We are running Oracle 11g and have some partitioned tables. I am trying to write an automated process to script out the indexes on these tables. (Basically when we do bulk loads, we want to drop all the indexes beforehand and recreate them afterward.)
The problem I have is knowing how to script out the partitioned indexes. Some are created with "LOCAL STORE IN (tablespacename)" and others just with "LOCAL" (which stores index extents in the same partition as the data). In either case, dba_indexes.tablespace_name is null, and I have having a heck of a time scripting out the two different cases correctly.
I know I can simply re-run the original DDL to recreate the indexes, but multiple parts of the organization can make changes, and there would be less risk if the loader tool could be self-contained and simply rebuild whatever was there to begin with.
I can query dba_ind_subpartitions, and if the tablespace_name values for every subpartition all match, then I can assume/infer that I should STORE IN that tablespace name. But, if the table is in a small single-partition state (e.g. newly created or just after archival), then the ones created with just LOCAL also match this test, so this is also not a perfect way of telling them apart.
I can compare the names of the index subpartition tablespaces to the data table partition tablespaces, and if they match, then I can assume/infer that those should be created with just LOCAL. But, that drags a bunch of extra tables into my query and makes it really hard to read, so I am worried about maintainability going forward. Plus, it just seems like a kludge.
It seems like there should be someplace in Oracle's data dictionaries where it is simply keeping track of this, and where I can just directly look it up instead of having to do a bunch of math and rely on assumptions. But, I have done a good deal of digging and haven't yet found it. So, any help would be much appreciated.
Although an insert alone is faster without the presence of indexes, have you benchmarked a load into tables with indexes enabled and established that it is slower than disabling (more robust than dropping!) and rebuilding them?
When you direct path insert into a table with indexes, Oracle optimises the index maintenance process by creating temporary segments to hold just the data required for the index builds. This generally allows the index maintenance to scan much smaller segments than otherwise required -- the temp segments plus the existing indexes.
Well, as jonearles describes, the dbms_metadata package is the way to generate DDL for existing objects.
But, it seems to me, this is more work than is required for what you're trying to achieve. If this is all for loading data, I recommend you simply alter the indexes to be unusable, set 'skip_unusable_indexes=true', do the data load, and the rebuild the indexes.
This should achieve what you want, without having to drop and re-create the indexes.
DBMS_METADATA.GET_DDL is easier than querying the data dictionary:
--Sample table and index.
create table test1(a number);
create index test1_idx on test1(a);
--Store the DDL, drop the index, then re-create it.
declare
ddl_before clob;
begin
ddl_before := dbms_metadata.get_ddl('INDEX', 'TEST1_IDX');
execute immediate 'drop index test1_idx';
--Do some processing here.
execute immediate ddl_before;
end;
/
Related
I need to delete a large amount of data from my database on a regular basis. The process generates huge volume of archive logs. We had a database crash at one point because there was no storage space available on archive destination. How can I avoid generation of logs while I delete data?
The data to be deleted is already marked as inactive in the database. Application code ignores inactive data. I do not need the ability to rollback the operation.
I cannot partition the data in such a way that inactive data falls in one partition that can be dropped. I have to delete the data with delete statements.
I can ask DBAs to set certain configuration at table level/schema level/tablespace level/server level if needed.
I am using Oracle 11g.
What proportion of the data on the table would be deleted, what volume? Are there any referential integrity constraints to manage or is this table childless?
Depending on the answers , you might consider:
"CREATE TABLE keep_data UNRECOVERABLE AS SELECT * FROM ... WHERE
[keep condition]"
Then drop the original table
Then rename keep_table to original table
Rebuild the indexes (again with unrecoverable to prevent redo),constraints etc.
The problem with this approach is it's a multi-step DDL, process, which you will have a job to make fault tolerant and reversible.
A safer option might be to use data-pump to:
Data-pump expdp to extract the "Keep" data
TRUNCATE the table
Data-pump impdp import of data from step 1, with direct-path
At this point I suggest you read the Oracle manual on Data Pump, particularly the section on Direct Path Loads to be sure this will work for you.
