Im looking for the best solution (performance wise) to achieve this.
I have to insert records into a table, avoiding duplicates.
For example, take table A
Insert into A (
Select DISTINCT [FIELDS] from B,C,D..
WHERE (JOIN CONDITIONS ON B,C,D..)
AND
NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT * FROM A ATMP WHERE
ATMP.SOMEKEY = A.SOMEKEY
)
);
I have an index over A.SOMEKEY, just to optimize the NOT EXISTS query, but i realize that inserting on an indexed table will be a performance hit.
So I was thinking of duplicating Table A in a Global Temporary Table, where I would keep the index. Then, removing the index from Table A and executing the query, but modified
Insert into A (
Select DISTINCT [FIELDS] from B,C,D..
WHERE (JOIN CONDITIONS ON B,C,D..)
AND
NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT * FROM GLOBAL_TEMPORARY_TABLE_A ATMP WHERE
ATMP.SOMEKEY = A.SOMEKEY
)
);
This would solve the "inserting on an index table", but I would have to update the Global Temporary A with each insertion I make.
I'm kind of lost here,
Is there a better way to achieve this?
Thanks in advance,
if the column A.SOMEKEY is declared NOT NULL and if you insert a large amound of data, a NOT IN clause might be more efficient than your NOT EXISTS since it will be able to use a HASH ANTI-JOIN.
INSERT INTO A
(SELECT DISTINCT FIELDS
FROM B, C, D ..
WHERE (JOIN CONDITIONS ON B, C, D..)
AND [B].SOMEKEY NOT IN (SELECT SOMEKEY FROM A)
AND [B].SOMEKEY IS NOT NULL;
HASH ANTI-JOINS are brutally efficient with large data sets.
I don't think the temporary table is a good idea in that case because you will be in one of these two cases:
the temporary table is indexed on SOMEKEY, your point about inserting into an indexed table being therefore moot
the temporary table is unindexed and your anti-join will be inefficient
Which method is the most efficient will probably depends upon the volume of data.
How about having the index on the table A.
create table b (same structure as table a) with NOLOGGING
Insert /*+APPEND */ into b (
Select DISTINCT [FIELDS] from B,C,D..
WHERE (JOIN CONDITIONS ON B,C,D..)
AND
NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT * FROM A ATMP WHERE
ATMP.SOMEKEY = A.SOMEKEY
)
);
Then drop the index on A and INSERT INTO A SELECT * FROM B
You could make B a global temporary table, but make sure that the data is persistent for the session as dropping the index will implictly commit.
Related
I have a table with a columns 'A' and 'B'.
'A' is a column with 90% 'null' and 10% different values , and most of the time I query to have record with one or two of these different values.
and 'B' is a column with 90% value='1' and 10% different values and most of the time I query to have record with one or two of these different values.
In this table we have DML transaction most of the time.
now , I don't know define index on these columns is good? if yes which type of index?
In principle Bitmap Index would be the best in such situation. However, due to mulit-user environment they are not suitable - you would slow down your application significantly by table locks and perhaps get even dead-locks.
Maybe you can optimize your application by smart partitioning and usage of Partial Indexes (new feature in Oracle 12c)
CREATE TABLE statements below should be equivalent.
CREATE TABLE YOUR_TABLE (a INTEGER, b INTEGER, ... more COLUMNS)
PARTITION BY LIST (a) SUBPARTITION BY LIST (b) (
PARTITION part_a_NULL VALUES (NULL) (
SUBPARTITION part_a_NULL_b_1 VALUES (1) INDEXING OFF,
SUBPARTITION part_a_NULL_b_other VALUES (DEFAULT) INDEXING ON
),
PARTITION part_a_others VALUES (DEFAULT) (
SUBPARTITION part_a_others_b_1 VALUES (1) INDEXING OFF,
SUBPARTITION part_a_others_b_other VALUES (DEFAULT) INDEXING ON
)
);
CREATE TABLE YOUR_TABLE (a INTEGER, b INTEGER, ... more COLUMNS)
PARTITION BY LIST (a) SUBPARTITION BY LIST (b)
SUBPARTITION TEMPLATE (
SUBPARTITION b_1 VALUES (1) INDEXING OFF,
SUBPARTITION b_other VALUES (DEFAULT) INDEXING ON
)
(
PARTITION part_a_NULL VALUES (NULL),
PARTITION part_a_others VALUES (DEFAULT)
);
CREATE INDEX IND_A ON YOUR_TABLE (A) LOCAL INDEXING PARTIAL;
CREATE INDEX IND_B ON YOUR_TABLE (B) LOCAL INDEXING PARTIAL;
By this your index will consume only 10% of entire tablespace. If your WHERE condition is WHERE A IS NULL or WHERE B = 1 then Oracle optimizer would skip such indexes anyway.
