I have a dataset that has about 1,100,000 rows.
When I load this into my jqGrid, SQL Profiler tells me it takes 29.7 seconds just to return the count of records and then a further 29.8 seconds to return the data to display in the grid.
Please see below the SQL that does the row count against my SQL Server table.
SELECT
[GroupBy1].[A1] AS [C1]
FROM ( SELECT
COUNT(1) AS [A1]
FROM [dbo].[vw_ProductSearch_FULL] AS [Extent1]
) AS [GroupBy1]
Can anyone suggest how to improve the performance of this "count" query that is generated by jqGrid?
We need more information about your database in order to recommend improvements to your query. But as Oleg said, you may not need to query for the count.
As to the data in the grid, you have seen that having ~1 million rows in the grid just does not work well. I suggest you either use Pagination or True Scrolling Rows to only load a small subset of the rows at any given time. This should get your performance back up to an acceptable level.
Related
I am facing a big performance problem when trying to get a list of objects with pagination from an oracle11g database.
As far as I know and as much as I have checked online, the only way to achieve pagination in oracle11g is the following :
Example : [page=1, size=100]
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT pagination.*, rownum r__ FROM
(
select * from "TABLE_NAME" t
inner join X on X.id = t.id
inner join .....
where ......
order
) pagination
WHERE rownum <= 200
)
WHERE r__ > 100
The problem in this query, is that the most inner query fetching data from the table "TABLE_NAME" is returning a huge amount of data and causing the overall query to take 8 seconds (there are around 2 Million records returned after applying the where clause, and it contains 9 or 10 join clause).
The reason of this is that the most inner query is fetching all the data that respects the where clause and then the second query is getting the 200 rows, and the third to exclude the first 100 to get the second pages' data we need.
Isn't there a way to do that in one query, in a way to fetch the second pages' data that we need without having to do all these steps and cause performance issues?
Thank you!!
It depends on your sorting options (order by ...): database needs to sort whole dataset before applying outer where rownum<200 because of your order by clause.
It will fetch only 200 rows if you remove your order by clause. In some cases oracle can avoid sort operations (for example, if oracle can use some indexes to get requested data in the required order). Btw, Oracle uses optimized sorting operations in case of rownum<N predicates: it doesn't sort full dataset, it just gets top N records instead.
You can investigate sort operations deeper using sort trace event: alter session set events '10032 trace name context forever, level 10';
Furthermore, sometimes it's better to use analytic functions like
select *
from (
select
t1.*
,t2.*
,row_number()over([partition by ...] order by ...) rn
from t1
,t2
where ...
)
where rn <=200
and rn>=100
because in some specific cases Oracle can transform your query to push sorting and sort filter predicates to the earliest possible steps.
Toad by default gives only 500 rows. I have a query returning 100,000 rows. How can I determine the elapsed time for the query. When I do ctrl+end to fetch all records it still displays the time taken to fetch first 500 rows only.
One option is to run
select * from your_table order by 1;
as it requires Oracle to fetch all data in order to be able to sort them. Though, you'll get some overhead (because of sorting, of course), but it will still be way faster than CTRL + END option.
Update queries have never been my strong point, I am hoping someone can help me make a more efficient query?
I am trying to update a table with the total sales for a given product, for a given customer.
The table I am looking to update is the sales column of the below 'Estimate' table:
ID Customer Product Estimate Sales
--------------------------------------------
1 A 303 100 20
2 A 425 20 30
3 C 1145 500 250
4 F 801 25 0
The figure I am using to update is taken from the 'Sales' view:
Product Customer Actual
------------------------------
303 A 30
500 C 2
425 A 88
1145 C 700
The query I have written is:
UPDATE estimate e
SET e.sales = (SELECT s.actual FROM sales s
WHERE e.customer = s.customer and e.product = s.product)
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 sales s
WHERE e.customer = s.customer and e.product = s.product)
An added complication is that 'estimates' exists between a range of dates and need to be updated for sales during that period only. My 'sales' view above take care of that, but I have left this out of the example for simplicity sake.
I initially ran the query using test data of only around 20 records and it ran in around 3 /4 seconds. My actual data is 7,000+ records and when I run the query here, my browser times out before I get any results.
