I am facing problem in loading data. I have to copy 800,000 rows from one table to another in Oracle database.
I tried for 10,000 rows first but the time it took is not satisfactory. I tried using the "BULK COLLECT" and "INSERT INTO SELECT" clause but for both the cases response time is around 35 minutes. This is not the desired response I'm looking for.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Anirban,
Using an "INSERT INTO SELECT" is the fastest way to populate your table. You may want to extend it with one or two of these hints:
APPEND: to use direct path loading, circumventing the buffer cache
PARALLEL: to use parallel processing if your system has multiple cpu's and this is a one-time operation or an operation that takes place at a time when it doesn't matter that one "selfish" process consumes more resources.
Just using the append hint on my laptop copies 800,000 very small rows below 5 seconds:
SQL> create table one_table (id,name)
2 as
3 select level, 'name' || to_char(level)
4 from dual
5 connect by level <= 800000
6 /
Tabel is aangemaakt.
SQL> create table another_table as select * from one_table where 1=0
2 /
Tabel is aangemaakt.
SQL> select count(*) from another_table
2 /
COUNT(*)
----------
0
1 rij is geselecteerd.
SQL> set timing on
SQL> insert /*+ append */ into another_table select * from one_table
2 /
800000 rijen zijn aangemaakt.
Verstreken: 00:00:04.76
You mention that this operation takes 35 minutes in your case. Can you post some more details, so we can see what exactly is taking 35 minutes?
Regards,
Rob.
I would agree with Rob. Insert into () select is the fastest way to do this.
What exactly do you need to do? If you're trying to do a table rename by copying to a new table and then deleting the old, you might be better off doing a table rename:
alter table
table
rename to
someothertable;
INSERT INTO SELECT is the fastest way to do it.
If possible/necessary, disable all indexes on the target table first.
If you have no existing data in the target table, you can also try CREATE AS SELECT.
As with the above, I would recommend the Insert INTO ... AS select .... or CREATE TABLE ... AS SELECT ... as the fastest way to copy a large volume of data between two tables.
You want to look up the direct-load insert in your oracle documentation. This adds two items to your statements: parallel and nologging. Repeat the tests but do the following:
CREATE TABLE Table2 AS SELECT * FROM Table1 where 1=2;
ALTER TABLE Table2 NOLOGGING;
ALTER TABLE TABLE2 PARALLEL (10);
ALTER TABLE TABLE1 PARALLEL (10);
ALTER SESSION ENABLE PARALLEL DML;
INSERT INTO TABLE2 SELECT * FROM Table 1;
COMMIT;
ALTER TABLE 2 LOGGING:
This turns off the rollback logging for inserts into the table. If the system crashes, there's not recovery and you can't do a rollback on the transaction. The PARALLEL uses N worker thread to copy the data in blocks. You'll have to experiment with the number of parallel worker threads to get best results on your system.
Is the table you are copying to the same structure as the other table? Does it have data or are you creating a new one? Can you use exp/imp? Exp can be give a query to limit what it exports and then imported into the db. What is the total size of the table you are copying from? If you are copying most of the data from one table to a second, can you instead copy the full table using exp/imp and then remove the unwanted rows which would be less than copying.
try to drop all indexes/constraints on your destination table and then re-create them after data load.
use /*+NOLOGGING*/ hint in case you use NOARCHIVELOG mode, or consider to do the backup right after the operation.
Related
Probably I ask for the impossible, but I'll ask anyway.
Is there an easy way to select from one Oracle session and then insert/commit into another?
(I guess, technically it could be done with pl/sql procedure calls and PRAGMA AUTONOMUS Transactions, but it would be a hassle)
I have the following scenario:
I run some heavy calculations and update / insert into some tables.
After the process is completed I would like to 'backup' the results
(create table as select or insert into another temp table) and then rollback my current session without loosing the backups.
Here is desired/expected behavior:
Oracle 11g
insert into TableA (A,B,C) values (1,2,3);
select * from TableA
Result: 1,2,3
create table [in another session] TempA
as select * from TableA [in this session];
rollback;
select * from TableA;
Result null
select * from TempA;
Result 1,2,3
Is this possible?
Is there an easy way to select from one Oracle session and then insert/commit into another?
