I'm not a trained DBA, but perform some SQL tasks and have this question:
In SQL databases I've noticed the use archive tables that mimic another table with the exact same fields and which are used to accept rows from the original table when that data is deemed for archiving. Since I've seen examples where those tables reside in the same database and on the same drive, my assumption is that this was done to increase performance. Such tables didn't have more than a about 10 million rows in them...
Why would this be done instead of using a column to designate the status of the row, such as a boolean for an in/active flag?
At what point would this improve performance ?
What would be the best pattern to structure this correctly, given that the data may still need to be queried (or unioned with current data) ?
What else is there to say about this ?
The notion of archiving is a physical, not logical, one. Logically the archive table contains the exact same entity and ought to be the same table.
Physical concerns tend to be pragmatic. The overarching notion is that the "database is getting too (big/slow"). Archiving records makes it easier to do things like:
Optimize the index structure differently. Archive tables can have more indexes without affecting insert/update performance on the working table. In addition, the indexes can be rebuilt with full pages, while the working table will generally want to have pages that are 50% full and balanced.
Optimize storage media differently. You can put the archive table on slower/less expensive disk drives that maybe have more capacity.
Optimize backup strategies differently. Working tables may require hot backups or log shipping while archive tables can use snapshots.
Optimize replication differently, if you are using it. If an archive table is only updated once per day via nightly batch, you can use snapshot as opposed to transactional replication.
Different levels of access. Perhaps you want different security access levels for the archive table.
Lock contention. If you working table is very hot you'd rather have your MIS developers access the archive table where they are less likely to halt your operations when they run something and forget to specify dirty read semantics.
The best practice would not to use archive tables but to move the data from the OLTP database to an MIS database, data warehouse, or data marts with denormalized data. But some organizations will have trouble justifying the cost of an additional DB system (which aren't cheap). There are far fewer hurdles to adding an additional table to an existing DB.
I say this frequently, but...
Multiple tables of identical structure almost never makes sense.
A status flag is a much better idea. There are proper ways to increase performance (partitioning/indexing) without denormalizing data or otherwise creating redundancies. 10 million records is pretty small in the world of modern rdbms, so what you're seeing is the product of poor planning or misunderstanding of databases.
Related
I have to create a data warehouse (a star schema) and customer wants it in SQL 2014 in memory. My understanding is in-memory has lot of limitations with FK constraints, indexes etc. These are crucial for us, because our fact table volume are in millions. As an alternative I was thinking suggesting creating bunch of de-normalized tables and join them in SQL for reporting and not go with Kimball DWH. I have around 9 transaction and 4 master tables.
Any better suggestion or alternative to go around this?
Normally when you say in-memory with SQL Server, it means the in-memory oltp (Hekaton), which is designed for specific situations, mainly to handle bottlenecks in locking and latching. I would assume that in this case that's not what you mean.
Microsoft also uses in-memory name with clustered columnstore, which to my mind at least makes things quite confusing. Clustered columnstore is designed for data warehouses, and instead of normal row based approach, it stores the data in column format. If you have enterprise edition, it's at least worth trying for fact tables. You should get significant space savings when comparing to normal compressed tables (my fact tables shrunk between 75% - 90% compared page compressed row store) -- which of course helps a lot in terms of what fits into the cache and performance should be a better too, but of course a lot depends on your data, database structure and your queries.
There are quite many restrictions too, biggest ones probably being that you can't have unique indexes or primary / foreign keys. This restriction will be removed in SQL Server 2016, so if you can wait until that, or possibly upgrade once it's available, that might not be such a big issue.
You mentioned that there is no support for indexes. That is true, but you don't need other indexes with clustered columnstore, because the data is stored in column format and is highly compressed.
I have a fairly large Business Application related to Order Management, whose data is in Oracle Database.
All data can be related to Orders.
Now, the data size is huge, millions of records in tables - thereby slowing down my application SQL Queries.
I am planning a replica schema of my main 'Order Schema', say 'Archive Order Schema'.
And write SQL Queries to move (old order) data from main to archival schema, one (old) Order at a time.
But the SQL Queries are quite slow, and to move all data of a (old) Order (across so many tables), takes very long time.
Any design / approach / optimization inputs are welcome.
First, as the others have noted, a few million lines in Order Management tables is nothing. Even a few hundred million rows or billions of rows is not a challenge. We manage an EBS with larger Order Management tables without much effort. Make sure you are gathering schema statistics using the EBS Concurrent Request (not DBA tools); although you might check with your DBA on rebuilding your indexes. Also make sure you are patched up as Oracle EBS patches often include different indexes to improve performance from logged problems. Run some AWS stats or even a SQL trace to find your bottle necks and work with Oracle Support.
