Writing Efficient Queries in SAS Using Proc sql with Teradata - sql

EDIT: Here is a more complete set of code that shows exactly what's going on per the answer below.
libname output '/data/files/jeff'
%let DateStart = '01Jan2013'd;
%let DateEnd = '01Jun2013'd;
proc sql;
CREATE TABLE output.id AS (
SELECT DISTINCT id
FROM mydb.sale_volume AS sv
WHERE sv.category IN ('a', 'b', 'c') AND
sv.trans_date BETWEEN &DateStart AND &DateEnd
)
CREATE TABLE output.sums AS (
SELECT id, SUM(sales)
FROM mydb.sale_volue AS sv
INNER JOIN output.id AS ids
ON ids.id = sv.id
WHERE sv.trans_date BETWEEN &DateStart AND &DateEnd
GROUP BY id
)
run;
The goal is to simply query the table for some id's based on category membership. Then I sum these members' activity across all categories.
The above approach is far slower than:
Running the first query to get the subset
Running a second query the sums every ID
Running a third query that inner joins the two result sets.
If I'm understanding correctly, it may be more efficient to make sure that all of my code is completely passed through rather than cross-loading.
After posting a question yesterday, a member suggested I might benefit from asking a separate question on performance that was more specific to my situation.
I'm using SAS Enterprise Guide to write some programs/data queries. I don't have permissions to modify the underlying data, which is stored in 'Teradata'.
My basic problem is writing efficient SQL queries in this environment. For example, I query a large table (with tens of millions of records) for a small subset of ID's. Then, I use this subset to query the larger table again:
proc sql;
CREATE TABLE subset AS (
SELECT
id
FROM
bigTable
WHERE
someValue = x AND
date BETWEEN a AND b
)
This works in a matter of seconds and returns 90k ID's. Next, I want to query this set of ID's against the big table, and problems ensue. I'm wanting to sum values over time for the ID's:
proc sql;
CREATE TABLE subset_data AS (
SELECT
bigTable.id,
SUM(bigTable.value) AS total
FROM
bigTable
INNER JOIN subset
ON subset.id = bigTable.id
WHERE
bigTable.date BETWEEN a AND b
GROUP BY
bigTable.id
)
For whatever reason, this takes a really long time. The difference is that the first query flags 'someValue'. The second looks at all activity, regardless of what's in 'someValue'. For example, I could flag every customer who orders a pizza. Then I would look at every purchase for all customers who ordered pizza.
I'm not overly familiar with SAS so I'm looking for any advice on how to do this more efficiently or speed things up. I'm open to any thoughts or suggestions and please let me know if I can offer more detail. I guess I'm just surprised the second query takes so long to process.

