I hope this was not asked here before (I did search around here, and did google for an answer, but could not find an answer)
The problem is: I'm using MS Access 2010 to select records from a linked table (There are millions of records in the table). If I specify criteria (e.g. Date) directly (for example date=#1/1/2013#), the query returns in an instant. If i use parameters (add a parameter of type date/time and provide value of 1/1/2013 when prompted (or date in some different format), or reference a control in a form), the query takes minutes to load.
Please let me know if You have any ideas on what could be causing this. I do feel bad about asking such a question and possibly wasting someones time...
Here's a potential answer, I didn't know this myself and did a little digging.
If performance is important, it may be necessary to prefer dynamic SQL even for where parameter queries are suitable due to how queries are optimized. Generally, Access creates a plan for a new query upon saving. When a query contains a parameter, then Access cannot know what value the parameter may contain and has to make a "good guess". Depending on which actual values are later supplied, it may be okay or poor, resulting in sub-optimal performance. In contrast, dynamic SQL sidesteps this because the "parameters" are hard-coded into the temporary string and thus a new plan is compiled with that value, guaranteeing optimal execution plan. Since compiling a new plan at runtime is very fast, it can be the case that dynamic SQL will outperform parameter queries.
Source: http://www.utteraccess.com/wiki/index.php/Parameter_Query#Performance
Also, if I had to guess, in your parameter query, Access is requesting the ENTIRE table from Oracle and then filtering down with your where clause, but when the WHERE clause is specified, it actually just loads those records and possibly makes use of indexes.
As far as a solution, I would build your query string in VBA then execute it. It opens you up to injection, but you can handle that. So:
Instead of using a saved parameter query object in Access, try to do something like this.
dim qr as string
qr = "SELECT * FROM myTable WHERE myDate = #" & me.dateControl & "#;"
'CurrentDb.execute qr, dbFailOnError
Docmd.RunSQL qr
Or, as you replied, currentdb.openrecordset(qr)
This would force the engine to make an execution plan at runtime rather than having a saved potentially suboptimal plan. Let me know if this works out for you, I'd be interested to see.
Of course the above reference about using parameters with Access (JET/ACE) ONLY applies to access back ends, not ODBC ones like SQL server or oracle. Since you pointed out that your using Oracle here then creating a view or using a pass-though query would and should resolve this performance issue. However one does NOT want to use Access/JET paramters with data coming from some server based system - you best just send the server SQL strings, but much better would be to use a pass-though query. If the result set requires editing, then PT query are only readonly, and you have to create a view and link to that view.
Related
I have an Oracle bind query that is extremely slow (about 2 minutes) when it executes in my C# program but runs very quickly in SQL Developer. It has two parameters that hit the tables index:
select t.Field1, t.Field2
from theTable t
where t.key1=:key1
and t.key2=:key2
Also, if I remove the bind variables and create dynamic sql, it runs just like it does in SQL Developer.
Any suggestion?
BTW, I'm using ODP.
If you are replacing the bind variables with static varibles in sql developer, then you're not really running the same test. Make sure you use the bind varibles, and if it's also slow you're just getting bit by a bad cached execution plan. Updating the stats on that table should resolve it.
However if you are actually using bind variables in sql developers then keep reading. The TLDR version is that parameters that ODP.net run under sometimes cause a slightly more pessimistic approach. Start with updating the stats, but have your dba capture the execution plan under both scenarios and compare to confirm.
I'm reposting my answer from here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14712992/852208
I considered flagging yours as a duplicate but your title is a little more concise since it identifies the query does run fast in sql developer. I'll welcome advice on handling in another manner.
Adding the following to your config will send odp.net tracing info to a log file:
This will probably only be helpful if you can find a large gap in time. Chances are rows are actually coming in, just at a slower pace.
Try adding "enlist=false" to your connection string. I don't consider this a solution since it effecitively disables distributed transactions but it should help you isolate the issue. You can get a little bit more information from an oracle forumns post:
From an ODP perspective, all we can really point out is that the
behavior occurs when OCI_ATR_EXTERNAL_NAME and OCI_ATR_INTERNAL_NAME
are set on the underlying OCI connection (which is what happens when
distrib tx support is enabled).