Next, DO NOT use SQL to archive seeded tables. You will have problems and Oracle will not help you then. You should instead do some research and use Oracle's built in and supported archive and purge processes. Start by reading Note 752322.1 on My Oracle Support, it will point you to managing your data in Order Management.
I am building a data warehouse. I need to get data from different sources and put it together so that I can generate reports. I will do lots of joining of tables. I am talking about maybe 20 tables total and each table is going to be anywhere from 100mb to 5 gigs.
I would like to know if I should be creating different databases for each table since each table might have an entirely different TYPE of dataset.
For example, I might have one table that has 1 GB of data about design of cars. And I will have another table with 3 GBs of sales data on these cars.
Would it be appropriate to separate these into different databases?
Please let me know what additional information is needed to advise me on this situation.
If there's a logical or business separation, by all means put them in different databases. That's just clean data application development. However, if you're going to be joining or merging the different data sets, then you can save some overhead and admin costs by having a single database. 20 tables total isn't a lot (I'm working on a system that has about 3700 tables, though ~1600 are audits). Keep in mind SQL Server is meant to scale up to terabytes of data, provided you have a decent model, indexes, etc.
If you're concerned with performance of the warehouse, you can jam that server full of RAM and harddrives. To leverage the harddrives properly you'd want to look at leveraging multiple files / filegroups and doling the tables out appropriately.
Splitting into different databases would normally be in order to spread I/O load. In SQL Server you can have different filegroups within the database itself if you want to spread I/O across multiple disks groups/disks. In Warehousing scenarios you often deal with SAN solutions for Database storage, and depending on your scenario, these won't really care performance wise one way or the other, while others might give you additional performance if planned properly.
You also have table partitioning which you can look at for your growing database, but in my opinion, just make sure you have plenty of good old memory, it will benefit you more than spending time and effort in worrying about databases and files.
We are running 100gig databases in a single database file and the performance is stellar. Much of the frequently accesse data is residing in memory though, but with decent table structure and logical indexes you'll have a responsive warehouse in no time.
If you planning on having foreign key relationships between these tables (and it sounds like you would) then I would keep it all in one database. Typically I use separate databases for totally separate bodies of data.
If you do separate them then you will run into some interesting challenges when you try to query both at the same time.
I've seen many entries about partitioning tables, but there is not a lot of information on when you should make a partition.
Is there a rule of thumb when you should partition tables in SQL Server.
Thanks
My benchmarks indicate that it depends on the query load.
If the queries you perform ALWAYS contain a filter on the partition field the performance benefit is virtually instant (like 1000 records in the table is already beneficial)
If the queries do NOT always contain a filter on the partition field you really have to benchmark with a good sample of the query load before making the decision.
You also have to account for the partition system you use. if you use "static" partitions there is not much harm in creating them immediately. When you use a "sliding window" system you need to take into account the overhead of creating and merging partitions. (which can take a long time on big tables)
#Filip's post is a great topical guide. When your doing your ontologies and estimating how your application will be used, that is, how your users will interact with the application and how that translates to database access, you should have a good idea of the kind of queries that will be performed and how fast certain tables will grow. If your that confident, then you should immediately partition the tables to defer from any maintenance hapzards.
But if your trying to decide on whether to partition populated tables, or you like to perform partitioning lazily like me, here's a nice little nugget from the PostgreSQL docs:
The exact point at which a table will benefit from partitioning depends on the application, although a rule of thumb is that the size of the table should exceed the physical memory of the database server. [src]
In a recent project the "lead" developer designed a database schema where "larger" tables would be split across two separate databases with a view on the main database which would union the two separate database-tables together. The main database is what the application was driven off of so these tables looked and felt like ordinary tables (except some quirky things around updating). This seemed like a HUGE performance problem. We do see problems with performance around these tables but nothing to make him change his mind about his design. Just wondering what is the best way to do this, or if it is even worth doing?
I don't think that you are really going to gain anything by partitioning the table across multiple databases in a single server. All you have essentially done there is increased the overhead in working with the "table" in the first place by having several instances (i.e. open in two different DBs) of it under a single SQL Server instance.
How large of a dataset do you have? I have a client with a 6 million row table in SQL Server that contains 2 years worth of sales data. They use it transactionally and for reporting without any noticiable speed problems.
Tuning the indexes and choosing the correct clustered index is crucial to performance of course.
If your dataset is really large and you are looking to partition, you will get more bang for your buck partitioning the table across physical servers.
Partitioning is not something to be undertaken lightly as there can be many subtle performance implications.
