I have a qustion regarding an sql insert. The problem is that if you have a big table with a lot of indexes and a lot of inserts then the inserting of the data is slow. Is it a good approach if I have table A without any indexes and table B with indexes (A and B have the exact same scheme - they are equal) and if I insert everything in table A first and a separate service will work on background and will move all the data to table B where it will be indexed?
Using a staging table like this is not inconceivable. In fact, operational data stores essentially do this.
However, such database structures are usually used for storing incoming data close to the "transactional" format. The final load into history involves more than just building indexes.
Before going down that path, you need to investigate why inserts are so slow and what is the volume of inserts. Can you replace some of the inserts with bulk inserts? Reducing the number of transactions can improve performance. Are all the indexes needed? Do you have the optimal data model for your problem?
Related
I have a heap table in which I have a column known as BatchId. I am inserting on it using SqlbulkCopy (with tablock and batch size of 50k) and performance is very decent. I am usually inserting for a whole batch of around 1 M rows with same batchId. I need to create an index on batchId for "selects" but I don't want to compromise my insert performance. What is the recommended approach here (clustered index/ non clustered index/ partitioning on batchId or something else), does this help that during one insert I have all the rows with same batchId?
Possible ideas would include
Creating suitable index(es) only at times when necessary and dropping for bulkload performance
Checking log file and data files are sized in advance to avoid file growth
Split data file into multiple physical files to utilise asynchronous writes to separate volumes
Partition the table, depending on data use case
Implement change tracking / CDC, retain fast inserts and syphon data off asynchronously using built in reliable methods to make data available separately for querying.
Performance-wise, does a clustered index help or not when bulk inserting hundreds of millions of rows in a table?
LE: after the INSERTs I have to put the database into production so I will have to create the one or more indexes.
A clustered index specifies that the data is ordered on the data pages.
When you are inserting data, the new data has to be sorted and compared to existing values. This is going to incur overhead.
The one exception is when you have an identity column -- that is being generated during the insert. Then the database knows that the new data goes "at the end" of the table.
Indexes are meant for speeding up retrieval (SELECT) of rows. They only have anti-effect with respect to INSERT or DELETE or UPDATE. And, in your case, if INSERT is the predominant operation to be performed in your system, don't go for indexes at all. Even in your Production system, assess the ratio between retrieval operations and insert/update operations and if it turns out to be that the retrieval operation is going to be dominant, then you can think of indexes.
Note: Whenever we define a Primary Key on a table, a basic index structure is already created for that table. So, without any specific need for retrieval optimization, there is no actual need to design and implement indexes.
You can know more here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/sql-indexes/
I have got tables which has got more than 70 million records in it; what I just found that developers were dropping indexes before bulk insert and then creating again after the bulk insert is over. Execution time for the stored procedure is nearly 30 mins (do drop index, do bulk insert, then recreate index from scratch
Advice: Is this a good practice to drop INDEXs from table which has more than 70+ millions records and increasing by 3-4 million everyday.
Would it be help to improve performance by not dropping index before bulk insert ?
What is the best practice to be followed while doing BULK insert in BIG TABLE.
Thanks and Regards
Like everything in SQL Server, "It Depends"
There is overhead in maintaining indexes during the insert and there is overhead in rebuilding the indexes after the insert. The only way to definitively determine which method incurs less overhead is to try them both and benchmark them.
If I were a betting man I would put my wager that leaving the indexes in place would edge out the full rebuild but I don't have the full picture to make an educated guess. Again, the only way to know for sure is to try both options.
One key optimization is to make sure your bulk insert is in clustered key order.
If I'm reading your question correctly, that table is pretty much off limits (locked) for the duration of the load and this is a problem.
If your primary goal is to increase availability/decrease blocking, try taking the A/B table approach.
The A/B approach breaks down as follows:
Given a table called "MyTable" you would actually have two physical tables (MyTable_A and MyTable_B) and one view (MyTable).
If MyTable_A contains the current "active" dataset, your view (MyTable) is selecting all columns from MyTable_A. Meanwhile you can have carte blanche on MyTable_B (which contains a copy of MyTable_A's data and the new data you're writing.) Once MyTable_B is loaded, indexed and ready to go, update your "MyTable" view to point to MyTable_B and truncate MyTable_A.
This approach assumes that you're willing to increase I/O and storage costs (dramatically, in your case) to maintain availability. It also assumes that your big table is also relatively static. If you do follow this approach, I would recommend a second view, something like MyTable_old which points to the non-live table (i.e. if MyTable_A is the current presentation table and is referenced by the MyTable view, MyTable_old will reference MyTable_B) You would update the MyTable_old view at the same time you update the MyTable view.
