.
Let's say I have a Big and a Bigger table.
I need to cycle through the Big table, that is indexed but not sequential (since it is a filter of a sequentially indexed Bigger table).
For this example, let's say I needed to cycle through about 20000 rows.
Should I do 20000 of these
set #currentID = (select min(ID) from myData where ID > #currentID)
or
Creating a (big) temporary sequentially indexed table (copy of the Big table) and do 20000 of
#Row = #Row + 1
?
I imagine that doing 20000 filters of the Bigger table just to fetch the next ID is heavy, but so must be filling a big (Big sized) temporary table just to add a dummy identity column.
Is the solution somewhere else?
For example, if I could loop through the results of the select statement (the filter of the Bigger table that originates "table" (actually a resultset) Big) without needing to create temporary tables, it would be ideal, but I seem to be unable to add something like an IDENTITY(1,1) dummy column to the results.
Thanks!
You may want to consider finding out how to do your work set based instead of RBAR. With that said, for very big tables, you may want to not make a temp table so that you are sure that you have live data if you suspect that the proc may run for a while in production. If your proc fails, you'll be able to pick up where you left off. If you use a temp table then if your proc crashes, then you could lose data that hasn't been completed yet.
You need to provide more information on what your end result is, It is only very rarely necessary to do row-by-row processing (and almost always the worst possible choice from a performance perspective). This article will get you started on how to do many tasks in a set-based manner:
http://wiki.lessthandot.com/index.php/Cursors_and_How_to_Avoid_Them
If you just want a temp table with an identity, here are two methods:
create table #temp ( test varchar (10) , id int identity)
insert #temp (test)
select test from mytable
select test, identity(int) as id into #temp from mytable
I think a join will serve your purposes better.
SELECT BIG.*, BIGGER.*, -- Add additional calcs here involving BIG and BIGGER.
FROM TableBig BIG (NOLOCK)
JOIN TableBigger BIGGER (NOLOCK)
ON BIG.ID = BIGGER.ID
This will limit the set you are working with to. But again it comes down to the specifics of your solution.
Remember too, you can do bulk inserts and bulk updates in this manner too.
I have a cursor that selects all rows in a table, a little over 500,000 rows. Read a row from cursor, INSERT into other table, which has two indexes, neither unique, one numeric, one 'DATE' type. COMMIT. Read next row from Cursor, INSERT...until Cursor is empty.
All my DATE column's values are the same, from a timestamp initialized at the start of the script.
This thing's been running for 24 hours, only posted 464K rows, a little less than 10K rows / hr.
Oracle 11g, 10 processors(!?)
Something has to be wrong. I think it's that DATE index trying to process all these entries with exactly the same value for that column.
Why don't you just do:
insert into target (columns....)
select columns and computed values
from source
commit
?
This slow by slow is doing far more damage to performance than an index that may not make any sense.
Indexes slow down inserts but speed up queries. This is normal.
If it is a problem you can remove the index, insert the rows, then add the index again. This can be faster if you are doing many inserts at once.
The way you are copying the data using cursors seems to be inefficient. You could try a set-based approach instead:
INSERT INTO table1 (x, y, z)
SELECT x, y, z FROM table2 WHERE ...
Committing after every inserted row doesn't make much sense. If you're worried about exceeding undo capacity, for example, you can keep a count of the inserts and issue a commit after every thousand rows.
Updating the indexes will have some impact but that's unavoidable if you can't drop (or disable) while the inserts are performed, but that's just how it goes. I'd expect the commits to have a bigger impact, though I suspect that's a topic with varied opinions.
This assumes you have a good reason for inserting from a cursor rather than as a direct insert into ... select from model.
In general, its often a good idea to delete the indexes before doing a massive insert and then add them back afterwards, so that the db doesnt have to try to update the indexes with each insert. Its been a long while since I've used oracle, but had you tried putting more than one insert statement in a transaction? That should also speed it up.
For operations like this you should look at oracle bulk operations, using FORALL and BULK COLLECT. It will reduce the number of DDL operations on the underlying tables considerably
create or replace procedure fast_proc is
type MyTable is table of source_table%ROWTYPE;
MyTable table;
begin
select * BULK COLLECT INTO table from source_table;
forall x in table.First..table.Last
insert into dest_table values table(x) ;
end;
Agreed on comment that what is killing your time is the 'slow by slow' processing. Copying 500,000 rows should be a matter of minutes.
The single INSERT ... SELECT FROM .... approach would be the best one, provided you have big enough Rollback segments. The database may even automatically apply parallel techniques to a plain SQL statement that it will not do with PL/SQL.
In addition you could look at using the /*+ APPEND */ hint - read up on it and see if it may apply to the situation with your target table.
o use all 10 cores you will need to either use plain parallel SQL, or run 10 copies of your pl/sql block, splitting the source table across the 10 copies.
In Oracle 10 this is a manual task (roll your own parallelism) but Oracle 11.2 introduces DBMS_PARALLEL_EXECUTE.
Failing that, bulking up your fetch / insert using the BULK COLLECT & bulk insert would be the next best option - process in chunks of 1000 or so rows (or larger). Again take a look as to whether DBMS_PARALLEL_EXECUTE may help you, or if you could submit the job in chunks via DBMS_JOB.
(Caveat : I don't have access to anything later than Oracle 10)