My first question is are you referring simply to placing larger table objects in separate filegroups (on separate spindles) or are you referring to data partitioning inside of a table object?
I suspect that the situation described is an attempt to have the physical storage of certain large tables on different spindles from the rest of the tables. In this case, adding the extra overhead of separate databases, losing any ability to enforce referential integrity across databases, and the security implications of enabling cross-database ownership chaining does not provide any benefit over using multiple filegroups within a single database. If, as is quite possible, the separate databases you refer to in your question are not even stored on separate spindles but are all stored on the same spindle then you negate even the slight performance benefit you could have gained by physically separating your disk activity and have received absolutely no benefit.
I would suggest instead of using additional databases to hold large tables you look into the Filegroup topic in SQL Server Books Online or for a quick review see this article:
If you are interested in data partitioning (including partitioning into multiple file groups) then I recommend reading articles by Kimberly Tripp, who gave an excellent presentation at the time SQL Server 2005 came out about the improvements available there. A good place to start is this whitepaper
Which version of SQL Server are you using? SQL Server 2005 has partitioned tables, but in 2000 (or 7.0) you needed to use partition views.
Also, what was the reasoning for putting the table partitions in a separate database?
When I've had to partition tables in the past (pre-2005), it's usually by a date column or something similar, with a view over the various partitions. Books Online has a section that talks about how to do this and all of the rules around it. You need to follow the rules to make it work how it's supposed to work.
The key thing to remember is that your partitioning column must be part of the primary key and you want to try to always use that column in any access against the table so that the optimizer can ignore partitions that shouldn't be affected by the query.
Look up "partitioned table" in MSDN and you should be able to find a more complete tutorial for SQL Server 2005 partitioned tables as well as advice on how to set them up for maximum performance.
Are you asking about best practices in terms of database design, or convincing your lead to change his mind? :)
In terms of design... Back in the goode olde days, vertical partitioning was sometimes needed to work around database engine limitations, where the number of columns in a table was a hard limit, like 255 columns. These days the main benefits are purely for performance: putting rarely used columns, or blobs on a separate disk array. But if you're regularly pulling things from both tables it will likely be a loss. It sounds like your lead is suffering from a case of premature optimisation.
In terms of telling your lead is wrong... that requires diplomacy. If he's aware of mutterings of discontent in terms of performance, a benchmark is probably the best way to show the difference.
Create a new physical table somewhere with 'create table t1 as select * from view1' and then run some lengthy batch with the vertically partitioned table and your new table. If it's as bad as you say, the difference should be evident.
But this too may be premature optimisation. Find out what the end-users think of the performance. If the performance is good enough, for some definition of good, then don't fix what ain't broke.
There is a definite benefit for table partitioning (regardless whether it's on same or different filegroups /disks). If the partition column is correctly selected, you'll realize that your queries will hit only the required partition. So imagine if you have 100 million records (I've partitioned tables much bigger than that - about 20+ Billion rows) and if for the most part, more than 70% of your data access is only a certain category or timeline or type of data then it helps to keep the most accessed data in a separate partition. Plus you can align the partition with separate file groups with various type of disks (SATA, Fiber channel, SSDs) so that the most accessed/busy data are on the fastest storage and the least/rarely accessed are virtually on slower disks.
Although, in SQL Server there's limited partitioning ability, unlike Oracle. You can choose only one column for partitioning (even in SQL 2008). So you've to choose a column wisely where that column also is part of most of your frequent queries. For the most part, people find it easy to choose to partition by a date column. However although it seems logical to partition that way, if your queries do not have that column as part of the condition, you won't be gaining sufficient benefits from partitioning (in other words, your query will hit all the partition regardless).
It's much easier to partition for data warehouse/data mining type databases than OLTP as most DW database queries are limited by time period.
That's why these days due to the volume of data being handled by databases, it's wise to design the application in such a way that ever query is limited by some broader group such as time, geographical location or such so that when such columns are chosen for partitioning you'll gain maximum benefits.
I would disagree with the assumption that nothing can be gained by partitioning.
If the partition data is physically and logically aligned, then the potential IO of queries should be dramatically reduced.
For example, We have a table which has the batch field as an INT representing an INT.
If we partition the data by this field and then re-run a query for a particular batch, we should be able to run set statistics io ON before and after partitioning and see a reduction in IO,
If we have a million rows per partition and each partition is written to a separate device. The query should be able to eliminate the nonessential partitions.
I've not done a lot of partitioning on SQL Server, but I do have experience of partitioning on Sybase ASE, and this is known as partition eliminiation. When I have time I'm going to test out the scenario on a SQL Server 2005 machine.