I have a simple table structure in postgres which has a site and site_pages table which is a one to many relationship. The tables join on site.id to site_pages.site_id
These tables are still performing quickly but growing fast and am aware they might not for much longer so just want to be prepared as.
I had two ideas:
Partition on site.id and site_pages.site_id grouping by 1M rows but will have queries selecting from multiple partitions
Partitioning by active (True/False) but will probably only be a short term fix.
Is there a better approach i'm missing?
Table Structure
site ~ 7 million rows
id
url
active
site_pages ~ 60 millions rows
id
site_id
page_url
active
I don't think that partitioning in the classical sense will help you there. If you end up having to select from all partitions, you won't end up faster.
If most of the queries access only active data and you want to optimize for that case, you could introduce an old_siteand an old_site_pages and move all data there when they become inactive. Queries accessing all data will have to use a UNION of the current and the old data and might become slower, but queries accessing active data can become fast.
Tables with just a few columns should perform acceptably up to some hundreds of millions of rows. From this I think you could skip on site table for now.
As for site_pages, partitioning will help you if you use the partitioning criteria in your SELECTs. This means if you partition by site_id (grouped by some millions of rows) and have CHECK criteria set properly for each table (CHECK site_id >= 1000000 AND site_id < 2000000) then your SELECT ... WHERE site_id = 1536987 will not use UNION. It will only read partitions that match your criteria, thus going through only one table. You can see it from EXPLAIN.
And finally, you could move NOT active sites and site_pages into different tables - some archive.
P.S.: I assume you know how to set up partitioning on Postgres (subtables should INHERIT parent table, add check constraints, index each subtable, etc).
Related
I have a postgres database with a table of reviews that has 15 columns and 10,000,000 rows of data.
**Columns**
id
product_id
_description
stars
comfort_level
fit
quality
recommend
created_at
email
_yes
_no
report
I want to get every review and put it onto my front end, but since that is a bit impractical, I decided to only get 4,000 using this query: SELECT * FROM reviews ORDER BY created_at LIMIT 4000;. With an index, this is pretty fast (6.819ms). I think this could be faster, so would partitioning help in this case? Or even in the case of retrieving all 10,000,000 reviews? Or would it make more sense to split my table and use JOIN clauses in my queries?
This query will certainly become slower with partitioning:
At best, you have the table partitioned by created_at, so that only one partition would be scanned. But the other partitions have to be excluded, which takes extra time during query planning or execution.
At worst, the table is not partitioned by created_at, and you have to scan all partitions.
Note that the speed of an index scan does not depend on the size of the table.
I don't know what your problem is. 7 milliseconds for 4000 rows doesn't sound so bad to me.
10M rows is at the top end of the range for a table classed as "small". I wouldn't worry about anything fancy until you get to at least 50M rows.
We are having a date partitioned table with 5 yrs(with daily incremental load) data running into millions & millions of records. To improve the performance, thinking of splitting the table based on a non-date field(id) as all the queries will include a where clause on that column(id). And also partition each of split tables with date partition so that we can query on a smaller dataset with a date range. we will not be using wildcarded table as we will know the id and planning to append that to the table and run a query against that specific table. Need to know whether that would be good option to pursue to improve performance and reduce the query cost.
[Update]: We went ahead and split the tables based on id column(tablename_id) and made the table date partitioned and clustered with 4 other columns(max supported) which are commonly used in queries. With that we were able to get a better performance and also reduced the data accessed for each query. Based on the testing looks like it is a good option to puruse as long as wildcarded querying of tables is avoided and till Bigquery supports partitioning based on non-date/non-datetime columns.
We split the tables based on the id columns creating multiple tables. Each of the split tables are partition on date column. Apart from that we had it as clustered table on 4 other columns as needed. Find below the performance on a sample dataset. Old Table(UserInfo) has more than 500,000 rows. The stats we captured is for a given date range and id, the performance of old table(non split/combined table) and split table(split based on the ID) in terms of amount of data processed and the time taken for the same query.
This is not possible. BigQuery doesn't support partitioned on non-date columns.
There's a feature request for it. I suggest subscribing to it to keep receiving information regarding its availability.
