I need to improve performance of INSERT INTO query to a table which has 1 billion rows. This table contains a clustered index primary key.
One suggestion is to reduce the table data by deleting (copying to archive table) old records and keep most recent records in the table. This will reduce data from 1 billion to 2 million. Will this approach increase data write process?
Are there any other way to increase record insert process?
Note: this INSERT INTO query is in a complex stored procedure and the execution plan points to this INSERT statement taking a certain amount of time.
Simplistically, reducing the size of the table will not have much impact on performance. There are some cases where it could make a difference.
If the clustered index primary key is not ordered, then you have a fragmentation problem. That means that inserts are likely to be splitting pages and rewriting them.
The "good" news is that in the existing table, your pages are probably already fragmented, so you probably have few full pages. So splitting is less likely. This is "good" in quotes because it means that you have lots of wasted space, which is inefficient for queries.
If you remove the excess rows and compact (defrag) the table, then you will have some advantages. The biggest is that the data will probably fit into memory -- a big performance advantage.
I would recommend that you fix the table because the extra rows are probably hurting query performance. Given the volume of data, I would suggest a truncate/re-insert approach:
select t.*
into temp_t
from t
where <rows to keep logic here>;
truncate table t; -- be sure you have a backup!
insert into t
select *
from temp_t;
This will be much faster than trying to delete 99.9% of the rows (unless you happen to have a partitioned table where you can simply drop partitions).
If you want to keep the old data, you might find a way to partition the table. Of course, your queries would have to use the partitioning key to access the "valid" rows rather than the archive.
I have to implement data collection for replay for electrical parameters for 100-1000's of devices with at least 20 parameters to monitor. This amounts to huge data collection as it will be based very similar to time series.I have to support resolution for 1 second. thinking about 1 year [365*24*60*60*1000]=31536000000 rows.
I did my research but still have few questions
As data will be huge is it good to keep data in same table or should the tables be spitted. [data structure is same] or i should
rely on indexes?
Data inserts also will be very frequent but i can batch them still what is the best way? Is it directly writing to same database
or using a temporary database for write and sync with it?
Does SQL Server has a specific schema recommendation to do time series optimization for select,update and inserts? any out of box
helps for day average ? or specific common aggregate functions i can
write my own but just to know as this a standard problem so they
might have some best practices and samples out of box.**
please let me know any help is appreciated, thanks in advance
1) You probably want to explore the use of partitions. This will allow very effective inserts (its a meta operation if you do the partitioning correctly) and very fast (2). You may want to explore columnstore indexes because the data (once collected) will never change and you will have very large data sets. Partitioning and columnstore require a learning curve but its very doable. There are lots of code on the internet describing the use of date functions in SQL Server.
That is a big number but I would start with one table see if it hold up. If you split it in multiple tables it is still the same amount of data.
Do you ever need to search across devices? If not you can have a separate table for each device.
I have some audit tables that are not that big but still big and have not had any problems. If the data is loaded in time order then make date the first (or only) column of the clustered index.
If the the PK is date, device then fine but if you can get two reading in the same seconds you cannot do that. If this is the PK then if you can load the data by that sort. Even if you have to stage each second and load. You just cannot afford to fragment a table that big. If you cannot load by the sort then take a fill factor of 50%.
If you cannot have a PK then just use date as clustered index but not as PK and put a non clustered index on device.
I have some tables of 3,000,000,000 and I have the luxury of loading by PK with no other indexes. There is no measurable degradation in insert from row 1 to row 3,000,000,000.
i have a huge table (200mln records). about 70% is not need now (there is column ACTIVE in a table and those records have value N ). There are a lot of multi-column indexes but none of them includes that column. Will removing that 70% records improve SELECT (ACTIVE='Y') performance (because oracle has to read table blocks with no active records and then exclude them from final result)? Is shrink space necessary?
It's really impossible to say without knowing more about your queries.
At one extreme, access by primary key would only improve if the height of the supporting index was reduced, which would probably require deletion of the rows and then a rebuild of the index.
At the other extreme, if you're selecting nearly all active records then a full scan of the table with 70% of the rows removed (and the table shrunk) would take only 30% of the pre-deletion time.
There are many other considerations -- selecting a set of data and accessing the table via indexes, and needing to reject 99% of rows after reading the table because it turns out that there's a positive correlation between the required rows and an inactive status.