I suspect that the query is updating the whole table for every record in the view or vice versa?
Any help much appreciated.
Cheers
Andrew
Try a merge instead:
merge into estimate tgt
using sales src
on (tgt.customer = src.customer and tgt.product = src.product)
when matched then
update tgt.sales = src.actual;
By doing the merge instead of an update, you negate the need to repeat the query in the set clause in the where clause, which ought to speed things up a bit.
Another thing to check is how many indexes do you have on the estimate table that has the src column in it? If you have several, it might be worth reducing the number of indexes. Each index that has to be updated is an overhead when you update the row(s) in the table.
Also, do you have triggers on the estimate table? Those might be slowing things down as well.
Or maybe you're missing an index on the sales table - an index on (customer, product and sales) ought to help, as the query should then be able to avoid going to the table at all since the data it needs from that table would all be in the index.
Another argument you could have is to not do the update at all. If the information is available in the Sales table, why do you need to bother updating the estimate table at all? You could do that as a join when querying the estimate table. Of course, it depends on how often you'd be querying for the estimate vs actual sales information vs how often they'd be updated. If you update frequently and read infrequently, then I'd skip the update and just query the two tables directly.
I have the following query (generated by Entity Framework with standard paging. This is the inner query and I added the TOP 438 part):
SELECT TOP 438 [Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[MemberType] AS [MemberType],
[Extent1].[FullName] AS [FullName],
[Extent1].[Image] AS [Image],
row_number() OVER (ORDER BY [Extent1].[FullName] ASC) AS [row_number]
FROM [dbo].[ShowMembers] AS [Extent1]
WHERE 3 = CAST( [Extent1].[MemberType] AS int)
ShowMembers table has about 11K rows, but only 438 with MemberType == 3. The 'Image' column is of type nvarchar(2000) that holds the URL to the image on a CDN. If I include this column in the query (only in SELECT part), the query chokes up somehow and generates result in a range between 2-30 seconds (it differs in different runs). If I comment out that column, query runs fast as expected. If I include the 'Image' column, but comment out the row_number column, query also runs fast as expected.
Obviously, I've been too liberal with the size of the URL, so I started playing around with the size. I found out that if I set the Image column to nvarchar(884), then the query runs fast as expected. If I set it up to 885 it's slow again.
This is not bound to one column, but to the size of all columns in the SELECT statement. If I just increase the size by one, performance differences are obvious.
I am not a DB expert, so any advice is welcomed.
PS In local SQL Server 2012 Express there are no performance issues.
PPS Running the query with OFFSET 0 ROWS FETCH NEXT 438 ROWS ONLY (without the row_count column of course) is also slow.
Row_number has to sort all the rows to get you things in the order you want. Adding a larger column into the result set implies that it all get sorted and thus is much slower/does more IO. You can see this, btw, if you enable "set statistics io on" and "set statistics time on" in SSMS when debugging problems like this. It will give you some insight into the number of IOs and other operations happening at runtime in the query:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/set-statistics-io-transact-sql?view=sql-server-2017
In terms of what you can do to make this query go faster, I encourage you to think about some things that may change the design of your database schema a bit. First, consider whether you actually need the rows sorted in a specific order at all. If you don't need things in order, it will be cheaper to iterate over them without the row_number (by a measurable amount). So, if you just want to conceptually iterate over each entry once, you can do that by doing an order by something more static that is still monotonic such as the identity column. Second, if you do need to have things in sorted order, then consider whether they are changing frequently/infrequently. If it is infrequent, it may be possible to just compute and persist a column value into each row that has the relative order that you want (and update it each time you modify the table). In this model, you could index the new column and then request things in that order (in the top-level order by in the query - row_number not needed). If you do need things dynamically computed like you are doing and you need things in an exact order all the time, your final option is to move the URL to a second table and join with it after the row_number. This will avoid the sort being "wide" in the computation of row_number.
Best of luck to you
I am trying to execute a query like
select * from tableName where rownum=1
This query is basically to fetch the column names of the table.There are more than million records in the table.When I put the above condition its taking so much time to fetch the first row.Is there any alternate to get the first row.