I'd guess what you're not seeing is that the execution plan is actually different (meaning the actual performance hit is actually occuring on the server) between the odp.net call and the sql developer call. Have your dba trace the connection and obtain execution plans from both the odp.net call and the call straight from SQL Developer (or with the enlist=false parameter).
If you confirm different execution plans or if you want to take a preemptive shot in the dark, update the statistics on the related tables. In my case this corrected the issue, indicating that execution plan generation doesn't really follow different rules for the different types of connections but that the cost analysis is just slighly more pesimistic when a distributed transaction might be involved. Query hints to force an execution plan are also an option but only as a last resort.
Finally, it could be a network issue. If your odp.net install is using a fresh oracle home (which I would expect unless you did some post-install configuring) then the tnsnames.ora could be different. Host names in tnsnams might not be fully qualified, creating more delays resolving the server. I'd only expect the first attempt (and not subsequent attempts) to be slow in this case so I don't think it's the issue but I thought it should be mentioned.
Are the parameters bound to the correct data type in C#? Are the columns key1 and key2 numbers, but the parameters :key1 and :key2 are strings? If so, the query may return the correct results but will require implicit conversion. That implicit conversion is like using a function to_char(key1), which prevents an index from being used.
Please also check what is the number of rows returned by the query. If the number is big then possibly C# is fetching all rows and the other tool first pocket only. Fetching all rows may require many more disk reads in that case, which is slower. To check this try to run in SQL Developer:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (
select t.Field1, t.Field2
from theTable t
where t.key1=:key1
and t.key2=:key2
)
The above query should fetch the maximum number of database blocks.
Nice tool in such cases is tkprof utility which shows SQL execution plan which may be different in cases above (however it should not be).
It is also possible that you have accidentally connected to different databases. In such cases it is nice to compare results of queries.
Since you are raising "Bind is slow" I assume you have checked the SQL without binds and it was fast. In 99% using binds makes things better. Please check if query with constants will run fast. If yes than problem may be implicit conversion of key1 or key2 column (ex. t.key1 is a number and :key1 is a string).
I have a vey huge query. It is rather large, so i will not post it here(it has 6 levels of nested queries with ordering and grouping). Query has 2 parameters that are passed to it via PreparedStatement.setString(index, value). When I execute my query through SQL Developer(replacing query parameters to actual values before it by hand) the query runs about 10 seconds and return approximately 15000 rows. But when I try to run it through java program using PreparedStament with varibales it fails with ORA-01652(unable to extend temp segment). I have tried to use simple Statement from java program - it works fine. Also when I use preparedStatement without variables(don't use setString(), but specify parameters by hand) it works fine too.
So, I suspect that problem is in PreparedStatemnt parameters.
How does the mechanism of that parameters work? Why simple statement works fine but prepared one fails?
You're probably running into issues with bind variable peeking.
For the same query, the best plan can be significantly different depending on the actual bind variables. In 10g, Oracle builds the execution plan based on the first set of bind variables used. 11g mostly fixed this problem with adaptive cursor sharing, a feature that creates multiple plans for different bind variables.
Here are some ideas for solving this problem:
Use literals This isn't always as bad as people assume. If the good version of your query runs in 10 seconds, the overhead of hard-parsing the query will be negligible. But you may need to be careful to avoid SQL injection.
Force a hard-parse There are a few ways to force Oracle to hard-parse every query. One method is to call DBMS_STATS with NO_INVALIDATE=>FALSE on one of the tables in the query.
Disable bind-variable peeking / hints You can do this by removing the relevant histograms, or using one of the parameters in the link provided by OldProgrammer. This will stabilize your plan, but will not necessarily pick the correct plan. You may also need to use hints to pick the right plan. But then you may not have the right plan for every combination of inputs.
Upgrade to 11g This may not be an option, but this issue is another good reason to start planning an upgrade.
Which one enhace the performance in an Access:
Having stored procedures
writing our query in VB code
or writing our query in Datasource of our control property
logicaly the first one should enhance the performance but here I have read another thing.What do you mean?
could you please explain me technicaly or show me a reference?
If you're talking about an MDB file, then you must be using "stored procedure" to refer to saved queries. Saved queries can execute more quickly than in-line SQL, because the query plan is stored with the query; when you execute inline SQL, the SQL has to be compiled into a query plan.