One way of dealing with this would be through list partitioning the table on the ACTIVE column. That would move inactive records to a partition that could be eliminated from many queries, with no need to index the column, and would keep the time for full scans of active records down.
If you really do not need these inactive records, why do you just not delete them instead of marking them inactive?
Edit: Furthermore, although indexing a column with a 70/30 split is not generally helpful, you could try a couple of other indexing tricks.
For example, if you have an indexed column which is frequently used in queries (client_id?) then you can add the active flag to that index. You could also construct a partial index:
create index my_table_active_clients
on my_table (case when active = 'Y' then client_id end);
... and then query on:
select ...
from ...
where (case when active = 'Y' then client_id end) = :client_id
This would keep the index smaller, and both indexing approaches would probably be helpful.
Another edit: A beneficial side effect of partitioning could be that it keeps the inactive records and active records "physically" apart, and every block read into memory from the "active" partition of course only has active records. This could have the effect of improving your cache efficiency.
Partitioning, putting the active='NO' records in a separate partition, might be a good option.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14223/parpart.htm
Yes it will most likely. But depending on your access schema the increase will most likely not as big. Setting an index including the column would be a better solution for future IMHO.
Most probably no. Delete will not reduce the size of the table's segment. Additional maintenance might help. After the DELETE execute also:
ALTER TABLE <tablename> SHRINK SPACE COMPACT;
ALTER INDEX <indexname> SHRINK SPACE COMPACT; -- for every table's index
Alternatively you can use old school approach:
ALTER TABLE <tablename> MOVE;
ALTER INDEX <indexnamename> REBUILD;
When delting 70% of table also consider possible solution CTAS (create table as select). It will be much faster.
Indexing plays a vital role in SELECT query. The performance will drastically increase
if you use those indexed columns in the query. Ya deleting rows will enhance the performance
for sure somewhat but not drastically.
I have two massive tables with about 100 million records each and I'm afraid I needed to perform an Inner Join between the two. Now, both tables are very simple; here's the description:
BioEntity table:
BioEntityId (int)
Name (nvarchar 4000, although this is an overkill)
TypeId (int)
EGM table (an auxiliar table, in fact, resulting of bulk import operations):
EMGId (int)
PId (int)
Name (nvarchar 4000, although this is an overkill)
TypeId (int)
LastModified (date)
I need to get a matching Name in order to associate BioEntityId with the PId residing in the EGM table. Originally, I tried to do everything with a single inner join but the query appeared to be taking way too long and the logfile of the database (in simple recovery mode) managed to chew up all the available disk space (that's just over 200 GB, when the database occupies 18GB) and the query would fail after waiting for two days, If I'm not mistaken. I managed to keep the log from growing (only 33 MB now) but the query has been running non-stop for 6 days now and it doesn't look like it's gonna stop anytime soon.
I'm running it on a fairly decent computer (4GB RAM, Core 2 Duo (E8400) 3GHz, Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008) and I've noticed that the computer jams occasionally every 30 seconds (give or take) for a couple of seconds. This makes it quite hard to use it for anything else, which is really getting on my nerves.
Now, here's the query:
SELECT EGM.Name, BioEntity.BioEntityId INTO AUX
FROM EGM INNER JOIN BioEntity
ON EGM.name LIKE BioEntity.Name AND EGM.TypeId = BioEntity.TypeId
I had manually setup some indexes; both EGM and BioEntity had a non-clustered covering index containing TypeId and Name. However, the query ran for five days and it did not end either, so I tried running Database Tuning Advisor to get the thing to work. It suggested deleting my older indexes and creating statistics and two clustered indexes instead (one on each table, just containing the TypeId which I find rather odd - or just plain dumb - but I gave it a go anyway).
It has been running for 6 days now and I'm still not sure what to do...
Any ideas guys? How can I make this faster (or, at least, finite)?
Update:
- Ok, I've canceled the query and rebooted the server to get the OS up and running again
- I'm rerunning the workflow with your proposed changes, specifically cropping the nvarchar field to a much smaller size and swapping "like" for "=". This is gonna take at least two hours, so I'll be posting further updates later on
Update 2 (1PM GMT time, 18/11/09):
- The estimated execution plan reveals a 67% cost regarding table scans followed by a 33% hash match. Next comes 0% parallelism (isn't this strange? This is the first time I'm using the estimated execution plan but this particular fact just lifted my eyebrow), 0% hash match, more 0% parallelism, 0% top, 0% table insert and finally another 0% select into. Seems the indexes are crap, as expected, so I'll be making manual indexes and discard the crappy suggested ones.