Verify with this query
SELECT table_name, partition_name, subpartition_name, indexing
FROM USER_TAB_SUBPARTITIONS
WHERE table_name = 'YOUR_TABLE';
if INDEXING is used on desired subpartitions.
Update
I just see actually this is an overkill because NULL values on column A do not create any index entry anyway. So, it can be simplified to
CREATE TABLE YOUR_TABLE (a INTEGER, b INTEGER, ... more COLUMNS)
PARTITION BY LIST (b) (
PARTITION part_b_1 VALUES (1) INDEXING OFF,
PARTITION part_b_other VALUES (DEFAULT) INDEXING ON
);
For example, if you have index a_b_idx on A, B (in that order):
a) select ... from ... where A = ... will use index
b) select ... from ... where B = ... will not use index
On the other side, if you have index b_a_idx on B, A:
a) select ... from ... where A = ... will not use index
b) select ... from ... where B = ... will use index
Oracle can't use second column in index if it doesn't filter on first column, since in regular cases index is tree-like structure: column1->column2->column3->etc.
You need index on column A only or on columns A, B if you do queries like a).
You need index on column B only or on columns B, A if you do queries like b).
Oracle doesn't store all-null values in index, but it can store null value for A if B contains non-null value.
Sometimes it's more fruitful to read whole table into memory and ignore index. Optimizer can do it if possible result set is big and it goes for all records, since index-to-record transition costs more than simple records read.
Also sometimes it happens erroneously for tables without statistics, so you either need jobs with alter table ... compute statistics or oracle 11+ that can compute statistics like this without jobs.
Most of the times, another index is good thing for queries, but bad thing for updates/disk. Each index takes disk space and each update of record(s) makes updates to every index. So for heavily updated tables it's not good to have many indexes, but for frequently queried tables it's better to have indexes covering all common cases.
For most flat queries (without joins/subqueries/hierarchy) only 1 index is used, so having indexes for each column is generally just a waste of disk space. You need multicolumn index to optimize where A=... and B=...
As for index type, you probably need simple non-unique indexes.
Column A
Let assume that you create an index named _columnA_index_. In general, indexes in RDBMS would not include NULL values, which means there is no index entries in _columnA_index_ pointing to records having NULL values. Thus, the following query
Q1: select * from MyTable where A is null;
will result in a table scan instead ( or DBMS opts to use another index on another column if any)
However, since there is 10% of records having 'different values', the _columnA_index_ will of course help for queries, for example.
Q2: select * from MyTable where A = '123';
In the above example, if the query returns < 1% of the records, the _columnA_index_ is helpful. Depending on how selective the query is, the index greatly improves the performance. You can create an index that is suitable for datatype of column A.
Column B
Similarly, an index on B will not help
Q3: select * from MyTable where B = 1;
but it will help with different values
Q4: select * from MyTable where B = '456';
NULL values
So far, I answered that any index does not help with NULL values. Therefore, if you need to query Q1 most of the time, I suggest the following ideas
Make sure that your version of DBMS does support NULL values be included in indexes. For example Oracle 11g does but not versions before that.
Plan to create function-based index here, again with Oracle. But you can take the idea at least.
Redesign the logic of your application / your need to do querying on Null values. I prefer this approach.
Wanted to optimize a query with the minus that it takes too much time ... if they can give thanked help.
I have two tables A and B,
Table A: ID, value
Table B: ID
I want all of Table A records that are not in Table B. Showing the value.
For it was something like:
Select ID, value
FROM A
WHERE value> 70
MINUS
Select ID
FROM B;
Only this query is taking too long ... any tips how best this simple query?
Thank you for attention
Are ID and Value indexed?
The performance of Minus and Not Exists depend:
It really depends on a bunch of factors.
