Did you know how exactly query for past data works?
The version of oracle is 10G
With this query I can recover some data, but sometimes this query
select *
from table as of timestamp systimestamp - 1
retrieve an error (too old snapshot).
Is possible to augment time for this work and retrieve data about 24 hour? Thanks!
The key issue here is the sizing of the undo segments, and the undo retention and guarantee.
The long and short of it is that you need your undo tablespace sized to hold all of the changes that can be made withing the maximum period that you want to flashback over, and you'd want to set the undo retention parameter to that value. If it is really critical to your application that the undo is preserved then set the undo guarantee on the undo tablespace.
Useful docs: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B12037_01/server.101/b10739/undo.htm#i1008577
Be aware that performance of flashback is rather poor for bulk data, as the required undo blocks need to be found in the tablespace. 11g has better options for high performance flashback.
What the error means is that the rollback segment became invalidated because,
usually, the query took too long. There are other causes. Like rollback segment sizing.
How many rows are in the table? - you can get an idea from this
select num_rows
from all_tables
where table_name='MYTABLE_NAME_GOES_HERE';
If there are LOTS of rows, you may need to look at adding some kind index to support your query. Because a full table scan takes too long. If not then it is a DBA issue. Maybe adding an index is a DBA issue in your shop as well.
If this worked well a few days ago, and started happening lately, you probably just passed the threshold for the rollback.
Related
I have a pretty complex query where we make use of a temporary table (this is in Oracle running on AWS RDS service).
INSERT INTO TMPTABLE (inserts about 25.000 rows in no time)
SELECT FROM X JOIN TMPTABLE (joins with temp table also in no time)
DELETE FROM TMPTABLE (takes no time in a copy of the production database, up to 10 minutes in the production database)
If I change the delete to a truncate it is as fast as in development.
So this change I will of course deploy. But I would like to understand why this occurs. AWS team has been quite helpful but they are a bit biased on AWS and like to tell me that my 3000 USD a month database server is not fast enough (I don't think so). I am not that fluent in Oracle administration but I have understood that if the redo logs are constantly filled, this can cause issues. I have increased the size quite substantially, but then again, this doesn't really add up.
This is a fairly standard issue when deleting large amounts of data. The delete operation has to modify each and every row individually. Each row gets deleted, added to a transaction log, and is given an LSN.
truncate, on the other hand, skips all that and simply deallocates the data in the table.
You'll find this behavior is consistent across various RDMS solutions. Oracle, MSSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL will all have the same issue.
I suggest you use an Oracle Global Temporary table. They are fast, and don't need to be explicitly deleted after the session ends.
For example:
CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE TMP_T
(
ID NUMBER(32)
)
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS;
See https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28310/tables003.htm#ADMIN11633
How can I verify an Oracle database rollback action is successful? Can I use Number of rows in activity log and Number of rows in event log?
V$TRANSACTION does not contain historical information but it does contain information about all active transactions. In practice this is often enough to quickly and easily monitor rollbacks and estimate when they will complete.
Specifically the columns USED_UBLK and USED_UREC contain the number of UNDO blocks and records remaining. USED_UREC is not always the same as the number of rows; sometimes the number is higher because it includes index entries and sometimes the number is lower because it groups inserts together.
During a long rollback those numbers will decrease until they hit 0. No rows in the table imply that the transactions successfully committed or rolled back. Below is a simple example.
create table table1(a number);
create index table1_idx on table1(a);
insert into table1 values(1);
insert into table1 values(1);
insert into table1 values(1);
select used_ublk, used_urec, ses_addr from v$transaction;
USED_UBLK USED_UREC SES_ADDR
--------- --------- --------
1 6 000007FF1C5A8EA0
Oracle LogMiner, which is part of Oracle Database, enables you to query online and archived redo log files through a SQL interface. Redo log files contain information about the history of activity on a database.
LogMiner Benefits
All changes made to user data or to the database dictionary are
recorded in the Oracle redo log files so that database recovery
operations can be performed.