I'm not an SQL tuning expert, but joining hundreds of millions of rows on a VARCHAR field doesn't sound like a good idea in any database system I know.
You could try adding an integer column to each table and computing a hash on the NAME field that should get the possible matches to a reasonable number before the engine has to look at the actual VARCHAR data.
For huge joins, sometimes explicitly choosing a loop join speeds things up:
SELECT EGM.Name, BioEntity.BioEntityId INTO AUX
FROM EGM
INNER LOOP JOIN BioEntity
ON EGM.name LIKE BioEntity.Name AND EGM.TypeId = BioEntity.TypeId
As always, posting your estimated execution plan could help us provide better answers.
EDIT: If both inputs are sorted (they should be, with the covering index), you can try a MERGE JOIN:
SELECT EGM.Name, BioEntity.BioEntityId INTO AUX
FROM EGM
INNER JOIN BioEntity
ON EGM.name LIKE BioEntity.Name AND EGM.TypeId = BioEntity.TypeId
OPTION (MERGE JOIN)
First, 100M-row joins are not at all unreasonable or uncommon.
However, I suspect the cause of the poor performance you're seeing may be related to the INTO clause. With that, you are not only doing a join, you are also writing the results to a new table. Your observation about the log file growing so huge is basically confirmation of this.
One thing to try: remove the INTO and see how it performs. If the performance is reasonable, then to address the slow write you should make sure that your DB log file is on a separate physical volume from the data. If it isn't, the disk heads will thrash (lots of seeks) as they read the data and write the log, and your perf will collapse (possibly to as little as 1/40th to 1/60th of what it could be otherwise).
Maybe a bit offtopic, but:
" I've noticed that the computer jams occasionally every 30 seconds (give or take) for a couple of seconds."
This behavior is characteristic for cheap RAID5 array (or maybe for single disk) while copying (and your query mostly copies data) gigabytes of information.
More about problem - can't you partition your query into smaller blocks? Like names starting with A, B etc or IDs in specific ranges? This could substantially decrease transactional/locking overhead.
I'd try maybe removing the 'LIKE' operator; as you don't seem to be doing any wildcard matching.
As recommended, I would hash the name to make the join more reasonable. I would strongly consider investigating assigning the id during the import of batches through a lookup if it is possible, since this would eliminate the need to do the join later (and potentially repeatedly having to perform such an inefficient join).
I see you have this index on the TypeID - this would help immensely if this is at all selective. In addition, add the column with the hash of the name to the same index:
SELECT EGM.Name
,BioEntity.BioEntityId
INTO AUX
FROM EGM
INNER JOIN BioEntity
ON EGM.TypeId = BioEntity.TypeId -- Hopefully a good index
AND EGM.NameHash = BioEntity.NameHash -- Should be a very selective index now
AND EGM.name LIKE BioEntity.Name
Another suggestion I might offer is try to get a subset of the data instead of processing all 100 M rows at once to tune your query. This way you don't have to spend so much time waiting to see when your query is going to finish. Then you could consider inspecting the query execution plan which may also provide some insight to the problem at hand.
100 million records is HUGE. I'd say to work with a database that large you'd require a dedicated test server. Using the same machine to do other work while performing queries like that is not practical.
Your hardware is fairly capable, but for joins that big to perform decently you'd need even more power. A quad-core system with 8GB would be a good start. Beyond that you have to make sure your indexes are setup just right.
do you have any primary keys or indexes? can you select it in stages? i.e. where name like 'A%', where name like 'B%', etc.
I had manually setup some indexes; both EGM and BioEntity had a non-clustered covering index containing TypeId and Name. However, the query ran for five days and it did not end either, so I tried running Database Tuning Advisor to get the thing to work. It suggested deleting my older indexes and creating statistics and two clustered indexes instead (one on each table, just containing the TypeId which I find rather odd - or just plain dumb - but I gave it a go anyway).
