We have a DW query that needs to extract data from a very large table around 10 TB which is partitioned by datetime column lets say time to purge data based on this column everyday. So my understanding is each partition has worth a day of data. From storage (SSMS GUI) tab I see # of partitions is 1995.
There is no clustered index on this table as its mostly intended for write operations. Just a design by vendor.
SELECT
a.*
FROM dbo.VLTB AS a
CROSS APPLY
(
VALUES($PARTITION.a_func(a.time))
) AS c (pid)
WHERE c.pid = 1896;
Currently query submitted is as
SELECT * from dbo.VLTB
WHERE time >= convert(datetime,'20210601',112)
AND time < convert(datetime,'20210602',112)
So replacing inequality predicates with equality to look in that days specific partition might help. Users via app can control dates when sending but how will they manage if we want them to use partition # as per first query
Question
How do I find a way in above query to find partition number for that day rather than me inserting like for 06/01 I had to give 1896 part#. Is there a better way to have script find the part# to avoid all partitions being scanned and can insert correct part# in where clause query?
Thank you
Related
I have the following query that shows total sales for the selected dimensions. Table a does not contain product_name, this is why I've joined data with table b on product_id.
However, table b is too big, and I'd like to optimize it to scan fewer data.
SELECT a.date,
a.hour,
a.category_id,
a.product_id,
b.product_name,
sum(a.sales) AS sales
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b
ON a.product_id = b.product_id
WHERE date(a.date) >= date('2021-01-01')
AND date(B.date) = date('2021-01-01')
GROUP BY 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
What would be your suggestions here?
There are two ways to decrease the amount of data Athena needs to scan for a given query:
Make sure the table is partitioned, and make sure the query makes use of the partitioning.
Store the data as Parquet or ORC.
These two can be used separately or in combination. Best results are achieved with the combination, but sometimes that's not convenient or possible.
Your question doesn't say if the tables are partitioned, but from the query it looks to me like they are not – unless date is a partition key.
date would be an excellent partition key, and if it is, your query is already pretty good. AND date(B.date) = date('2021-01-01') will limit the scan of the table b to a single partition. However, if date is not a partition key then what will happen is that Athena will have to scan the whole table to find rows that match the criteria.
This is where a file format like Parquet and ORC can help; these store the data for each column separately, and also store metadata like the min and max values for each column. If the files for the b table were sorted by date, or at least created over time in such a way that they were mostly sorted by date, Athena would be able to look at the metadata and skip files that can't contain the sought date because it's outside of the range given by the min/max values for that file. Athena would also only have to read the parts of the files for the b table that contained the date column, because that is the only one used in the query.
If you amend your question with a little more information about the table schemas and how the data is stored I can answer in more detail how to optimise. With the available information I can only give general guidance as above.
Make sure b table has indexes on date and product_id, as Stu's comment suggests
Run an Explain Plan (from console) on your SQL to see whether optimizer filters b before joining to a. If it already does so, you're done - step 3 won't help
Replace your From a Left Join b with From a Left Join (Select product_id, product_name from b where date(date) = date('2021-01-01')) b
I am designing a BigQuery table, which is a never expiring table.
It is more of a table where the row is stored based on a Product ID.
There could be daily inserts and same Product ID could be inserted again (like maintaining a historical data).
There will be a VIEW written on this table which reads the latest version of Product ID based on the last inserted timestamp.
SELECT ARRAY_AGG(PRODUCTS ORDER BY INSERT_TIMESTAMP DESC LIMIT 2)[OFFSET(0)] from dataset1.PRODUCTS
group by PRODUCTID
Will Partitioning this table based on INSERT_TIMESTAMP do any help? I don't think so. Please confirm.
The query that you have provided won't receive any benefit from partitioning. To reduce the cost of the query and runtime, you should add a filter (if possible) to restrict INSERT_TIMESTAMP to a specific period of time, such as the last seven days.
