We are facing problem in the alter table SQL statement. Some time we update our database at client side and the alter table sql taking very much time. I like to know, how alter works? Does alter statement performance correlated to that table data? Means, if table have large data then alter will take much time.
There is also problem with the Oracle 11G R2. Is there any changes which need to incorporate to our code? Our code is very old and working fine till now?
There could be several reasons for this:
If the table is locked by another
query/resource. It would wait for the
lock to be released and then execute
the update...
If the table contains many rows and you have added a new column in the table with a default value, it would execute an update query for whole table after altering the table to update all the existing records with the default value...
If for example you add a new column with a default value in a large table, then it will take time depending the size of the table.
Related
I have around 10 tables which have data in them. I need to change the fields which have data type bigint to numeric(18,0).
We have verified data in our DB, there would not be any data loss. In our lower environment, what we have done is:
Took backup for existing table, renamed it temporarily
Create a new table with numeric data type
Populate data from backup table
If everything is okay, then delete backup table
The above is the process we have followed in lower environments.
But, we cannot follow above procedure when it comes to prod. We would like to change using ALTER statement. Since it is PROD environment, we have to be careful with changes. As I said earlier, there would not be any data loss.
But still wanted to know - what internally happens when we execute the ALTER statement?
Will it drop the table and recreate it with new definitions and populate the data back? If so, are there any risk associated with this?
Any thoughts on how this could be properly handled in PROD would be appreciated.
I might suggest an approach that doesn't rebuild the data. Use a computed column instead. Something like this:
sp_rename 'table.dbo.col', '_col', 'COLUMN';
alter table table add col as (cast(_col as numeric(18, 0));
You can then access col as the type that you want. You will not have to rewrite any data, so there will not be any locks or other issues with performance. Of course, select * will be a bit redundant, but you probably shouldn't be doing that anyway.
We are using SQL Server 2008. We have an Existing database and it was required to ADD a new COLUMN to one of the Table which has 2700 rows only but one of its column is of type VARCHAR(8000). When i try to add new column (CHAR(1) NULL) by using ALTER table command, it takes too much time!! it took 5 minutes and the command was still running to i stopped the command.
Below is the command, i was trying to add new column:
ALTER TABLE myTable Add ColumnName CHAR(1) NULL
Can someone help me to understand that How the SQL Server handles
the ALTER Table command? what happens exactly?
Why it takes so much time to Add new column
EDIT:
What is the effect of Table size on ALTER Command?
Altering a table requires a schema lock. Many other operations require the same lock too. After all, it wouldn't make sense to add a column halfway a select statement.
So a likely explanation is that a process had the table locked for 5 minutes. The ALTER then has to wait until it gets the lock itself.
You can see blocked processes, and the blocking process, from the Activity Monitor in SQL Server Management Studio.
Well, one thing to bear in mind is that you were adding a new fixed length column to the table. The way that rows are structured in storage, all fixed length columns are placed before all of the variable length columns, for each row. So every row would have had to be updated in storage to make this change.
If, in turn, this caused the number of rows which could be stored on each page to change, a great many new allocations may have been required.
That being said, for the number of rows indicated, I wouldn't have though it should take 5 minutes - unless, as Andomar indicated, there was some lock contention also involved.
I want to run the following on a table of about 12 million records.
ALTER TABLE t1
ADD c1 int NULL;
ALTER TABLE t2
ADD c2 bit NOT NULL
DEFAULT(0);
I've done it in staging and the timing seemed fine, but before I do it in production, I wanted to know how locking works on the table during new column creation (especially when a default value is specified). So, does anyone know? Does the whole table get locked, or do the rows get locked one by one during default value insertion? Or does something different altogether happen?
Prior to SQL Server 11 (Denali) the add non-null column with default will run an update behind the scenes to populate the new default values. Thus it will lock the table for the duration of the 12 million rows update. In SQL Server 11 this is no longer the case, the column is added online and no update occurs, see Online non-NULL with values column add in SQL Server 11.