You said you made a clustered index on TypeId in both tables, although it appears you have a primary key on each table already (BioEntityId & EGMId, respectively). You do not want your TypeId to be the clustered index on those tables. You want the BioEntityId & EGMId to be clustered (that will physically sort your data in order of the clustered index on disk. You want non-clustered indexes on foreign keys you will be using for lookups. I.e. TypeId. Try making the primary keys clustered, and adding a non-clustered index on both tables that ONLY CONTAINS TypeId.
In our environment we have a tables that are roughly 10-20 million records apiece. We do a lot of queries similar to yours, where we are combining two datasets on one or two columns. Adding an index for each foreign key should help out a lot with your performance.
Please keep in mind that with 100 million records, those indexes are going to require a lot of disk space. However, it seems like performance is key here, so it should be worth it.
K. Scott has a pretty good article here which explains some issues more in depth.
Reiterating a few prior posts here (which I'll vote up)...
How selective is TypeId? If you only have 5, 10, or even 100 distinct values across your 100M+ rows, the index does nothing for you -- particularly since you're selecting all the rows anyway.
I'd suggest creating a column on CHECKSUM(Name) in both tables seems good. Perhaps make this a persisted computed column:
CREATE TABLE BioEntity
(
BioEntityId int
,Name nvarchar(4000)
,TypeId int
,NameLookup AS checksum(Name) persisted
)
and then create an index like so (I'd use clustered, but even nonclustered would help):
CREATE clustered INDEX IX_BioEntity__Lookup on BioEntity (NameLookup, TypeId)
(Check BOL, there are rules and limitations on building indexes on computed columns that may apply to your environment.)
Done on both tables, this should provide a very selective index to support your query if it's revised like this:
SELECT EGM.Name, BioEntity.BioEntityId INTO AUX
FROM EGM INNER JOIN BioEntity
ON EGM.NameLookup = BioEntity.NameLookup
and EGM.name = BioEntity.Name
and EGM.TypeId = BioEntity.TypeId
Depending on many factors it will still run long (not least because you're copying how much data into a new table?) but this should take less than days.
Why an nvarchar? Best practice is, if you don't NEED (or expect to need) the unicode support, just use varchar. If you think the longest name is under 200 characters, I'd make that column a varchar(255). I can see scenarios where the hashing that has been recommended to you would be costly (it seems like this database is insert intensive). With that much size, however, and the frequency and random nature of the names, your indexes will become fragmented quickly in most scenarios where you index on a hash (dependent on the hash) or the name.
I would alter the name column as described above and make the clustered index TypeId, EGMId/BioentityId (the surrogate key for either table). Then you can join nicely on TypeId, and the "rough" join on Name will have less to loop through. To see how long this query might run, try it for a very small subset of your TypeIds, and that should give you an estimate of the run time (although it might ignore factors like cache size, memory size, hard disk transfer rates).
Edit: if this is an ongoing process, you should enforce the foreign key constraint between your two tables for future imports/dumps. If it's not ongoing, the hashing is probably your best best.
I would try to solve the issue outside the box, maybe there is some other algorithm that could do the job much better and faster than the database. Of course it all depends on the nature of the data but there are some string search algorithm that are pretty fast (Boyer-Moore, ZBox etc), or other datamining algorithm (MapReduce ?) By carefully crafting the data export it could be possible to bend the problem to fit a more elegant and faster solution. Also, it could be possible to better parallelize the problem and with a simple client make use of the idle cycles of the systems around you, there are framework that can help with this.
the output of this could be a list of refid tuples that you could use to fetch the complete data from the database much faster.
This does not prevent you from experimenting with index, but if you have to wait 6 days for the results I think that justifies resources spent exploring other possible options.
my 2 cent
Since you're not asking the DB to do any fancy relational operations, you could easily script this. Instead of killing the DB with a massive yet simple query, try exporting the two tables (can you get offline copies from the backups?).
Once you have the tables exported, write a script to perform this simple join for you. It'll take about the same amount of time to execute, but won't kill the DB.
Due to the size of the data and length of time the query takes to run, you won't be doing this very often, so an offline batch process makes sense.
For the script, you'll want to index the larger dataset, then iterate through the smaller dataset and do lookups into the large dataset index. It'll be O(n*m) to run.
If the hash match consumes too many resources, then do your query in batches of, say, 10000 rows at a time, "walking" the TypeID column. You didn't say the selectivity of TypeID, but presumably it is selective enough to be able to do batches this small and completely cover one or more TypeIDs at a time. You're also looking for loop joins in your batches, so if you still get hash joins then either force loop joins or reduce the batch size.