If you write a query into the DataSource property of a control, Access creates a hidden saved query, so the performance should be similar.
More generally, are you asking this question because you or your users have observed poor performance? If so, where is the performance poor? That information might help us suggest a good opportunity for improving the performance.
For example, suppose your form is an order form, and you have text boxes showing the customer's name and address. The record source of the form is the [Orders] table. The name text box has as its control source
SELECT [CustomerName] FROM [Customers] WHERE [CustomerID] = [CustomerIdTextBox]
Similarly, the control source of the address text box:
SELECT [Address] FROM [Customers] WHERE [CustomerID] = [CustomerIdTextBox]
In this case, you'll improve your performance markedly by changing the record source:
SELECT [Orders].*, [Customers].[CustomerName], [Customers].[Address]
FROM [Orders] INNER JOIN [Customers] ON [Orders].[CustomerID] = [Customers].[ID]
Then change the control source for the name text box to [CustomerName] and for the address text box to [Address].
Why is this faster? In the first design, you had two queries (or, rather, a query for each item you're pulling from the [Customers] table). In the new design, you have only one query.
If, on the other hand, you are asking about performance because of a theoretical idea that one approach might be faster than another, then you should use the approach that is simplest to maintain. If you can't observe the difference in performance, there's no benefit to using a more performant solution.
A stored procedure still needs to be executed. In Access, it has to be executed on your own computer, with a regular DBMS it still needs to be executed on the server. Which approach is more efficient depends on the problem you are solving.
I have a table:
-- Tag
ID | Name
-----------
1 | c#
2 | linq
3 | entity-framework
I have a class that will have the following methods:
IEnumerable<Tag> GetAll();
IEnumerable<Tag> GetByName();
Should I use a compiled query in this case?
static readonly Func<Entities, IEnumerable<Tag>> AllTags =
CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, IEnumerable<Tag>>
(
e => e.Tags
);
Then my GetByName method would be:
IEnumerable<Tag> GetByName(string name)
{
using (var db = new Entities())
{
return AllTags(db).Where(t => t.Name.Contains(name)).ToList();
}
}
Which generates a SELECT ID, Name FROM Tag and execute Where on the code. Or should I avoid CompiledQuery in this case?
Basically I want to know when I should use compiled queries. Also, on a website they are compiled only once for the entire application?
You should use a CompiledQuery when all of the following are true:
The query will be executed more than once, varying only by parameter values.
The query is complex enough that the cost of expression evaluation and view generation is "significant" (trial and error)
You are not using a LINQ feature like IEnumerable<T>.Contains() which won't work with CompiledQuery.
You have already simplified the query, which gives a bigger performance benefit, when possible.
You do not intend to further compose the query results (e.g., restrict or project), which has the effect of "decompiling" it.
CompiledQuery does its work the first time a query is executed. It gives no benefit for the first execution. Like any performance tuning, generally avoid it until you're sure you're fixing an actual performance hotspot.
2012 Update: EF 5 will do this automatically (see "Entity Framework 5: Controlling automatic query compilation") . So add "You're not using EF 5" to the above list.
Compiled queries save you time, which would be spent generating expression trees. If the query is used often and you'll save the compiled query, you should definitely use it. I had many cases when the query parsing took more time than the actual round trip to the database.
In your case, if you are sure that it would generate SELECT ID, Name FROM Tag without the WHERE case (which I doubt, as your AllQueries function should return IQueryable and the actual query should be made only after calling ToList) - you shouldn't use it.
As someone already mentioned, on bigger tables SELECT * FROM [someBigTable] would take very long and you'll spend even more time filtering that on the client side. So you should make sure that your filtering is made on the database side, no matter if you are using compiled queries or not.
compiled queries are more helpfull with linq queries with large expression trees say complex queries to gain performance over building expression tree again and again while reusing query. in your case i guess it will save a very little time.
Compiled queries are compiled when the application is compiled and every time you reuse a query often or it is complex you should definitely try compiled queries to make execution faster.
But I would not go for it on all queries as it is a little more code to write and for simple queries it might not be worthwhile.