A MINUS will do a full table scan on both tables unless there is some
criteria in the where clause of both queries that allows an index
range scan. A MINUS also requires that both queries have the same
number of columns, and that each column has the same data type as the
corresponding column in the other query (or one convertible to the
same type). A MINUS will return all rows from the first query where
there is not an exact match column for column with the second query. A
MINUS also requires an implicit sort of both queries
NOT EXISTS will read the sub-query once for each row in the outer
query. If the correlation field (you are running a correlated
sub-query?) is an indexed field, then only an index scan is done.
The choice of which construct to use depends on the type of data you
want to return, and also the relative sizes of the two tables/queries.
If the outer table is small relative to the inner one, and the inner
table is indexed (preferrable a unique index but not required) on the
correlation field, then NOT EXISTS will probably be faster since the
index lookup will be pretty fast, and only executed a relatively few
times. If both tables a roughly the same size, then MINUS might be
faster, particularly if you can live with only seeing fields that you
are comparing on.
Minus operator versus 'not exists' for faster SQL query - Oracle Community Forums
You could use NOT EXISTS like so:
SELECT a.ID, a.Value
From a
where a.value > 70
and not exists(
Select b.ID
From B
Where b.ID = a.ID)
EDIT: I've produced some dummy data and two datasets for testing to prove the performance increases of indexing. Note: I did this in MySQL since I don't have Oracle on my Macbook.
Table A has 2600 records with 2 columns: ID, val.
ID is an autoincrement integer
Val varchar(255)
Table b has one column, but more records than Table A. Autoincrement (in gaps of 3)
You can reproduce this if you wish: Pastebin - SQL Dummy Data
Here is the query I will be using:
select a.id, a.val from tablea a
where length(a.val) > 3
and not exists(
select b.id from tableb b where b.id = a.id
);
Without Indexes, the runtime is 986ms with 1685 rows.
Now we add the indexes:
ALTER TABLE `tablea` ADD INDEX `id` (`id`);
ALTER TABLE `tableb` ADD INDEX `id` (`id`);
With Indexes, the runtime is 14ms with 1685 rows. That's 1.42% the time it took without indexes!
I've done some search but I prefer something like an hint or similar
http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_tips_null_idx.htm
http://www.oracloid.com/2006/05/using-index-for-is-null/
What about a functional index using NVL2, like;
CREATE TABLE foo (bar INTEGER);
INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
INSERT INTO foo VALUES (NULL);
CREATE INDEX baz ON foo (NVL2(bar,0,1));
and then;
DELETE plan_table;
EXPLAIN PLAN FOR SELECT * FROM foo WHERE NVL2(bar,0,1) = 1;
SELECT operation, object_name FROM plan_table;
should give you
OPERATION OBJECT_NAME
---------------- -----------
SELECT STATEMENT
TABLE ACCESS FOO
INDEX BAZ << yep
If you're asking, "How can I create an index that would allow it to be used when searching for NULL values on a particular field", my suggestion is to create an index on the field you're interested in PLUS the primary key field(s). Thus, if you've got a table called A_TABLE, with field VAL that you want to search for NULLs, and a primary key named PK, I'd create an index on (VAL, PK).
Share and enjoy.
I'm going to "answer" the non-question above.
The articles you link to are kinda right - Oracle's b-tree indexes will not capture when the leaf nodes are null. Take this example:
CREATE TABLE MYTABLE (
ID NUMBER(8) NOT NULL,
DAT VARCHAR2(100)
);
CREATE INDEX MYTABLE_IDX_1 ON MYTABLE (DAT);
/* Perform inserts into MYTABLE where some DAT are null */
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM MYTABLE WHERE DAT IS NULL;
The ending SELECT will not be able to use the index, because the leafs (right-most column) will not capture the nulls. Burleson's solution is stupid, because now you have to use a NVL in all your queries and have compromised the data in the tables. Gorbachev's method includes a known NOT NULL column for the leaves of the b-tree, but this expands the index for no reason. Maybe in his case the index made sense that way for tuning other queries, but if all you want to do is find the NULLs then the easiest solution is to make the leaf a constant.
CREATE INDEX MYTABLE_IDX_1 ON MYTABLE (DAT, 1);
Now, the leaves are all the constant (1), and by default the nulls will all be together (either at the top or bottom of the index, but it doesn't really matter as Oracle can use the index forwards or backwards). There is a slight storage penalty for that constant, but a single number is smaller than most other data fields in a typical table. Now the database can use the index when querying for nulls...if the optimizer finds that the best way to get the data.