It depends on how you are preferring to use the table. If the data doesn't grow exponentially then you can follow the same structure you are currently using. If you think the persisting data will grow humongous in future, then partitioning the table & querying within the specified time range is a good way to plan. You may also create a daily/weekly/monthly (upto you) materialized view that maintains the latest aggregate date of all product id so that you can combine your materialized view & arr_agg query with the definitive range of insert_timestamp for all product ids
SELECT
ARRAY_AGG(PRODUCTS
ORDER BY
INSERT_TIMESTAMP DESC
LIMIT
2)[OFFSET(0)]
FROM
dataset1.PRODUCTS
WHERE
INSERT_TIMESTAMP >= `Last X Months Timestamp`
GROUP BY
PRODUCTID
I try to understand if there is a difference in big query (in the cost or possibility of requesting for example) between :
Create one table per day (like my_table_2018_02_06)
Create a time partitioned table (my-table with time partition by day).
Thanks !
Short explanation: querying multiple tables using Wildcard Tables was the proposed alternative for when BigQuery did not have a partition mechanism available. The natural evolution was to include the feature of Partitioned Table, and currently there is an alpha release consisting in column-based time partitioning, i.e. letting the user define which column (having a DATE or TIMESTAMP data type) will be used for the partitioning.
So currently BigQuery engineers are working in adding more new features to table partitioning, instead of the legacy Wildcard Tables methodology, then I'd suggest that you work with them.
Long explanation: you are comparing two approaches that in fact are used with the same purpose, but which have different implications:
Wildcard Tables: some time ago, when table partitioning was not a feature supported by Big Query, Wildcard Tables was the way to query multiple tables using concise SQL queries. A Wildcard Table represents the union of all the tables that match the wildcard expression specified in the SQL statement. However, Wildcard Tables have some limitations, such as:
Do not support views.
Do not support cached results (queries containing wildcard tables are billed every time they are run, even if the "cached results" option is checked).
Only work with native BigQuery storage (cannot work with external tables [Bigtable, Storage or Drive]).
Only available in standard SQL.
Partitioned Tables: these are unique tables that are divided into segments, split by date. There is a lot of documentation regarding how to work with Partitioned Tables, and regarding the pricing, each partition in a Partitioned Table is considered an independent entity, so if a partition was not updated for the last 90 days, this data will be considered long-term and therefore will be billed with the appropriate discount (as would happen with a normal table). Finally, Partitioned Tables are here to stay, so there are more incoming features to them, such as column-based partitioning, which is currently in alpha, and you can follow its status in this Public Issue Tracker post. On the other hand, there are also some current limitations to be considered:
Maximum of 2500 partitions per Partitioned Table.
Maximum of 2000 partition updates per table per day.
Maximum of 50 partition updates every 10 seconds.
So in general, it would be advisable to work with Partitioned Tables over multiple tables using Wildcard Tables. However, you should always consider your use case and see which one of the possibilities meets your requirements better.
One thing to add to your decision criteria here is caching and usage of legacy vs standard SQL.
Since the syntax in standard SQL for selecting multiple tables uses a wild card there is no way for the query result to be cached.
Interestingly, the query result would have been cached if legacy SQL was used. Just converting the query to standard SQL would disable caching.
This may be important to consider, at least in some cases more than others.
Thank you,
Hazem
Not exactly a time partition, but one can benefit from both worlds - wildcard "partitions" and real partitions to slice the data even further. Below is an example where we first use the data suffix to select only table holding data from that particular date, then we use actual partitioning within the table to limit the amount of data scanned even further.
Create first partitioned table with data suffix
CREATE TABLE `test_2021-01-05` (x INT64, y INT64)
PARTITION BY RANGE_BUCKET(y, GENERATE_ARRAY(0, 500, 1));
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,1);
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,2);
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,3);
Create second partitioned table with data suffix
CREATE TABLE `test_2021-01-04` (x INT64, y INT64)
PARTITION BY RANGE_BUCKET(y, GENERATE_ARRAY(0, 500, 1));
insert `test_2021-01-04` (x,y) values (4,1);
insert `test_2021-01-04` (x,y) values (4,2);
Select all the data from both tables using wildcard notation, 80B of data is the whole test set
select * from `test_*`
-- 80B, all the data
Just select data from one table, which is like partitioning on date
select * from `test_*`
where _TABLE_SUFFIX = "2021-01-05"
-- 48B
Select data both from one table(where I am interested in one date) and only from one partition
select * from `test_*`
where _TABLE_SUFFIX = "2021-01-05"
and y = 1
-- 16B, that was the goal
Select data just from one partition from all the tables
select * from `test_*`
where y = 1
-- 32B, only one partition from both tables
The ultimate goal was to limit the data scanned when reading, thus reducing the cost and increasing performance.