Create a program in a third-party language (C++, Java, PHP, etc.) that opens two connections to the database; they will have different sessions regardless of whether you connect as different users or both the same user. Read from one connection and write to the other connection.
you can insert your "heavy calculation" into a Oracle temp Table .
CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE HeavyCalc (
id NUMBER,
description VARCHAR2(20)
)
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS;
the trick is that when you commit the transaction all rows are deleted from temporary table.
Then you first insert data into the temp table, copy the result to you backup table and commit the transaction.
I am connecting to oracle using an ETL tool.The operation what I am doing is truncating an existing table and inserting records into that table from a different table. This is working fine for 15 to 20 cycles of job run. After that my job got stuck in the portion where its inserting record.Is there anything wrong which I am doing here. Please find the query I am using below.Could some one help on this, from the previous experience.
truncate table TABLE1;
insert into TABLE1 select * from TABLE_SRC where TYPE in('MP','DA')
and ID in(select ID from TABLE_SRC where TYPE in('MP','DA') and FLAG='Y');
commit;
I believe the table is going in lock situation.
Check with dba’s .
Select * from dba_lock ;
Objective
Verify if it is true that insert records without PK/index plus create thme later is faster than insert with PK/Index.
Note
The point here is not about indexing takes more time (it is obvious), but the total cost (Insert without index + create index) is higher than (Insert with index). Because I was taught to insert without index and create index later as it should be faster.
Environment
Windows 7 64 bit on DELL Latitude core i7 2.8GHz 8G memory & SSD HDD
Oracle 11G R2 64 bit
Background
I was taught that insert records without PK/Index and create them after insert would be faster than insert with PK/Index.
However 1 million record inserts with PK/Index was actually faster than creating PK/Index later, approx 4.5 seconds vs 6 seconds, with the experiments below. By increasing the records to 3 million (999000 -> 2999000), the result was the same.
Conditions
The table DDL is below. One bigfile table space for both data and
index.
(Tested a separate index tablespace with the same result & inferior overall perforemace)
Flush the buffer/spool before each run.
Run the experiment 3 times each and made sure the results
were similar.
SQL to flush:
ALTER SYSTEM CHECKPOINT;
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH SHARED_POOL;
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH BUFFER_CACHE;
Question
Would it be actually true that "insert witout PK/Index + PK/Index creation later" is faster than "insert with PK/Index"?
Did I make mistakes or missed some conditions in the experiment?
Insert records with PK/Index
TRUNCATE TABLE TBL2;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 DROP CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 CASCADE;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 ADD CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 PRIMARY KEY(COL1) ;
SET timing ON
INSERT INTO TBL2
SELECT i+j, rpad(TO_CHAR(i+j),100,'A')
FROM (
WITH DATA2(j) AS (
SELECT 0 j FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT j+1000 FROM DATA2 WHERE j < 999000
)
SELECT j FROM DATA2
),
(
WITH DATA1(i) AS (
SELECT 1 i FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT i+1 FROM DATA1 WHERE i < 1000
)
SELECT i FROM DATA1
);
commit;
1,000,000 rows inserted.
Elapsed: 00:00:04.328 <----- Insert records with PK/Index
Insert records without PK/Index and create them after
TRUNCATE TABLE TBL2;
ALTER TABLE &TBL_NAME DROP CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 CASCADE;
SET TIMING ON
INSERT INTO TBL2
SELECT i+j, rpad(TO_CHAR(i+j),100,'A')
FROM (
WITH DATA2(j) AS (
SELECT 0 j FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT j+1000 FROM DATA2 WHERE j < 999000
)
SELECT j FROM DATA2
),
(
WITH DATA1(i) AS (
SELECT 1 i FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT i+1 FROM DATA1 WHERE i < 1000
)
SELECT i FROM DATA1
);
commit;
ALTER TABLE TBL2 ADD CONSTRAINT PK_TBL2_COL1 PRIMARY KEY(COL1) ;
1,000,000 rows inserted.
Elapsed: 00:00:03.454 <---- Insert without PK/Index
table TBL2 altered.
Elapsed: 00:00:02.544 <---- Create PK/Index
Table DDL
CREATE TABLE TBL2 (
"COL1" NUMBER,
"COL2" VARCHAR2(100 BYTE),
CONSTRAINT "PK_TBL2_COL1" PRIMARY KEY ("COL1")
) TABLESPACE "TBS_BIG" ;
The current test case is probably good enough for you to overrule the "best practices". There are too many variables involved to make a blanket statement that "it's always best to leave the indexes enabled". But you're probably close enough to say it's true for your environment.