The most critical thing to understand when using SAS to access data in Teradata (or any other external database for that matter) is that the SAS software prepares SQL and submits it to the database. The idea is to try and relieve you (the user) from all the database specific details. SAS does this using a concept called "implict pass-through", which just means that SAS does the translation from SAS code into DBMS code. Among the many things that occur is data type conversion: SAS only has two (and only two) data types, numeric and character.
SAS deals with translating things for you but it can be confusing. For example, I've seen "lazy" database tables defined with VARCHAR(400) columns having values that never exceed some smaller length (like column for a person's name). In the data base this isn't much of a problem, but since SAS does not have a VARCHAR data type, it creates a variable 400 characters wide for each row. Even with data set compression, this can really make the resulting SAS dataset unnecessarily large.
The alternative way is to use "explicit pass-through", where you write native queries using the actual syntax of the DBMS in question. These queries execute entirely on the DBMS and return results back to SAS (which still does the data type conversion for you. For example, here is a "pass-through" query that performs a join to two tables and creates a SAS dataset as a result:
proc sql;
connect to teradata (user=userid password=password mode=teradata);
create table mydata as
select * from connection to teradata (
select a.customer_id
, a.customer_name
, b.last_payment_date
, b.last_payment_amt
from base.customers a
join base.invoices b
on a.customer_id=b.customer_id
where b.bill_month = date '2013-07-01'
and b.paid_flag = 'N'
);
quit;
Notice that everything inside the pair of parentheses is native Teradata SQL and that the join operation itself is running inside the database.
The example code you have shown in your question is NOT a complete, working example of a SAS/Teradata program. To better assist, you need to show the real program, including any library references. For example, suppose your real program looks like this:
proc sql;
CREATE TABLE subset_data AS
SELECT bigTable.id,
SUM(bigTable.value) AS total
FROM TDATA.bigTable bigTable
JOIN TDATA.subset subset
ON subset.id = bigTable.id
WHERE bigTable.date BETWEEN a AND b
GROUP BY bigTable.id
;
That would indicate a previously assigned LIBNAME statement through which SAS was connecting to Teradata. The syntax of that WHERE clause would be very relevant to if SAS is even able to pass the complete query to Teradata. (You example doesn't show what "a" and "b" refer to. It is very possible that the only way SAS can perform the join is to drag both tables back into a local work session and perform the join on your SAS server.
One thing I can strongly suggest is that you try to convince your Teradata administrators to allow you to create "driver" tables in some utility database. The idea is that you would create a relatively small table inside Teradata containing the ID's you want to extract, then use that table to perform explicit joins. I'm sure you would need a bit more formal database training to do that (like how to define a proper index and how to "collect statistics"), but with that knowledge and ability, your work will just fly.
I could go on and on but I'll stop here. I use SAS with Teradata extensively every day against what I'm told is one of the largest Teradata environments on the planet. I enjoy programming in both.

You imply an assumption that the 90k records in your first query are all unique ids. Is that definite?
I ask because the implication from your second query is that they're not unique.
- One id can have multiple values over time, and have different somevalues
If the ids are not unique in the first dataset, you need to GROUP BY id or use DISTINCT, in the first query.
Imagine that the 90k rows consists of 30k unique ids, and so have an average of 3 rows per id.
And then imagine those 30k unique ids actually have 9 records in your time window, including rows where somevalue <> x.
You will then get 3x9 records back per id.
And as those two numbers grow, the number of records in your second query grows geometrically.
Alternative Query
If that's not the problem, an alternative query (which is not ideal, but possible) would be...
SELECT
bigTable.id,
SUM(bigTable.value) AS total
FROM
bigTable
WHERE
bigTable.date BETWEEN a AND b
GROUP BY
bigTable.id
HAVING
MAX(CASE WHEN bigTable.somevalue = x THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) = 1

If ID is unique and a single value, then you can try constructing a format.
Create a dataset that looks like this:
fmtname, start, label
where fmtname is the same for all records, a legal format name (begins and ends with a letter, contains alphanumeric or _); start is the ID value; and label is a 1. Then add one row with the same value for fmtname, a blank start, a label of 0, and another variable, hlo='o' (for 'other'). Then import into proc format using the CNTLIN option, and you now have a 1/0 value conversion.
Here's a brief example using SASHELP.CLASS. ID here is name, but it can be numeric or character - whichever is right for your use.
data for_fmt;
set sashelp.class;
retain fmtname '$IDF'; *Format name is up to you. Should have $ if ID is character, no $ if numeric;
start=name; *this would be your ID variable - the look up;
label='1';
output;
if _n_ = 1 then do;
hlo='o';
call missing(start);
label='0';
output;
end;
run;
proc format cntlin=for_fmt;
quit;
Now instead of doing a join, you can do your query 'normally' but with an additional where clause of and put(id,$IDF.)='1'. This won't be optimized with an index or anything, but it may be faster than the join. (It may also not be faster - depends on how the SQL optimizer is working.)

If the id is unique you might add a UNIQUE PRIMARY INDEX(id) to that table, otherwise it defaults to a Non-unique PI.
Knowing about uniquenes helps the optimizer to produce a better plan.
Without more info like an Explain (just put EXPLAIN in front of the SELECT) it's hard to tell how this can be improved.