Using batches will also, in simple recovery mode, keep your tran log from growing very large. Even in simple recovery mode, a huge join like you are doing will consume loads of space because it has to keep the entire transaction open, whereas when doing batches it can reuse the log file for each batch, limiting its size to the largest needed for one batch operation.
If you truly need to join on Name, then you might consider some helper tables that convert names into IDs, basically repairing the denormalized design temporarily (if you can't repair it permanently).
The idea about checksum can be good, too, but I haven't played with that very much, myself.
In any case, such a huge hash match is not going to perform as well as batched loop joins. If you could get a merge join it would be awesome...
I wonder, whether the execution time is taken by the join or by the data transfer.
Assumed, the average data size in your Name column is 150 chars, you will actually have 300 bytes plus the other columns per record. Multiply this by 100 million records and you get about 30GB of data to transfer to your client. Do you run the client remote or on the server itself ?
Maybe you wait for 30GB of data being transferred to your client...
EDIT: Ok, i see you are inserting into Aux table. What is the setting of the recovery model of the database?
To investigate the bottleneck on the hardware side, it might be interesting whether the limiting resource is reading data or writing data. You can start a run of the windows performance monitor and capture the length of the queues for reading and writing of your disks for example.
Ideal, you should place the db log file, the input tables and the output table on separate physical volumes to increase speed.
I try to insert millions of records into a table that has more than 20 indexes.
In the last run it took more than 4 hours per 100.000 rows, and the query was cancelled after 3½ days...
Do you have any suggestions about how to speed this up.
(I suspect the many indexes to be the cause. If you also think so, how can I automatically drop indexes before the operation, and then create the same indexes afterwards again?)
Extra info:
The space used by the indexes is about 4 times the space used by the data alone
The inserts are wrapped in a transaction per 100.000 rows.
Update on status:
The accepted answer helped me make it much faster.
You can disable and enable the indexes. Note that disabling them can have unwanted side-effects (such as having duplicate primary keys or unique indices etc.) which will only be found when re-enabling the indexes.
--Disable Index
ALTER INDEX [IXYourIndex] ON YourTable DISABLE
GO
--Enable Index
ALTER INDEX [IXYourIndex] ON YourTable REBUILD
GO
This sounds like a data warehouse operation.
It would be normal to drop the indexes before the insert and rebuild them afterwards.
When you rebuild the indexes, build the clustered index first, and conversely drop it last. They should all have fillfactor 100%.
Code should be something like this
if object_id('Index') is not null drop table IndexList
select name into Index from dbo.sysindexes where id = object_id('Fact')
if exists (select name from Index where name = 'id1') drop index Fact.id1
if exists (select name from Index where name = 'id2') drop index Fact.id2
if exists (select name from Index where name = 'id3') drop index Fact.id3
.
.
BIG INSERT
RECREATE THE INDEXES
As noted by another answer disabling indexes will be a very good start.
4 hours per 100.000 rows
[...]
The inserts are wrapped in a transaction per 100.000 rows.
You should look at reducing the number, the server has to maintain a huge amount of state while in a transaction (so it can be rolled back), this (along with the indexes) means adding data is very hard work.
Why not wrap each insert statement in its own transaction?
Also look at the nature of the SQL you are using, are you adding one row per statement (and network roundtrip), or adding many?
Disabling and then re-enabling indices is frequently suggested in those cases. I have my doubts about this approach though, because:
(1) The application's DB user needs schema alteration privileges, which it normally should not possess.
(2) The chosen insert approach and/or index schema might be less then optimal in the first place, otherwise rebuilding complete index trees should not be faster then some decent batch-inserting (e.g. the client issuing one insert statement at a time, causing thousands of server-roundtrips; or a poor choice on the clustered index, leading to constant index node splits).
That's why my suggestions look a little bit different:
Increase ADO.NET BatchSize
Choose the target table's clustered index wisely, so that inserts won't lead to clustered index node splits. Usually an identity column is a good choice
Let the client insert into a temporary heap table first (heap tables don't have any clustered index); then, issue one big "insert-into-select" statement to push all that staging table data into the actual target table
Apply SqlBulkCopy
Decrease transaction logging by choosing bulk-logged recovery model
You might find more detailled information in this article.