Below are some considerations for the test case. I've made this a community wiki in the hopes that others will add to the list.
Direct-path inserts. Direct-path writes use different mechanisms and may work completely differently. Direct-path inserts can often be significantly faster than regular inserts, although they have some complicated restrictions (for example, triggers must be disabled) and disadvantages (the data is not immediately backed-up). One particular way it affects this scenario is that NOLOGGING for indexes only applies during index creation. So even if a direct-path insert is used, an enabled index will always generate REDO and UNDO.
Parallelism. Large insert statements often benefit from parallel DML. Usually it's not worth worrying about the performance of bulk loads until it takes more than several seconds, which is when parallelism starts to be useful.
Bitmap indexes are not meant for large DML. Inserts or updates to a table with a bitmap index can lock the whole table and lead to disastrous performance. It might be helpful to limit the test case to b-tree indexes.
Add alter system switch logfile;? Log file switches can sometimes cause performance issues. The tests would be somewhat more consistent if they all started with empty logfiles.
Move data generation logic into a separate step. Hierarchical queries are useful for generating data but they can have their own performance issues. It might be better to create in intermediate table to hold the results, and then only test inserting the intermediate table into the final table.
It's true that it is faster to modify a table if you do not also have to modify one or more indexes and possibly perform constraint checking as well, but it is also largely irrelevant if you then have to add those indexes. You have to consider the complete change to the system that you wish to effect, not just a single part of it.
Obviously if you are adding a single row into a table that already contains millions of rows then it would be foolish to drop and rebuild indexes.
However, even if you have a completely empty table into which you are going to add several million rows it can still be slower to defer the indexing until afterwards.
The reason for this is that such an insert is best performed with the direct path mechanism, and when you use direct path inserts into a table with indexes on it, temporary segments are built that contain the data required to build the indexes (data plus rowids). If those temporary segments are much smaller than the table you have just loaded then they will also be faster to scan and to build the indexes from.
the alternative, if you have five index on the table, is to incur five full table scans after you have loaded it in order to build the indexes.
Obviously there are huge grey areas involved here, but well done for:
Questioning authority and general rules of thumb, and
Running actual tests to determine the facts in your own case.
Edit:
Further considerations -- you run a backup while the indexes are dropped. Now, following an emergency restore, you have to have a script that verifies that all indexes are in place, when you have the business breathing down your neck to get the system back up.
Also, if you absolutely were determined to not maintain indexes during a bulk load, do not drop the indexes -- disable them instead. This preserves the metadata for the indexes existence and definition, and allows a more simple rebuild process. Just be careful that you do not accidentally re-enable indexes by truncating the table, as this will render disabled indexes enabled again.
Oracle has to do more work while inserting data into table having an index. In general, inserting without index is faster than inserting with index.
Think in this way,
Inserting rows in a regular heap-organized table with no particular row order is simple. Find a table block with enough free space, put the rows randomly.
But, when there are indexes on the table, there is much more work to do. Adding new entry for the index is not that simple. It has to traverse the index blocks to find the specific leaf node as the new entry cannot be made into any block. Once the correct leaf node is found, it checks for enough free space and then makes the new entry. If there is not enough space, then it has to split the node and distribute the new entry into old and new node. So, all this work is an overhead and consumes more time overall.
Let's see a small example,
Database version :
SQL> SELECT banner FROM v$version where ROWNUM =1;
BANNER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Database 12c Enterprise Edition Release 12.1.0.1.0 - 64bit Production
OS : Windows 7, 8GB RAM
With Index
SQL> CREATE TABLE t(A NUMBER, CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY (A));
Table created.
SQL> SET timing ON
SQL> INSERT INTO t SELECT LEVEL FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <=1000000;
1000000 rows created.
Elapsed: 00:00:02.26
So, it took 00:00:02.26. Index details:
SQL> column index_name format a10
SQL> column table_name format a10
SQL> column uniqueness format a10
SQL> SELECT index_name, table_name, uniqueness FROM user_indexes WHERE table_name = 'T';
INDEX_NAME TABLE_NAME UNIQUENESS
---------- ---------- ----------
PK_A T UNIQUE
Without Index
SQL> DROP TABLE t PURGE;
Table dropped.