Because LogMiner provides a well-defined, easy-to-use, and
comprehensive relational interface to redo log files, it can be used
as a powerful data audit tool, as well as a tool for sophisticated
data analysis. The following list describes some key capabilities of
LogMiner:
Pinpointing when a logical corruption to a database, such as errors
made at the application level, may have begun. These might include
errors such as those where the wrong rows were deleted because of
incorrect values in a WHERE clause, rows were updated with incorrect
values, the wrong index was dropped, and so forth. For example, a user
application could mistakenly update a database to give all employees
100 percent salary increases rather than 10 percent increases, or a
database administrator (DBA) could accidently delete a critical system
table. It is important to know exactly when an error was made so that
you know when to initiate time-based or change-based recovery. This
enables you to restore the database to the state it was in just before
corruption. See Querying V$LOGMNR_CONTENTS Based on Column Values
for details about how you can use LogMiner to accomplish this.
Determining what actions you would have to take to perform
fine-grained recovery at the transaction level. If you fully
understand and take into account existing dependencies, it may be
possible to perform a table-specific undo operation to return the
table to its original state. This is achieved by applying
table-specific reconstructed SQL statements that LogMiner provides in
the reverse order from which they were originally issued. See
Scenario 1: Using LogMiner to Track Changes Made by a Specific
User for an example.
Normally you would have to restore the table to its previous state,
and then apply an archived redo log file to roll it forward.
Performance tuning and capacity planning through trend analysis. You
can determine which tables get the most updates and inserts. That
information provides a historical perspective on disk access
statistics, which can be used for tuning purposes. See Scenario 2:
Using LogMiner to Calculate Table Access Statistics for an
example.
Performing postauditing. LogMiner can be used to track any data
manipulation language (DML) and data definition language (DDL)
statements executed on the database, the order in which they were
executed, and who executed them. (However, to use LogMiner for such a
purpose, you need to have an idea when the event occurred so that you
can specify the appropriate logs for analysis; otherwise you might
have to mine a large number of redo log files, which can take a long
time. Consider using LogMiner as a complementary activity to auditing
database use. See the Oracle Database Administrator's Guide for
information about database auditing.)
Enjoy.
I have tried to find examples but they are all simple with a single where clause. Here is the situation. I have a bunch of legacy data transferred from another database. I also have the "good" tables in that same database. I need to transfer (data-conversion) data from the legacy tables to thew tables. Because this is a different set of tables the data-conversion requires complex joins to put the old data into the new tables correctly.
So, old tables old data.
New tables must have the old data but it requires lots of joins to get that old data into the new tables correctly.
Can I use direct path with lots of joins like this? INSERT SELECT (lots of joins)
Does direct path apply to tables that are already on the same database (transfer between tables)? Is it only for loading tables from say a text file?
Thank you.
The query in your SELECT can be as complex as you'd like with a direct-path insert. The direct-path refers only to the destination table. It has nothing to do with the way that data is read or processed.
If you're doing a direct-path insert, you're asking Oracle to insert the new data above the high water mark of the table so you bypass the normal code that reuses space in existing blocks for new rows to be inserted. It also has to block other inserts since you can't have the high water mark of the table change during a direct-path insert. This probably isn't a big deal if you've got a downtime window in which to do the load but it would be quite problematic if you wanted the existing tables to be available for other applications during the load.
No, on the contrary, it means you need to do a backup after a NOLOGGING load, not that you can't backup the database.
Allow me to elaborate a bit. Normally, when you do DML in Oracle, the before images of the changes you are are making get logged in UNDO, and all the changes (including the UNDO changes) are first written to REDO. This is how Oracle manages transactions, instance recovery, and database recovery. If a transaction is aborted or rolled back, Oracle uses the information in UNDO to undo the changes your transaction made. If the instance crashes, then on instance restart, Oracle will use the information in REDO and UNDO to recover up to the last committed transaction. First, Oracle will read the REDO and roll forward, then, use UNDO to roll back all the transactions that were not committed at the time of the crash. In this way, Oracle is able to recover up to the last committed transaction.