But for maximum performance you should also evaluate Stored Procedures where you do all the processing on the database server, even if Linq tries to push as much of the work to the db as possible you will have situations where a stored procedure will be faster.
Compiled queries offer a performance improvement, but it's not huge. If you have complex queries, I'd rather go with a stored procedure or a view, if possible; letting the database do it's thing might be a better approach.
Looking for a bit of advice on how to optimise one of our projects. We have a ASP.NET/C# system that retrieves data from a SQL2008 data and presents it on a DevExpress ASPxGridView. The data that's retrieved can come from one of a number of databases - all of which are slightly different and are being added and removed regularly. The user is presented with a list of live "companies", and the data is retrieved from the corresponding database.
At the moment, data is being retrieved using a standard SqlDataSource and a dynamically-created SQL SELECT statement. There are a few JOINs in the statement, as well as optional WHERE constraints, again dynamically-created depending on the database and the user's permission level.
All of this works great (honest!), apart from performance. When it comes to some databases, there are several hundreds of thousands of rows, and retrieving and paging through the data is quite slow (the databases are already properly indexed). I've therefore been looking at ways of speeding the system up, and it seems to boil down to two choices: XPO or LINQ.
LINQ seems to be the popular choice, but I'm not sure how easy it will be to implement with a system that is so dynamic in nature - would I need to create "definitions" for each database that LINQ could access? I'm also a bit unsure about creating the LINQ queries dynamically too, although looking at a few examples that part at least seems doable.
XPO, on the other hand, seems to allow me to create a XPO Data Source on the fly. However, I can't find too much information on how to JOIN to other tables.
Can anyone offer any advice on which method - if any - is the best to try and retro-fit into this project? Or is the dynamic SQL model currently used fundamentally different from LINQ and XPO and best left alone?
Before you go and change the whole way that your app talks to the database, have you had a look at the following:
Run your code through a performance profiler (such as Redgate's performance profiler), the results are often surprising.
If you are constructing the SQL string on the fly, are you using .Net best practices such as String.Concat("str1", "str2") instead of "str1" + "str2". Remember, multiple small gains add up to big gains.
Have you thought about having a summary table or database that is periodically updated (say every 15 mins, you might need to run a service to update this data automatically.) so that you are only hitting one database. New connections to databases are quiet expensive.
Have you looked at the query plans for the SQL that you are running. Today, I moved a dynamically created SQL string to a sproc (only 1 param changed) and shaved 5-10 seconds off the running time (it was being called 100-10000 times depending on some conditions).
Just a warning if you do use LINQ. I have seen some developers who have decided to use LINQ write more inefficient code because they did not know what they are doing (pulling 36,000 records when they needed to check for 1 for example). This things are very easily overlooked.
Just something to get you started on and hopefully there is something there that you haven't thought of.
Cheers,
Stu
As far as I understand you are talking about so called server mode when all data manipulations are done on the DB server instead of them to the web server and processing them there. In this mode grid works very fast with data sources that can contain hundreds thousands records. If you want to use this mode, you should either create the corresponding LINQ classes or XPO classes. If you decide to use LINQ based server mode, the LINQServerModeDataSource provides the Selecting event which can be used to set a custom IQueryable and KeyExpression. I would suggest that you use LINQ in your application. I hope, this information will be helpful to you.
I guess there are two points where performance might be tweaked in this case. I'll assume that you're accessing the database directly rather than through some kind of secondary layer.
First, you don't say how you're displaying the data itself. If you're loading thousands of records into a grid, that will take time no matter how fast everything else is. Obviously the trick here is to show a subset of the data and allow the user to page, etc. If you're not doing this then that might be a good place to start.
Second, you say that the tables are properly indexed. If this is the case, and assuming that you're not loading 1,000 records into the page at once and retreiving only subsets at a time, then you should be OK.
But, if you're only doing an ExecuteQuery() against an SQL connection to get a dataset back I don't see how Linq or anything else will help you. I'd say that the problem is obviously on the DB side.
So to solve the problem with the database you need to profile the different SELECT statements you're running against it, examine the query plan and identify the places where things are slowing down. You might want to start by using the SQL Server Profiler, but if you have a good DBA, sometimes just looking at the query plan (which you can get from Management Studio) is usually enough.