I try to understand if there is a difference in big query (in the cost or possibility of requesting for example) between :
Create one table per day (like my_table_2018_02_06)
Create a time partitioned table (my-table with time partition by day).
Thanks !
Short explanation: querying multiple tables using Wildcard Tables was the proposed alternative for when BigQuery did not have a partition mechanism available. The natural evolution was to include the feature of Partitioned Table, and currently there is an alpha release consisting in column-based time partitioning, i.e. letting the user define which column (having a DATE or TIMESTAMP data type) will be used for the partitioning.
So currently BigQuery engineers are working in adding more new features to table partitioning, instead of the legacy Wildcard Tables methodology, then I'd suggest that you work with them.
Long explanation: you are comparing two approaches that in fact are used with the same purpose, but which have different implications:
Wildcard Tables: some time ago, when table partitioning was not a feature supported by Big Query, Wildcard Tables was the way to query multiple tables using concise SQL queries. A Wildcard Table represents the union of all the tables that match the wildcard expression specified in the SQL statement. However, Wildcard Tables have some limitations, such as:
Do not support views.
Do not support cached results (queries containing wildcard tables are billed every time they are run, even if the "cached results" option is checked).
Only work with native BigQuery storage (cannot work with external tables [Bigtable, Storage or Drive]).
Only available in standard SQL.
Partitioned Tables: these are unique tables that are divided into segments, split by date. There is a lot of documentation regarding how to work with Partitioned Tables, and regarding the pricing, each partition in a Partitioned Table is considered an independent entity, so if a partition was not updated for the last 90 days, this data will be considered long-term and therefore will be billed with the appropriate discount (as would happen with a normal table). Finally, Partitioned Tables are here to stay, so there are more incoming features to them, such as column-based partitioning, which is currently in alpha, and you can follow its status in this Public Issue Tracker post. On the other hand, there are also some current limitations to be considered:
Maximum of 2500 partitions per Partitioned Table.
Maximum of 2000 partition updates per table per day.
Maximum of 50 partition updates every 10 seconds.
So in general, it would be advisable to work with Partitioned Tables over multiple tables using Wildcard Tables. However, you should always consider your use case and see which one of the possibilities meets your requirements better.
One thing to add to your decision criteria here is caching and usage of legacy vs standard SQL.
Since the syntax in standard SQL for selecting multiple tables uses a wild card there is no way for the query result to be cached.
Interestingly, the query result would have been cached if legacy SQL was used. Just converting the query to standard SQL would disable caching.
This may be important to consider, at least in some cases more than others.
Thank you,
Hazem
Not exactly a time partition, but one can benefit from both worlds - wildcard "partitions" and real partitions to slice the data even further. Below is an example where we first use the data suffix to select only table holding data from that particular date, then we use actual partitioning within the table to limit the amount of data scanned even further.
Create first partitioned table with data suffix
CREATE TABLE `test_2021-01-05` (x INT64, y INT64)
PARTITION BY RANGE_BUCKET(y, GENERATE_ARRAY(0, 500, 1));
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,1);
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,2);
insert `test_2021-01-05` (x,y) values (5,3);
Create second partitioned table with data suffix
CREATE TABLE `test_2021-01-04` (x INT64, y INT64)
PARTITION BY RANGE_BUCKET(y, GENERATE_ARRAY(0, 500, 1));
insert `test_2021-01-04` (x,y) values (4,1);
insert `test_2021-01-04` (x,y) values (4,2);
Select all the data from both tables using wildcard notation, 80B of data is the whole test set
select * from `test_*`
-- 80B, all the data
Just select data from one table, which is like partitioning on date
select * from `test_*`
where _TABLE_SUFFIX = "2021-01-05"
-- 48B
Select data both from one table(where I am interested in one date) and only from one partition
select * from `test_*`
where _TABLE_SUFFIX = "2021-01-05"
and y = 1
-- 16B, that was the goal
Select data just from one partition from all the tables
select * from `test_*`
where y = 1
-- 32B, only one partition from both tables
The ultimate goal was to limit the data scanned when reading, thus reducing the cost and increasing performance.
We have a 6B row table that is giving us challenges when retrieving data.
Our query returns values instantly when doing a...
SELECT * WHERE Event_Code = 102225120
That type of instant result is exactly what we need. We now want to filter to receive values for just a particular year - but the moment we add...