MY preferred option would be partitioning.
Of course, the best way would be TenG solution (CTAS, drop and rename table) but it seems it's impossible for you.
Your only problem is the amount of archive logs and database crash problem. In this case, maybe you could partition your delete statement (for example per 10.000 rows).
Something like:
declare
e number;
i number
begin
select count(*) from myTable where [delete condition];
f :=trunc(e/10000)+1;
for i in 1.. f
loop
delete from myTable where [delete condition] and rownum<=10000;
commit;
dbms_lock.sleep(600); -- purge old archive if it's possible
end loop;
end;
After this operation, you should reorganize your table which is surely fragmented.
Alter the table to set NOLOGGING, delete the rows, then turn logging back on.
Our application manages a table containing a per-user set of rows that is the
result of a computationally-intensive query. Storing this result in a table
seems a good way of speeding up further calculations.
The structure of that table is basically the following:
CREATE TABLE per_user_result_set
( user_login VARCHAR2(N)
, result_set_item_id VARCHAR2(M)
, CONSTRAINT result_set_pk PRIMARY KEY(user_login, result_set_item_id)
)
;
A typical user of our application will have this result set computed 30 times a
day, with a result set consisting of between 1 single items and 500,000 items.
A typical customer will declare about 500 users into the production database.
So, this table will typically consist of 5 million rows.
The typical query that we use to update this table is:
BEGIN
DELETE FROM per_user_result_set WHERE user_login = :x;
INSERT INTO per_user_result_set(...) SELECT :x, ... FROM ...;
END;
/
After having run into performance issues (the DELETE part would take much time)
we decided to have a GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE (on commit delete rows) to hold a
“delta” of rows to suppress from the table and rows to insert into it:
BEGIN
INSERT INTO _tmp
SELECT ... FROM ...
MINUS SELECT result_set_item_id
FROM per_user_result_set
WHERE user_login = :x;
DELETE FROM per_user_result_set
WHERE user_login = :x
AND result_set_item_id NOT IN (SELECT result_set_item_id
FROM _tmp
);
INSERT INTO per_user_result_set
SELECT :x, result_set_item_id
FROM _tmp;
COMMIT;
END;
/
This has improved performance a bit, but still this is not satisfactory. So
we're exploring ways to speed up that process and here are the issues that
we experience:
We would have loved to use table partitioning (partitioning by user_login).
But partitioning is not always available (on our test databases we hit
ORA-00439). Our customers cannot all afford Oracle Enterprise Edition with
paid additional features.
We could make the per_user_result_set table GLOBAL TEMPORARY, so that it
is isolated and we can TRUNCATE it for example… but our application
sometimes loses connection to Oracle due to network problems, and will
automatically reconnect. By that time we lose the contents of our
computation.
We could split that table into a certain number of buckets, make a view that
UNIONs ALL all those buckets, and triggers INSTEAD OF UPDATE and DELETE on
that view, and repart rows according to ORA_HASH(user_login) % num_buckets.
But we are afraid this could make SELECT operations much slower.
This would result in a constant number of tables, with smaller indexes
affected in DELETE or INSERT operations. In short, “partioning table for the
poor”.
We've tried to ALTER TABLE per_user_result_set NOLOGGING. This does not
improve things much.
We've tried to CREATE TABLE ... ORGANIZATION INDEX COMPRESS 1. This speeds
things up by a ratio of 1:5.
We've tried to have one table per user_login. That's exactly what we could
have by partitioning using a number of partitions equal to the number of
distinct user_logins and a well-chosen hash function. Performance factor is
1:10. But I would really like to avoid this solution: have to maintain a
huge number of indexes, tables, views, on a per-user basis. This would be
an interesting performance gain for the users, but not for us maintainers of
the systems.
Since the users work at the same time there is no way that we create a new
table and swap it with the old one.
What could you please suggest in complement to these approaches?
Note. Our customers run Oracle Databases from 9i to 11g, and XE editions to
Enterprise edition. That's a wide variety of versions that we need to be
compatible with.