Depending on the nature of the data you're inserting (and your SQL Server version/edition), you may also be able to take advantage of partitioning (MSDN blog on this topic.)
We are creating a database where we store large number of records. We estimate millions (billions after few years) of record in one table and we always INSERT and rarely UPDATE or DELETE any of the record. Its a kind of archive system where we insert historic record on daily basis. We will generate different sort of reports on this historic record on user request so we've some concerns and require technical input from you people:
What is the best way to manage this kind of table and database?
What impact we may see in future for very large table?
Is there any limitation on number of records in one table or size of table?
How we suppose to INSERT bulk record from different sources (mostly from Excel sheet)?
What is the best way to index large data tables?
Which is the best ORM (object relational Mapping) should we use in this project?
You last statement sums it up. There is no ORM that will deal nicely with this volume of data and reporting queries: employ SQL experts to do it for you. You heard it here first.
Otherwise
On disk: filegroups, partitioning etc
Compress less-used data
Is all data required? (Data retention policies)
No limit of row numbers or table size
INSERT via staging tables or staging databases, clean/scrub/lookup keys, then flush to main table: DO NOT load main table directly
As much RAM as you can buy. Then add more.
Few, efficient indexes
Do you have parent tables or flat data mart? Have FKs but don't use them (eg bene update/delete in parent table) so no indexes needed
Use a SAN (easier to add disk space, more volumes etc)
Normalise
Some of these are based on our experiences of around 10 billion rows through one of our systems in 30 months, with peaks of 40k rows+ per second.
See this too for high volume systems: 10 lessons from 35K tps
Summary: do it properly or not at all...
What is the best way to manage this kind of table and database?
If you are planning to store billions of records then you'll be needing plenty of diskspace, I'd recommend a 64bit OS running SQL 2008 R2 and as much RAM and HD space as is available. Depending on what performance you need I'd be tempted to look into SSDs.
What impact we may see in future for very large table?
If you have the right hardware, with a properly indexed table and properly normalized the only thing you should notice are the reports will begin to run slower. Inserts may slow down slightly as the Index file becomes bigger and you'll just have to keep an eye on it.
Is there any limitation on number of records in one table or size of table?
On the right setup I described above, no. It's only limited by disk space.
How we suppose to INSERT bulk record from different sources (mostly from Excel sheet)?
I've run into problems running huge SQL queries but I've never tried to import from very large flat files.
What is the best way to index large data tables?
Index as few fields as necessary and keep them to numerical fields only.
Which is the best ORM (object relational Mapping) should we use in this project?
Sorry can't advise here.
Billions of rows in a "few years" is not an especially large volume. SQL Server should cope perfectly well with it - assuming your design and implementation is appropriate. There is no particular limit on the size of a table. Stick to solid design principles: normalize your tables, choose keys and data types carefully and have a suitable partitioning and indexing strategy.
I have a very large table (more than 300 millions records) that will need to be cleaned up. Roughly 80% of it will need to be deleted. The database software is MS SQL 2005. There are several indexes and statistics on the table but not external relationships.
The best solution I came up with, so far, is to put the database into "simple" recovery mode, copy all the records I want to keep to a temporary table, truncate the original table, set identity insert to on and copy back the data from the temp table.
It works but it's still taking several hours to complete. Is there a faster way to do this ?
As per the comments my suggestion would be to simply dispense with the copy back step and promote the table containing records to be kept to become the new main table by renaming it.
It should be quite straightforward to script out the index/statistics creation to be applied to the new table before it gets swapped in.
The clustered index should be created before the non clustered indexes.
A couple of points I'm not sure about though.
Whether it would be quicker to insert into a heap then create the clustered index afterwards. (I guess no if the insert can be done in clustered index order)
Whether the original table should be truncated before being dropped (I guess yes)
#uriDium -- Chunking using batches of 50,000 will escalate to a table lock, unless you have disabled lock escalation via alter table (sql2k8) or other various locking tricks.
I am not sure what the structure of your data is. When does a row become eligible for deletion? If it is a purely ID based on date based thing then you can create a new table for each day, insert your new data into the new tables and when it comes to cleaning simply drop the required tables. Then for any selects construct a view over all the tables. Just an idea.
EDIT: (In response to comments)
If you are maintaining a view over all the tables then no it won't be complicated at all. The complex part is coding the dropping and recreating of the view.
I am assuming that you don't want you data to be locked down too much during deletes. Why not chunk the delete operations. Created a SP that will delete the data in chunks, 50 000 rows at a time. This should make sure that SQL Server keeps a row lock instead of a table lock. Use the
WAITFOR DELAY 'x'
In your while loop so that you can give other queries a bit of breathing room. Your problem is the old age computer science, space vs time.