SQL> CREATE TABLE t(A NUMBER);
Table created.
SQL> SET timing ON
SQL> INSERT INTO t SELECT LEVEL FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <=1000000;
1000000 rows created.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.60
So, it took only 00:00:00.60 which is faster compared to 00:00:02.26.
I have a query to delete some records from a table, but take too much time.
The table is use it in a stored procedure to match another table.
Every time that the SP is executed the table is truncated and filled with 2 or 3 millions of records depending of the received parameters.
The table doesn't have any FK or constraints
The query to delete the records that I am using is:
DELETE FROM TABLE1
WHERE (fecha,hora_ini,origen,destino,tipo,valor,rowsm1) IN (
SELECT fecha_t,hora_t,origen_t,destino_t,tipo,valor,id_t
FROM TABLE2)
I try to decrease the time in execute the query creating an index based in the same columns of the query
CREATE INDEX smb1 ON table1 (fecha,hora_ini,origen,destino,tipo,valor,rowsm1);
And the query take more time to execute.
How can improve the performance of this "DELETE" query.
UPDATE
EXPLAIN PLAN OUTPUT
DELETE TABLE1
TABLE ACCESS TABLE1
TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE1
TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE2
TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE2
The index you created looks like a quite big index:
CREATE INDEX smb1
ON table1 (fecha,hora_ini,origen,destino,tipo,valor,rowsm1);
Sure, this depends on the amount of data but generally I would rather look for one or two selective columns - if possible.
Don't forget, that the index data has to be read as well and if it doesn't help to speed up the query, you even loose performance.
This might for instance happen, if the table is very small, because the database reads data block by block (I think it was about 8K). A small table can be read in one step - no need to use an index here.
Or, if more or less all records are selected. In this case the table has to be read anyway.
If you want to speed up the query you should create the same index (with a good selectivity) on table2. This way the EXPLAIN PLAN will look somewhat lie this:
DELETE STATEMENT
DELETE
NESTED LOOPS SEMI
INDEX FULL SCAN
INDEX RANGE SCAN
You can switch off logging and delete the rows,
Here is an example, you can do it 2 ways,
1.) Physically chaning the table to Nologging
2.) Using Nologging hint in the delete statement.
1.) First approach
both testemp and testemp2 are same tables with same data while testemp takes over a minute , testemp2 takes only 1 second
SQL> delete from testemp;
14336 rows deleted.
Elapsed: 00:01:04.12
SQL>
SQL>
SQL> alter table testemp2 nologging;
Table altered.
Elapsed: 00:00:02.86
SQL>
SQL> delete from testemp2;
14336 rows deleted.
Elapsed: 00:00:01.26
SQL>
The table needs to be put back to logging only when we physically change the table using "Alter" command, if you are using as hint not required please see the example below
2.) Second approach
SQL> set timing on;
SQL> delete from testemp2;
14336 rows deleted.
Elapsed: 00:00:01.51
Deleting data after reinserting same data into table now with nologging;
SQL> delete /*+NOLOGGING*/ from testemp2;
14336 rows deleted.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.28
SQL> select logging from user_Tables where table_name='TESTEMP2';
LOG
---
YES
I currently have a Hive table that has 1.5 billion rows. I would like to create a smaller table (using the same table schema) with about 1 million rows from the original table. Ideally, the new rows would be randomly sampled from the original table, but getting the top 1M or bottom 1M of the original table would be ok, too. How would I do this?
As climbage suggested earlier, you could probably best use Hive's built-in sampling methods.
INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE my_table_sample
SELECT * FROM my_table
TABLESAMPLE (1m ROWS) t;
This syntax was introduced in Hive 0.11. If you are running an older version of Hive, you'll be confined to using the PERCENT syntax like so.
INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE my_table_sample
SELECT * FROM my_table
TABLESAMPLE (1 PERCENT) t;
You can change the percentage to match you specific sample size requirements.
You can define a new table with the same schema as your original table.
Then use INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE <tablename> <select statement>
The SELECT statement will need to query your original table, use LIMIT to only get 1M results.
This query will pull out top 1M rows and overwrite them in a new table.
CREATE TABLE new_table_name AS
SELECT col1, col2, col3, ....
FROM original_table
WHERE (if you want to put any condition) limit 100000;