Now, when you specify an APPEND hint on an insert statement, Oracle will execute the INSERT with direct load. This means that data is loaded into brand new, never before used blocks, from above the highwater mark. Because the blocks being loaded are brand new, there is no "before image", so, Oracle can avoid writing UNDO, which improves performance. If the database is in NOARCHIVELOG mode, then Oracle will also not write REDO. On a database in ARCHIVELOG mode, Oracle will still write REDO, unless, before you do the insert /*+ append */, you set the table to NOLOGGING, (i.e. alter table tab_name nologging;). In that case, REDO logging is disabled for the table. However, this is where you could run into backup/recovery implications. If you do a NOLOGGING direct load, and then you suffer a media failure, and the datafile containing the segment with the nologging operation is restored from a backup taken before the nologging load, then the redo log will not contain the changes required to recover that segment. So, what happens? Well, when you do a NOLOGGING load, Oracle writes extent invaldation records to the redo log, instead of the actual changes. Then, if you use that redo in recovery, those data blocks will be marked logically corrupt. Any subsequent queries against that segment will get an ORA-26040 error.
So, how to avoid this? Well, you should always take a backup imediately following any NOLOGGING direct load. If you restore/recover from a backup taken after the nologging load, there is no problem, because the data will be in the datablocks in the file that was restored.
Hope that's clear,
-Mark
Yes, there should not be any arbitrary limits on query complexity.
If you do
insert /*+ APPEND */ into target_table select .... from source1, source2..., sourceN where
It should work fine. Consider though, that the performance of the load will be limited by the performance of that query, so, be sure it's well-tuned, if you're expecting good performance.
Finally, consider whether setting NOLOGGING on the target table would improve performance significantly. But, also consider the backup recovery implications, if you decide to implement NOLOGGING.
Hope that helps,
-Mark
it is said that we should always truncate a large table before dropping, it improves performance. Is it true?
IMO in general if you simply want to drop a table then DROP is appropriate. It will release space the same way as TRUNCATE would and it will have the advantage of being atomic (no query will have the opportunity to see the table "empty").
From 10g+, a dropped table won't be deleted immediately however: if there is sufficient space it will be put in the recycle bin. If you truncate a table first, no data will remain in the recycle bin. This may be why you have been told to truncate first (?).
In any case, if you want to bypass the recycle bin you could issue DROP TABLE your_table PURGE and this statement will be atomic.
It entirely depends if you want to be able to roll back if something goes wrong.
Deletion of data records the deletion against the transaction logs of the database until you commit the change.
Truncation removes all the data from the table without recording those logs, so there can be a significant performance improvement in doing this. Just be sure you know what you are doing, as there's no way back.
It may be a good idea in order to reset the high water mark.
We have a mature Oracle database application (in production for over 10 years), and during that time, we have been using scripts of our own devising to remove old data that is no longer needed. They work by issuing delete statements against the appropriate tables, in a loop with frequent commits, in order to avoid overloading the system with i/o or using too much undo space.
They work fine, for the most part. They run daily, and it takes about an hour to remove the oldest days worth of data from the system. The main concerns I have are the effects on tables and indexes that all this deleting may have, and the fact that even though they don't overly load the system, deleting one day's worth of data in that short time does have the effect of blowing out the instances buffer cache, resulting in subsequent queries running slightly slower for the next few hours as the cache is gradually restored.
For years we've been considering better methods. In the past, I had heard that people used partitioned tables to manage old data reaping - one month per partition, for example, and dropping the oldest partition on a monthly basis. The main drawback to this approach is that our reaping rules go beyond "remove month X". Users are allowed to specify how long data must stay in the system, based on key values (e.g., in an invoice table, account foo can be removed after 3 months, but account bar may need to remain for 2 years).