One alternate solution is to use SAS procedures. I don't know what your actual SQL is doing, but if you're just doing frequencies (or something else that can be done in a PROC), you could do:
proc sql;
create view blah as select ... (your join);
quit;
proc freq data=blah;
tables id/out=summary(rename=count=total keep=id count);
run;
Or any number of other options (PROC MEANS, PROC TABULATE, etc.). That may be faster than doing the sum in SQL (depending on some details, such as how your data is organized, what you're actually doing, and how much memory you have available). It has the added benefit that SAS might choose to do this in-database, if you create the view in the database, which might be faster. (In fact, if you just run the freq off the base table, it's possible that would be even faster, and then join the results to the smaller table).

Related

Get count of distinct key field values from CDS

I would like to ask if it is possible to get dynamically Count of distinct fields using ABAP.
Key in our CDS has 9 fields which is quite a lot but it is not possible to split because of historical decisions. What I need is code like below:
select count(distinct (lv_requested_elements)) from CDS_VIEW;
or
select count(*) from (select distinct lv_requested_elements from CDS_VIEW);
I know that it is possible to read the select into memory and get sy-dbcnt but I want to be sure that there is no other option.
I assume that most simple and straightforward way is to read the smallest field into memory and then count by grouped (distinctified) rows:
DATA(fields) = ` BLART, BLDAT, BUDAT`.
DATA: lt_count TYPE TABLE OF string.
SELECT (fields(6))
INTO TABLE #lt_count
FROM ('BKPF')
GROUP BY (fields).
DATA(count) = sy-dbcnt.
CTE, that was mentioned, uses the same memory read, so you'll receive no performance gain:
A common table expression creates a temporary tabular results set, which can be accessed during execution of the WITH statement
If you going to count this key combination frequently, I propose to create consumption or nested CDS view which will do this on-the-fly.

SAS Macro variable to represent what is in an IN statement in Proc SQL

I have a query I want to run through SAS in Proc SQL where I am getting data from one of our company databases. At the top of the query, for ease of use mostly, I want to be able to put a list of input variables. I am interested in getting data only in certain dates and certain states. The dates I care about are contiguous so I just make a SAS macro variable for the start date and end date and use a between statement. That's easy enough. But, for the states, I can't do such a thing. So, my thought was to do something like
%LET States = ('CT', 'MD', 'ME', 'NC', 'WV');
and then later on, I want to do a where statement
WHERE (State_Tp IN &States)
Now, this does not work. And, I've tried several other variations but I can't seem to get it to work. Is something like this possible?
While your code is fine as is, a better solution (that might have less issues anyway) would be to create a dataset with the desired states, and join against it (or use an exists clause if that is better for your needs). This is easier to maintain (as you can keep the dataset in an easily editable format separate from the code, like in excel) and may be faster in some cases.
data states;
input state_tp $;
datalines;
CT
MD
ME
NC
WV
;;;;
run;
proc sql;
create table test as
select Z.*
from sashelp.zipcode Z
inner join
states s
on z.state_tp=s.state_tp;
quit;
or
proc sql;
create table test as
select * from sashelp.zipcode z
where exists (
select 1 from states s
where s.state_tp=z.state_tp);
quit;

IN vs OR of Oracle, which faster?