Both in SQL Server 11 and prior a Sch-M lock is acquired on the table to modify the definition (add the new column metadata). This lock is incompatible with any other possible access (including dirty reads). The difference is in the duration: prior to SQL Server 11 this lock will be hold for a size-of-data operation (update of 12M rows). In SQL Server 11 the lock is only held for a short brief. In the pre-SQL Server 11 update of the rows no row lock needs to be acquired because the Sch-M lock on the table guarantees that there cannot be any conflict on any individual row.
Yes, it will lock the table.
A table, as a whole, has a single schema (set of columns, with associated types). So, at a minimum, a schema lock would be required to update the definition of the table.
Try to think about how things would work contrariwise - if each row was updated individually, how would any parallel queries work (especially if they involved the new columns)?
And default values are only useful during INSERT and DDL statements - so if you specify a new default for 10,000,000 rows, that default value has to be applied to all of those rows.
Yes, it will lock.
DDL statements issue a Schema Lock (see this link) which will prevent access to the table until the operation completes.
There's not really a way around this, and it makes sense if you think about it. SQL needs to know how many fields are in a table, and during this operation some rows will have more fields than others.
The alternative is to make a new table with the correct fields, insert into, then rename the tables to swap them out.
I have not read how the lock mechanism works when adding a column, but I am almost 100% sure row by row is impossible.
Watch when you do these types of things in SQL Server Manager with drag and drop (I know you are not doing this here, but this is a public forum), as some changes are destructive (fortunately, SQL Server 2008, at least R2, is safer here as it tells you "no can do" rather than just do it).
You can run both column additions in a single statement, however, and reduce the churn.
I have an existing table with 15 million rows in it. I want to add an identity column and make it primary key. The problem is this table is always moving (inserts, updates, deletes). Is it possible to add the identity column with this? Or I have to stop the backgroud processes (it is a tedious task) which updates this table?
Thanks
Vikram
Given that you have 15 million rows it might take some non-trivial amount of time to execute the ALTER TABLE statement.
Since SQL Server doesn't provide table hints for ALTER TABLE its pretty safe to assume that SQL Server takes a table lock when it executes an ALTER TABLE statement.
During this time no other process will be allowed to Select, insert, update, or delete so you don't have to worry about a race condition with some other process.
If the process takes long enough your other processes will experience timeout errors. Depending on how the processes are written this is either a bad thing or a non-issue, but you'll need to figure that out. If it were me I would turn them off.
sometimes i face the following case in my database design,, i wanna to know what is the best practice to handle this case:::
for example i have a specific table and after a while ,, when the database in operation and some real data are already entered.. i need to add some required fields (that supposed not to accept null)..
what is the best practice in this situation..
make the field accept null as (some data already entered in the table ,, and scarify the important constraint )and try to force the user to enter this field through some validation in the code..
truncate all the entered data and reentered them again (tedious work)..
any other suggestions about this issue...
It depends on requirements. If the data to populate existing rows for the new column isn't available immediately then I would generally prefer to create a new table and just populate new rows when the data exists. If and when you have all the data for every row then put the new column into the original table.
If possible i would set a default value for the new column.
e.g. For Varchar
alter table table_name
add column_name varchar(10) not null
constraint column_name_default default ('Test')
After you have updated you could then drop the default
alter table table_name
drop constraint column_name_default
A lot will come down to your requirements.
It depends on your application, your database scheme, your entities.
The best way to go about it is to truncate the data and re - enter it again, but it need not be too tedious an item. Temporary tables and table variables could assist a great deal with this issue. A simple procedure comes to mind to go about it:
In SQL Server Management Studio, Right - click on the table you wish to modify and select Script Table As > CREATE To > New Query Editor Window.
Add a # in front of the table name in the CREATE statement.
Move all records into the temporary table, using something to the effect of:
INSERT INTO #temp SELECT * FROM original
Then run the script to keep all your records into the temporary table.
Truncate your original table, and make any changes necessary.
Right - click on the table and select Script Table As > INSERT To > Clipboard, paste it into your query editor window and modify it to read records from the temporary table, using INSERT .. SELECT.
That's it. Admittedly not quite straightforward, but a well - kept database is almost always worth a slight hassle.