AND EXTRACT(YEAR FROM PERFORMED_DATE_TIME) = 2017
...the query takes over 10 minutes to begin returning any values.
Another SO post mentions that indexes don't necessarily help date queries when pulling many rows as opposed to an individual row. There are other approaches like using TRUNC, or BETWEEN, or specifying the datetime in YYYY-MM-DD format for doing comparisons.
Of note, we do not have the option to add indexes to the database as it is a vendor's database.
What is the way to add a date filtering query and enable Oracle to begin streaming the results back in the fastest way possible?
Another SO post mentions that indexes don't necessarily help date queries when pulling many rows as opposed to an individual row
That question is quite different from yours. Firstly, your statement above applies to any data type, not only dates. Also the word many is relative to the number of records in the table. If the optimizer decides that the query will return many of all records in your table, then it may decide that a full scan of the table is faster than using the index. In your situation, this translates to how many records are in 2017 out of all records in the table? This calculation gives you the cardinality of your query which then gives you an idea if an index will be faster or not.
Now, if you decide that an index will be faster, based on the above, the next step is to know how to build your index. In order for the optimizer to use the index, it must match the condition that you're using. You are not comparing dates in your query, you are only comparing the year part. So an index on the date column will not be used by this query. You need to create an index on the year part, so use the same condition to create the index.
we do not have the option to add indexes to the database as it is a vendor's database.
If you cannot modify the database, there is no way to optimize your query. You need to talk to the vendor and get access to modify the database or ask them to add the index for you.
A function can also cause slowness for the number of records involved. Not sure if Function Based Index can help you for this, but you can try.
Had you tried to add a year column in the table? If not, try to add a year column and update it using code below.
UPDATE table
SET year = EXTRACT(YEAR FROM PERFORMED_DATE_TIME);
This will take time though.
But after this, you can run the query below.
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE Event_Code = 102225120 AND year = 2017;
Also, try considering Table Partitioned for this big data. For starters, see link below,
link: https://oracle-base.com/articles/8i/partitioned-tables-and-indexes
Your question is a bit ambiguous IMHO:
but the moment we add...
AND EXTRACT(YEAR FROM PERFORMED_DATE_TIME) = 2017
...the query takes over 10 minutes to begin returning any values.
Do you mean that
SELECT * WHERE Event_Code = 102225120
is fast, but
SELECT * WHERE Event_Code = 102225120 AND EXTRACT(YEAR FROM PERFORMED_DATE_TIME) = 2017
is slow???
For starters I'll agree with Mitch Wheat that you should try to use PERFORMED_DATE_TIME between Jan 1, 2017 and Dec 31, 2017 instead of Year(field) = 2017. Even if you'd have an index on the field, the latter would hardly be able to make use of it while the first method would benefit enormously.
I'm also hoping you want to be more specific than just 'give me all of 2017' because returning over 1B rows is NEVER going to be fast.
Next, if you can't make changes to the database, would you be able to maintain a 'shadow' in another database? This would require that you create a table with all date-values AND the PK of the original table in another database and query those to find the relevant PK values and then JOIN those back to your original table to find whatever you need. The biggest problem with this would be that you need to keep the shadow in sync with the original table. If you know the original table only changes overnight, you could merge the changes in the morning and query all day. If the application is 'real-time(ish)' then this probably won't work without some clever thinking... And yes, your initial load of 6B values will be rather heavy =)
May this could be usefull (because you avoid functions (a cause for context switching) and if you have an index on your date field, it could be used) :
with
dt as
(
select
to_date('01/01/2017', 'DD/MM/YYYY') as d1,
to_date('31/01/2017', 'DD/MM/YYYY') as d2
from dual
),
dates as
(
select
dt.d1 + rownum -1 as d
from dt
connect by dt.d1 + rownum -1 <= dt.d2
)
select *
from your_table, dates
where dates.d = PERFORMED_DATE_TIME
Move the date literal to RHS:
AND PERFORMED_DATE_TIME >= date '2017-01-01'
AND PERFORMED_DATE_TIME < date '2018-01-01'
But without an (undisclosed) appropriate index on PERFORMED_DATE_TIME, the query is unlikely to be any faster.
One option to create indexes in third party databases is to script in the index and then before any vendor upgrade run a script to remove any indexes you've added. If the index is important, ask the vendor to add it to their database design.