I'm developing an application which processes many data in Oracle database.
In some case, I have to get many object based on a given list of conditions, and I use SELECT ...FROM.. WHERE... IN..., but the IN expression just accepts a list whose size is maximum 1,000 items.
So I use OR expression instead, but as I observe -- perhaps this query (using OR) is slower than IN (with the same list of condition). Is it right? And if so, how to improve the speed of query?
IN is preferable to OR -- OR is a notoriously bad performer, and can cause other issues that would require using parenthesis in complex queries.
Better option than either IN or OR, is to join to a table containing the values you want (or don't want). This table for comparison can be derived, temporary, or already existing in your schema.
In this scenario I would do this:
Create a one column global temporary table
Populate this table with your list from the external source (and quickly - another whole discussion)
Do your query by joining the temporary table to the other table (consider dynamic sampling as the temporary table will not have good statistics)
This means you can leave the sort to the database and write a simple query.
Oracle internally converts IN lists to lists of ORs anyway so there should really be no performance differences. The only difference is that Oracle has to transform INs but has longer strings to parse if you supply ORs yourself.
Here is how you test that.
CREATE TABLE my_test (id NUMBER);
SELECT 1
FROM my_test
WHERE id IN (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,
31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,
41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,
51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,
61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,
71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,
81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,
91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100
);
SELECT sql_text, hash_value
FROM v$sql
WHERE sql_text LIKE '%my_test%';
SELECT operation, options, filter_predicates
FROM v$sql_plan
WHERE hash_value = '1181594990'; -- hash_value from previous query
SELECT STATEMENT
TABLE ACCESS FULL ("ID"=1 OR "ID"=2 OR "ID"=3 OR "ID"=4 OR "ID"=5
OR "ID"=6 OR "ID"=7 OR "ID"=8 OR "ID"=9 OR "ID"=10 OR "ID"=21 OR
"ID"=22 OR "ID"=23 OR "ID"=24 OR "ID"=25 OR "ID"=26 OR "ID"=27 OR
"ID"=28 OR "ID"=29 OR "ID"=30 OR "ID"=31 OR "ID"=32 OR "ID"=33 OR
"ID"=34 OR "ID"=35 OR "ID"=36 OR "ID"=37 OR "ID"=38 OR "ID"=39 OR
"ID"=40 OR "ID"=41 OR "ID"=42 OR "ID"=43 OR "ID"=44 OR "ID"=45 OR
"ID"=46 OR "ID"=47 OR "ID"=48 OR "ID"=49 OR "ID"=50 OR "ID"=51 OR
"ID"=52 OR "ID"=53 OR "ID"=54 OR "ID"=55 OR "ID"=56 OR "ID"=57 OR
"ID"=58 OR "ID"=59 OR "ID"=60 OR "ID"=61 OR "ID"=62 OR "ID"=63 OR
"ID"=64 OR "ID"=65 OR "ID"=66 OR "ID"=67 OR "ID"=68 OR "ID"=69 OR
"ID"=70 OR "ID"=71 OR "ID"=72 OR "ID"=73 OR "ID"=74 OR "ID"=75 OR
"ID"=76 OR "ID"=77 OR "ID"=78 OR "ID"=79 OR "ID"=80 OR "ID"=81 OR
"ID"=82 OR "ID"=83 OR "ID"=84 OR "ID"=85 OR "ID"=86 OR "ID"=87 OR
"ID"=88 OR "ID"=89 OR "ID"=90 OR "ID"=91 OR "ID"=92 OR "ID"=93 OR
"ID"=94 OR "ID"=95 OR "ID"=96 OR "ID"=97 OR "ID"=98 OR "ID"=99 OR
"ID"=100)
I would question the whole approach. The client of the SP has to send 100000 IDs. Where does the client get those IDs from? Sending such a large number of ID as the parameter of the proc is going to cost significantly anyway.
If you create the table with a primary key:
CREATE TABLE my_test (id NUMBER,
CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY (id));
and go through the same SELECTs to run the query with the multiple IN values, followed by retrieving the execution plan via hash value, what you get is:
SELECT STATEMENT
INLIST ITERATOR
INDEX RANGE SCAN
This seems to imply that when you have an IN list and are using this with a PK column, Oracle keeps the list internally as an "INLIST" because it is more efficient to process this, rather than converting it to ORs as in the case of an un-indexed table.
I was using Oracle 10gR2 above.