I have a table
Books(BookId, Name, ...... , PublishedYear)
I do have about 30 fields in my Books table, where BookId is the primary key (Identity column). I have about 2 million records for this table.
I know select * is evil performance killer..
I have a situation to select range of rows or all the rows having all the columns in it.
Select * from Books;
this query takes more than 2 seconds to scan through the data page and get all the records. On checking the execution it still uses the Clustered index scan.
Obviously 2 seconds my not be that bad, however when this table has to be joined with other tables which is executed in batch is taking time over 15 minutes (There are no duplicate records though on the final result at completion as the count is matching). The join criteria is pretty simple and yields no duplication.
Excluding this table alone has the batch execution completed in sub seconds.
Is there a way to optimize this having said that I will have to select all the columns :(
Thanks in advance.
I've just run a batch against my developer instance, one SELECT specifying all Columns and one using *. There is no evidence (nor should there) that there is any difference aside from the raw parsing of my input. If I remember correctly, that old saying really means: Do not SELECT columns you are not using, they use up resources without benefit.
When you try to improve performance in your code, always check your assumptions, they might only apply to some older version (of sql server etc) or other method.
I am trying to see how to improve performance for aggregation queries in an Oracle database. The system is used to run financial series simulations.
Here is the simplified set-up:
The first table table1 has the following columns
date | id | value
It is read-only, has about 100 million rows and is indexed on id, date
The second table table2 is generated by the application according to user input, is relatively small (300K rows) and has this layout:
id | start_date | end_date | factor
After the second table is generated, I need to compute totals as follows:
select date, sum(value * nvl(factor,1)) as total
from table1
left join table2 on table1.id = table2.id
and table1.date between table2.start_date and table2.end_date group by date
My issue is that this is slow, taking up to 20-30 minutes if the second table is particularly large. Is there a generic way to speed this up, perhaps trading off storage space and execution time, ideally, to achieve something running in under a minute?
I am not a database expert and have been reading Oracle performance tuning docs but was not able to find anything appropriate for this. The most promising idea I found were OLAP cubes but I understand this would help only if my second table was fixed and I simply needed to apply different filters on the data.
First, to provide any real insight, you'd need to determine the execution plan that Oracle is producing for the slow query.
You say the second table is ~300K rows - yes that's small compared to 100M but since you have a range condition in the join between the two tables, it's hard to say how many rows from table1 are likely to be accessed in any given execution of the query. If a large proportion of the table is accessed, but the query optimizer doesn't recognize that, the index may actually be hurting instead of helping.
You might benefit from re-organizing table1 as an index-organized table, since you already have an index that covers most of the columns. But all I can say from the information so far is that it might help, but it might not.
Apart from indexes, Also try below. My two cents!
Try running this Query with PARALLEL option employing multiple processors. /*+ PARALLEL(table1,4) */ .
NVL has been done for million of rows, and this will be an impact
to some extent, any way data can be organised?
When you know the date in Advance, probably you divide this Query
into two chunks, by fetching the ids in TABLE2 using the start
date and end date. And issue a JOIN it to TABLE1 using a
view or temp table. By this we use the index (with id as
leading edge) optimally
Thanks!
I've a JOIN beween two tables. It's really really slow and I can't find why.
The query takes hours in a PRODUCTION environment on a very big Client.
Can you ask me what you need to understand why it doesn't work well?
I can add indexes, partition the table, etc. It's Oracle 10g.
I expect a few thousand record. Because of the following condition:
f.eif_campo1 != c.fornitura AND and f.field29 = 'New'
Infact it should be always verified for all 18 million records
SELECT c.id_messaggio
,f.campo1
,c.f
FROM
flows c,
tab f
WHERE
f.field198 = c.id_messaggio
AND f.extra_id = c.extra_id
and f.field1 != c.ExampleF
and f.field29 = 'New'
and c.processtype in ('Example1')
and c.flag_ann = 'N';
Selectivity for the following record expressed as number of distinct values:
COUNT (DISTINCT extra_id) =>17*10^6,
COUNT (DISTINCT (extra_id || field20)) =>17*10^6,
COUNT (DISTINCT field198) =>36*10^6,
COUNT (DISTINCT (field19 || field20)) =>45*10^6,
COUNT (DISTINCT (field1)) =>18*10^6,
COUNT (DISTINCT (field20)) =>47
This is the execution plan [See large image][1]
![enter image description here][2]
Extra details:
I have relaxed one contition to see how many records are taken. 300 thousand.