There is also the issue of referential integrity; Oracle documentation talks about using partitions for purging data mostly in the context of data warehouses, where tables tend to be hypercubes. Ours is closer to the OLTP end of things, and it is common for data in month X to have relationships to data in month Y. Creating the right partitioning keys for these tables would be ticklish at best.
As for the cache blowouts, I have read a bit about setting up dedicated buffer caches, but it seems like it's more on a per-table basis, as opposed to a per-user or per-transaction basis. To preserve the cache, I'd really like the reaping job to only keep one transaction's worth of data in the cache at any time, since there is no need to keep the data around once deleted.
Are we stuck using deletes for the foreseeable future, or are there other, more clever ways to deal with reaping?
For the most part I think that you're stuck doing deletes.
Your comments on the difficulty of using partitions in your case probably do prevent them being used effectively (different delete dates being used depending on the type of record) but it it possible that you could create a "delete date" column on the records that you could partition on? It would have the disadvantage of making updates quite expensive as a change in the delete date might cause row migration, so your update would really be implemented as a delete and insert.
It could be that even then you cannot use DDL partition operations to remove old data because of the referential integrity issues, but partitioning still might serve the purpose of physically clustering the rows to be deleted so that fewer blocks need to be modified in order to delete them, mitigating the impact on the buffer cache.
Delete's aren't that bad, provided that you rebuild your indexes. Oracle will recover the pages that no longer contain data.
However, as-of 8i (and quite probably still), it would not properly recover index pages that no longer contained valid references. Worse, since the index leaves were chained, you could get into a situation where it would start walking the leaf nodes to find a row. This would cause a rather significant drop in performance: queries that would normally take seconds could take minutes. The drop was also very sudden: one day it would be fine, the next day it wouldn't.
I discovered this behavior (there was an Oracle bug for it, so other people have too) with an application that used increasing keys and regularly deleted data. Our solution was to invert portions of the key, but that's not going to help you with dates.
What if you temporarily deactivate indexes, perform the deletes and then rebuild them? Would it improve the performance of your deletes? Of course, in this case you have to make sure the scripts are correct and ensure proper delete order and referential integrity.
We have the same problem, using the same strategy.
If the situation becomes really bad (very fragmented allocation of indexes, tables, ...), we try to apply space reclamation actions.
Tables have to allow row movement (like for the flashback):
alter table TTT enable row movement;
alter table TTT shrink space;
and then rebuild all indexes.
I don't know how you are with maintenance windows, if the application has to be usable all the time, it is harder, if not, you can do some "repacking" when it is off-line. "alter table TTT move tablespace SSSS" does a lot of work cleaning up the mess as the table is rewritten. You can also specify new storage parameters such as extent management, sizes, ... take a look in the docs.
I use a script like this to create a script for the whole database:
SET SQLPROMPT "-- "
SET ECHO OFF
SET NEWPAGE 0
SET SPACE 0
SET PAGESIZE 0
SET FEEDBACK OFF
SET HEADING OFF
SET TRIMSPOOL ON
SET TERMOUT OFF
SET VERIFY OFF
SET TAB OFF
spool doit.sql
select 'prompt Enabling row movement in '||table_name||'...'||CHR (10)||'alter table '||table_name||' enable row movement;' from user_tables where table_name not like '%$%' and table_name not like '%QTAB' and table_name not like 'SYS_%';
select 'prompt Setting initial ext for '||table_name||'...'||CHR (10)||'alter table '||table_name||' move storage (initial 1m);' from user_tables where table_name not like '%$%' and table_name not like '%QTAB' and table_name not like 'SYS_%';
select 'prompt Shrinking space for '||table_name||'...'||CHR (10)||'alter table '||table_name||' shrink space;' from user_tables where table_name not like '%$%' and table_name not like '%QTAB' and table_name not like 'SYS_%';
select 'prompt Rebuilding index '||index_name||'...'||CHR (10)||'alter index '||index_name||' rebuild;' from user_indexes where status = 'UNUSABLE';
spool off
prompt now check and then run #doit.sql
exit