SQL argument limit in Oracle

It appears that there is a limit of 1000 arguments in an Oracle SQL. I ran into this when generating queries such as....
select * from orders where user_id IN(large list of ids over 1000)
My workaround is to create a temporary table, insert the user ids into that first instead of issuing a query via JDBC that has a giant list of parameters in the IN.
Does anybody know of an easier workaround? Since we are using Hibernate I wonder if it automatically is able to do a similar workaround transparently.
An alternative approach would be to pass an array to the database and use a TABLE() function in the IN clause. This will probably perform better than a temporary table. It will certainly be more efficient than running multiple queries. But you will need to monitor PGA memory usage if you have a large number of sessions doing this stuff. Also, I'm not sure how easy it will be to wire this into Hibernate.
Note: TABLE() functions operate in the SQL engine, so they need us to declare a SQL type.
create or replace type tags_nt as table of varchar2(10);
/
The following sample populates an array with a couple of thousand random tags. It then uses the array in the IN clause of a query.
declare
search_tags tags_nt;
n pls_integer;
begin
select name
bulk collect into search_tags
from ( select name
from temp_tags
order by dbms_random.value )
where rownum <= 2000;
select count(*)
into n
from big_table
where name in ( select * from table (search_tags) );
dbms_output.put_line('tags match '||n||' rows!');
end;
/
As long as the temporary table is a global temporary table (ie only visible to the session), this is the recommended way of doing things (and I'd go that route for anything more than a dozen arguments, let alone a thousand).
I'd wonder where/how you are building that list of 1000 arguments. If this is a semi-permanent grouping (eg all employees based in a particular location) then that grouping should be in the database and the join done there. Databases are designed and built to do joins really quickly. Much quicker than pulling a bunch of id's back to the mid tier and then sending them back to the database.
select * from orders
where user_id in
(select user_id from users where location = :loc)
You can add additional predicates to split the list into chunks of 1000:
select * from orders where user_id IN (<first batch of 1000>)
OR user_id IN (<second batch of 1000>)
OR user_id IN ...
the comments regarding "if these IDs are in your database, use joins/correlation instead" hold true. However, if your list of IDs comes from elsewhere, like a SOLR result, you can get around the temp table requirement by issuing multiple queries, each with no more than 1000 ids present, and then merging the results of the query in memory. If you place the initial list of ids in a unique collection like a hashset, you can pop off 1000 ids at a time.

MySQL - Selecting data from multiple tables all with same structure but different data

Ok, here is my dilemma I have a database set up with about 5 tables all with the exact same data structure. The data is separated in this manner for localization purposes and to split up a total of about 4.5 million records.
A majority of the time only one table is needed and all is well. However, sometimes data is needed from 2 or more of the tables and it needs to be sorted by a user defined column. This is where I am having problems.
data columns:
id, band_name, song_name, album_name, genre
MySQL statment:
SELECT * from us_music, de_music where `genre` = 'punk'
MySQL spits out this error:
#1052 - Column 'genre' in where clause is ambiguous
Obviously, I am doing this wrong. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me?
I think you're looking for the UNION clause, a la
(SELECT * from us_music where `genre` = 'punk')
UNION
(SELECT * from de_music where `genre` = 'punk')
It sounds like you'd be happer with a single table. The five having the same schema, and sometimes needing to be presented as if they came from one table point to putting it all in one table.
Add a new column which can be used to distinguish among the five languages (I'm assuming it's language that is different among the tables since you said it was for localization). Don't worry about having 4.5 million records. Any real database can handle that size no problem. Add the correct indexes, and you'll have no trouble dealing with them as a single table.
Any of the above answers are valid, or an alternative way is to expand the table name to include the database name as well - eg:
SELECT * from us_music, de_music where `us_music.genre` = 'punk' AND `de_music.genre` = 'punk'
The column is ambiguous because it appears in both tables you would need to specify the where (or sort) field fully such as us_music.genre or de_music.genre but you'd usually specify two tables if you were then going to join them together in some fashion. The structure your dealing with is occasionally referred to as a partitioned table although it's usually done to separate the dataset into distinct files as well rather than to just split the dataset arbitrarily. If you're in charge of the database structure and there's no good reason to partition the data then I'd build one big table with an extra "origin" field that contains a country code but you're probably doing it for legitimate performance reason.
Either use a union to join the tables you're interested in http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/union.html or by using the Merge database engine http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/merge-storage-engine.html.
Your original attempt to span both tables creates an implicit JOIN. This is frowned upon by most experienced SQL programmers because it separates the tables to be combined with the condition of how.
The UNION is a good solution for the tables as they are, but there should be no reason they can't be put into the one table with decent indexing. I've seen adding the correct index to a large table increase query speed by three orders of magnitude.
The union statement cause a deal time in huge data. It is good to perform the select in 2 steps:
select the id
then select the main table with it