This question has already been answered, I will just provide an explanation as to why sometimes a filter ROWNUM=1 or ROWNUM <= 1 may result in a long response time.
When encountering a ROWNUM filter (on a single table), the optimizer will produce a FULL SCAN with COUNT STOPKEY. This means that Oracle will start to read rows until it encounters the first N rows (here N=1). A full scan reads blocks from the first extent to the high water mark. Oracle has no way to determine which blocks contain rows and which don't beforehand, all blocks will therefore be read until N rows are found. If the first blocks are empty, it could result in many reads.
Consider the following:
SQL> /* rows will take a lot of space because of the CHAR column */
SQL> create table example (id number, fill char(2000));
Table created
SQL> insert into example
2 select rownum, 'x' from all_objects where rownum <= 100000;
100000 rows inserted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> delete from example where id <= 99000;
99000 rows deleted
SQL> set timing on
SQL> set autotrace traceonly
SQL> select * from example where rownum = 1;
Elapsed: 00:00:05.01
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=7 Card=1 Bytes=2015)
1 0 COUNT (STOPKEY)
2 1 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'EXAMPLE' (TABLE) (Cost=7 Card=1588 [..])
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
33211 consistent gets
25901 physical reads
0 redo size
2237 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
278 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
As you can see the number of consistent gets is extremely high (for a single row). This situation could be encountered in some cases where for example, you insert rows with the /*+APPEND*/ hint (thus above high water mark), and you also delete the oldest rows periodically, resulting in a lot of empty space at the beginning of the segment.
Try this:
select * from tableName where rownum<=1
There are some weird ROWNUM bugs, sometimes changing the query very slightly will fix it. I've seen this happen before, but I can't reproduce it.
Here are some discussions of similar issues: http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/cursor_sharing/ and http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=946740&tstart=1
Surely Oracle has meta-data tables that you can use to get column names, like the sysibm.syscolumns table in DB2?
And, after a quick web search, that appears to be the case: see ALL_TAB_COLUMNS.
I'd use those rather than go to the actual table, something like (untested):
SELECT COLUMN_NAME
FROM ALL_TAB_COLUMNS
WHERE TABLE_NAME = "MYTABLE"
ORDER BY COLUMN_NAME;
If you are hell-bent on finding out why your query is slow, you should revert to the standard method: asking your DBMS to explain the execution plan of the query for you. For Oracle, see section 9 of this document.
There's a conversation over at Ask Tom - Oracle that seems to suggest the row numbers are created after the select phase, which may mean the query is retrieving all rows anyway. The explain will probably help establish that. If it contains FULL without COUNT STOPKEY, then that may explain the performance.
Beyond that, my knowledge of Oracle specifics diminishes and you will have to analyse the explain further.
Your query is doing a full table scan and then returning the first row.
Try
SELECT * FROM table WHERE primary_key = primary_key_value;
The first row, particularly as it pertains to ROWNUM, is arbitrarily decided by Oracle. It may not be the same from query to query, unless you provide an ORDER BY clause.
So, picking a primary key value to filter by is as good a method as any to get a single row.
I think you're slightly missing the concept of ROWNUM - according to Oracle docs: "ROWNUM is a pseudo-column that returns a row's position in a result set. ROWNUM is evaluated AFTER records are selected from the database and BEFORE the execution of ORDER BY clause."
So it returns ANY row that it consideres #1 in the result set which in your case will contain 1M rows.
You may want to check out a ROWID pseudo-column: http://psoug.org/reference/pseudocols.html
I've recently had the same problem you're describing: I want one row from the very large table as a quick, dirty, simple introspection, and "where rownum=1" alone behaves very poorly. Below is a remedy which worked for me.
Select the max() of the first term of some index, and then use it to choose some small fraction of all rows with "rownum=1". Suppose my table has some index on numerical "group-id", and compare this:
select * from my_table where rownum = 1;
-- Elapsed: 00:00:23.69
with this:
select * from my_table where rownum = 1
and group_id = (select max(group_id) from my_table);
-- Elapsed: 00:00:00.01