I have a hierarchical table on Oracle pl/sql. something like:
create table hierarchical (
id integer primary key,
parent_id references hierarchical ,
name varchar(100));
I need to create a procedure to alter that table so I get a new field that tells, for each node, if it has any children or not.
Is it possible to do the alter and the update in one single procedure?
Any code samples would be much appreciated.
Thanks
You can not do the ALTER TABLE (DDL) and the UPDATE (DML) in a single step.
You will have to do the ALTER TABLE, followed by the UPDATE.
BEGIN
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER TABLE hierarchical ADD child_count INTEGER';
--
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE '
UPDATE hierarchical h
SET child_count = ( SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM hierarchical h2
WHERE h2.parent_id = h.id )';
END;
Think twice before doing this though. You can easily find out now if an id has any childs with a query.
This one would give you the child-count of all top-nodes for example:
SELECT h.id, h.name, COUNT(childs.id) child_count
FROM hierarchical h
LEFT JOIN hierarchical childs ON ( childs.parent_id = h.id )
WHERE h.parent_id IS NULL
GROUP BY h.id, h.name
Adding an extra column with redundant data will make changing your data more difficult, as you will always have to update the parent too, when adding/removing childs.
If you just need to know whether children exist, the following query can do it without the loop or the denormalized column.
select h.*, connect_by_isleaf as No_children_exist
from hierarchical h
start with parent_id is null
connect by prior id = parent_id;
CONNECT_BY_LEAF returns 0 if the row has children, 1 if it does not.
I think you could probably get the exact number of children through a clever use of analytic functions and the LEVEL pseudo-column, but I'm not sure.
If I set a primary key in multiple columns in Oracle, do I also need to create the indexes if I need them?
I believe that when you set a primary key on one column, you have it indexed by it; is it the same with multiple column PKs?
Thanks
No, indexes will not be created for the individual fields.
If you have a composit key FieldA, FieldB, FieldC and you
select * from MyTable where FieldA = :a
or
select * from MyTable where FieldA = :a and FieldB = :b
Then it will use this index (because it they are the first two fields in the key)
If you have
select * from MyTable where FieldB = :b and FieldC = :c
Where you are using parts of the index, but not the full index, the index will be used less efficiently through an index skip scan, full index scan, or fast full index scan.
(Thanks to David Aldridge for the correction)
If you create a primary key on columns (A, B, C) then Oracle will by default create a unique index on (A, B. C). You can tell Oracle to use a different (not necessarily unique) existing index like this:
alter table mytable add constraint mytable_pk
primary key (a, b, c)
using index mytable_index;
You will get one index across multiple columns, which is not the same as having an index on each column.
Primary key implies creating a composite unique index on primary key columns.
You can use a special access path called INDEX SKIP SCAN to use this index with predicates that do not include the first indexed column:
SQL> CREATE TABLE t_multiple (mul_first INTEGER NOT NULL, mul_second INTEGER NOT NULL, mul_data VARCHAR2(200))
2 /
Table created
SQL> ALTER TABLE t_multiple ADD CONSTRAINT pk_mul_first_second PRIMARY KEY (mul_first, mul_second)
2 /
Table altered
SELECT /*+ INDEX_SS (m pk_mul_first_second) */
*
FROM t_multiple m
WHERE mul_second = :test
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = ALL_ROWS
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SCOTT T_MULTIPLE
INDEX SKIP SCAN SCOTT PK_MUL_FIRST_SECOND
A primary key is only one (unique) index, possibly containing multiple columns
For B select index will be used if column a have low cardinality only (e.g. a have only 2 values).
In general you could have guessed this answer if you imagined that columns not indexed separately, but indexed concatenation of columns (it's not completely true, but it works for first approximation).
So it's not a, b index it's more like a||b index.
You may need to set individual indexes on the columns depending on your primary key structure.
Composite primary keys and indexes will create indexes in the following manner. Say i have columns A, B, C and i a create the primary key on (A, B, C). This will result in the indexes
(A, B, C)
(A, B)
(A)
Oracle actually creates an index on any of the left most column groupings. So... If you want an index on just the column B you will have to create one for it as well as the primary key.
P.S. I know MySQL exibits this left most behaviour and i think SQL Server is also left most
In Oracle, that's not an accurate statement. It creates only 1 index on (A,B,C). Does not create (A,B) and (A) indexes.