Thanks.
We've tried to have one table per user_login. That's exactly what we
could have by partitioning using a number of partitions equal to the
number of distinct user_logins and a well-chosen hash function.
Performance factor is 1:10. But I would really like to avoid this
solution: have to maintain a huge number of indexes, tables, views, on
a per-user basis. This would be an interesting performance gain for
the users, but not for us maintainers of the systems.
Can you then make a stored procedure to generate these table on a per-user basis? Or, better yet, have this stored procedure do the most appropriate thing depending on the licensure of Oracle being supported?
If Partitioning option
then create or truncate user-specific list partition
Else
drop user-specific result table
Create user-specific result table
as Select from template result table
create indexes
create constraints
perform grants
end if
Perform insert
If all your users were on 11g Enterprise Edition I would recommend you to use Oracle's built-in result-set caching rather than trying to roll your own. But that is not the case, so let's move on.
Another attractive option might be to use PL/SQL collections rather than tables. Being in memory these are faster to retrieve and require less maintenance. They are also supported in all the versions you need. However, they are session variables, so if you have lots of users with big result sets that would put stress on your PGA allocations. Also their data would be lost when the network connection drops. So that's probably not the solution you're looking for.
The core of your problem is this statement:
DELETE FROM per_user_result_set WHERE user_login = :x;
It's not a problem in itself but you have extreme variations in data distribution. Bluntly, the deletion of a single row is going to have a very different performance profile from the deletion of half a million rows. And because your users are constantly refreshing their data there is no way you can handle that, except by giving your users their own tables.
You say you don't want to have a table per user because
"[it] would be an interesting performance gain for the users, but not
for us maintainers of the systems,"
Systems exist for the benefit of our users. Convenience for us is great as long as it helps us to provide better service to them. But their need for a good working experience trumps ours: they pay the bills.
But I question whether having individual tables for each user really increases the work load. I presume each user has their own account, and hence schema.
I suggest you stick with index-organized tables. You only need columns which are in the primary key and maintaining a separate index is unnecessary overhead (for both inserting and deleting). The big advantage of having a table per user is that you can use TRUNCATE TABLE in the refresh process, which is a lot faster than deletion.
So your refresh procedure will look like this:
BEGIN
TRUNCATE TABLE per_user_result_set REUSE STORAGE;
INSERT INTO per_user_result_set(...)
SELECT ... FROM ...;
DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(user
, 'PER_USER_RESULT_SET'
, estimate_percent=>10);
COMMIT;
END;
/
Note that you don't need to include the USER column any more, so yur table will just have the single column of result_set_item_id (another indication of the suitability of IOT.
Gathering the table stats isn't mandatory but it is advisable. You have a wide variability in the size of result sets, and you don't want to be using an execution plan devised for 500000 rows when the table has only one row, or vice versa.
The only overhead is the need to create the table in the user's schema. But presumably you already have some set-up for a new user - creating the account, granting privileges, etc - so this shouldn't be a big hardship.
I have two databases with identical table layouts. There are a dozen or so tables of interest. They are a number of FK between them.
I have been asked to write a stored procedure to copy data from database A to database B based on the PK of the parent table at the top of the hierarchy. I may receive just one value, or a list of values. I'm supposed to select all records from database A that match the value(s) and insert/update them into database B. This includes all the records in the child tables too.
My questions is whats the best(most efficent/ best practice) way to do this?
Should I write a dozen select from... insert into... statements?
Should I join the tables together an try to insert into all the tables at the same time?
Thanks!
Additional info:
The record should be inserted if it is not already there. (based on the PK of the respective table). Otherwise it should be updated.
Obviously I need to traverse down to all child tables, so There would only be one record to copy in the parent table, but the child table might have 10, and the child's child table might have 500. I would of course need to update the record if it already existed, insert if it does not for the child tables too...
UPDATE:
I think it would make the solution simpler if I just deleted all records related to the top level key, and then insert all the new records rather than trying to do updates.