![enter image description here][7]
--03:57 mins with parallel execution /*+ parallel(c 8) parallel(f 24) */
--395.358 rows
SELECT count(1)
FROM
flows c,
flet f
WHERE
f.field19 = c.id_messaggio
AND f.extra_id = c.extra_id
and f.field20 = 'ExampleF'
and c.process_type in ('ExampleP')
and c.flag_ann = 'N';
Your explain plan shows the following.
The database uses an index to retrieve rows from ENI_FLUSSI_HUB where
flh_tipo_processo_cod in ('VT','VOLTURA_ENI','CC')
It then winnows the rows
where flh_flag_ann = 'N'
This produces a result set which is used to access
rows from ETL_ELAB_INTERF_FLAT on the basis of f.idde_identif_dati_ext_id =
c.idde_identif_dati_ext_id
Finally those rows are filtered on the basis of the
remaining parts of the WHERE clause.
Now, the starting point is a good one if flh_tipo_processo_cod is a selective
column: that is, if it contains hundreds of different values, or if the values in
your list are relatively rare. It might even be a good path of the flag column
identifies relatively few columns with a value of 'N'. So you need to understand
both the distribution of your data - how many distinct values you have - and its
skew - which values appear very often or hardly at all. The overall
performance suggests that the distribution and/or skew of the
flh_tipo_processo_cod and flh_flag_ann columns is not good.
So what can you do? One approach is to follow Ben's suggestion, and use full
table scans. If you have an Enterprise Edition licence and plenty of CPU capacity
you could try parallel query to improve things. That might still be too slow, or it might be too disruptive for other users.
An alternative approach would be to use better indexes. A composite index on
eni_flussi_hub(flh_tipo_processo_cod,flh_flag_ann,idde_identif_dati_ext_id,
flh_fornitura,flh_id_messaggio) would avoid the need to read that table. Whether
this would be a new index or a replacement for ENI_FLK_IDX3 depends on the other
activity against the table. You might be able to benefit from index compression.
All the columns in the query projection are referenced in the WHERE clause. So
you could also use a composite index on the other table to avoid table reads. Agsin you need to understand the distribution and skew of the data. But you should probably lead with the least selective columns. Something like etl_elab_interf_flat(etl_elab_interf_flat,eif_campo200,dde_identif_dati_ext_id,eif_campo1,eif_campo198). Probably this is a new index. It's unlikely you would want to replace ETL_EIF_FK_IDX4 with this (especially if that really is an index on a foreign key constraint)..
Of course these are just guesses on my part. Tuning is a science and to do it properly requires lots of data. Use the Wait Interface to investigate where the database is spending its time. Use the 10053 event to understand why the Optimizer makes the choices it does. But above all, don't implement partitioning unless you really know the ramifications.
The simple answer seems to be your explain plan. You're accessing both tables by index rowid. Whilst to select a single row you cannot - to my knowledge - get faster, in your case you're selecting a lot more than a single row.
This means that for every single row you, you're going into both tables one row at a time, which when you're looking a significant proportion of a table or index is not what you want to do.
My suggestion would be to force a full scan of one or both of your tables. Try to use the smaller as a driver first:
SELECT /*+ full(c) */ c.flh_id_messaggio
, f.eif_campo1
, c.f
FROM flows c,
JOIN flet f
ON f.field19 = c.flh_id_messaggio
AND f.extra_id = c.extra_id
AND f.field1 <> c.f
WHERE ...
But you may have to change /*+ full(c) */ to /*+ full(c) full(f) */.
Your indexes seem to be separate column indexes as well. For this, and if possible, I would have indexes on:
flows of id_messaggio, extra_id, f
and on flet of field19, extra_id, field1.
This will only really matter if you do not use as full scan. Or, if you have everything you're returning and selecting is in one index.