So I guess the questions is it best to just do a dozen:
delete from ... where ... in ...
select from ... where ... in ...
insert into...
or is it better to do some kinda of fancy joins to do all the inserts in one sql statement?
I would do this by disabling all the foreign key constraints, then doing a set of MERGE statements to deal with the updates and inserts, then enable all the constraints.
Think about logging. How much redo do you want to generate?
You might find that it's quicker and better to truncate all the target tables and then do inserts of everything with nolog. Could be simpler than the merges.
One major main alternative would be to drop all the target tables and use export and import. Might be a lot faster.
A second alternative would be to use materialized views, particularly if you don't need to do updates on the target tables. That way, Oracle does all the heavy lifting for you. You can force integrity by choosing refresh groups carefully.
There are several ways to deal with this business problem. A PL/SQL program may not be the best.
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;
I am writing a data conversion in PL/SQL that processes data and loads it into a table. According to the PL/SQL Profiler, one of the slowest parts of the conversion is the actual insert into the target table. The table has a single index.
To prepare the data for load, I populate a variable using the rowtype of the table, then insert it into the table like this:
insert into mytable values r_myRow;
It seems that I could gain performance by doing the following:
Turn logging off during the insert
Insert multiple records at once
Are these methods advisable? If so, what is the syntax?
It's much better to insert a few hundred rows at a time, using PL/SQL tables and FORALL to bind into insert statement. For details on this see here.
Also be careful with how you construct the PL/SQL tables. If at all possible, prefer to instead do all your transforms directly in SQL using "INSERT INTO t1 SELECT ..." as doing row-by-row operations in PL/SQL will still be slower than SQL.
In either case, you can also use direct-path inserts by using INSERT /*+APPEND*/, which basically bypasses the DB cache and directly allocates and writes new blocks to data files. This can also reduce the amount of logging, depending on how you use it. This also has some implications, so please read the fine manual first.
Finally, if you are truncating and rebuilding the table it may be worthwhile to first drop (or mark unusable) and later rebuild indexes.
Regular insert statements are the slowest way to get data in a table and not meant for bulk inserts. The following article references a lot of different techniques for improving performance: http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_tips_data_load.htm
Drop the index, then insert the rows, then re-create the index.
If dropping the index doesn't speed things up enough, you need the Oracle SQL*Loader:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/utilities/htdocs/sql_loader_overview.html
Suppose you have taken eid,ename,sal,job. So create a table first as:
SQL>create table tablename(eid number, ename varchar2(20),sal number,job char(10));
Now insert data:-
SQL>insert into tablename values(&eid,'&ename',&sal,'&job');
Check this link
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_optimize_insert_sql_performance.htm
main points to consider for your
case is to use Append hint as this
will directly append into the table
instead of using freelist. If you can afford to turn off logging than use append with nologging hint to do it
Use a bulk insert instead instead of iterating in PL/SQL
Use sqlloaded to load the data directly into the table if you are getting data from a file feed
Here are my recommendations on fast insert.
Trigger - Disable any triggers associated with a table. Enable after Inserts are complete.
Index - Drop Index and re-create it after your Inserts are complete.
Stale stats - Re-analyze table and index stats.
Index de-fragmentation - Rebuild Index if needed
Use No Logging -Insert using INSERT APPEND (Oracle only). This approach is very risky approach, no redo logs are generated therefore you can’t do a rollback - make a backup of table before you start and don't try on live tables. Check if your db has similar option
Parallel Insert: Running parallel insert will get the job faster.
Use Bulk Insert
Constraints - Not much overhead during inserts but still a good idea to check, if it is still slow after even after step 1
You can learn more on http://www.dbarepublic.com/2014/04/slow-insert.html
Maybe one of your best option is to avoid Oracle as much as possible actually.
I've been baffled by this myself, but very often a Java process can outperform many of the Oracle's utilities which either use OCI (read: SQL Plus) or will take up so much of your time to get right (read: SQL*Loader).
This doesn't prevent you to use specific hints either (like /APPEND/).
I've been pleasantly surprised each time I've turned to that kind of solution.
Cheers,
Rollo