I'm implementing a queue in SQL Server (2008 R2) containing jobs that are to be performed. Upon completion, the job is moved to a history table, setting a flag to success or failure. The items in the queue table has an identity column as a primary key. The history queue has a combo of this id and a time stamp as a PK.
If a job fails, I would like the option to re-run it, and they way this is thought, is to move it back from the history table and back in to the live queue. For traceability purposes, I would like to have the reinserted row have the same ID as the original entry, which causes problems as this is an identity column.
I see two possible solutions:
1) Use IDENTITY_INSERT:
SET IDENTITY_INSERT TableName ON
-- Move from history to live queue
SET IDENTITY_INSERT TableName OFF
2) Create some custom logic to generate unique IDs, like getting the max ID value from both the live and history queue and adding one.
I don't see any real problems with 2 apart from it being messy, possibly poor performance and that it makes my neurotic skin crawl...
Option 1 I like, but I don't know the implications well enough. How will this perform? And I know that doing this to two tables at the same time will make things crash and burn. What happens if two threads does this to the same table at the same time?
Is this at all a good way to do this for semi-commonly used stored procedures, or should this technique just be used for batch inserting data once in a blue moon?
Any thoughts on which is the best option, or is there a better way?
I'd go with Option 1 - Use IDENTITY_INSERT
SET IDENTITY_INSERT TableName ON
-- Move from history to live queue
SET IDENTITY_INSERT TableName OFF
IDENTITY_INSERT is a setting that applies to the current connection - so if another connection is doing similar, it will have no impact. The only place you get an error with using it is if you attempt to set it ON on another table without first turning it OFF on the first table.
Can't you use the original (live) identity value to insert into the history table? You say you combine it with a timestamp anyway.
Assuming that the Queue's Identity column is the one assigning "Job IDs", I would think the simplest solution would be to add a new "OriginalJobID" nullable column, potentially with FK pointing to the history table. Then when you are rerunning a job, allow it to get a new ID as it is added to the queue, but have it keep a reference to the original job in this new column.
To answer "or should this technique just be used for batch inserting data once in a blue moon", I would say yes, definitely, that's exactly what it's for.
Oops, #Damien_The_Unbeliever is right, I'd forgotten that the IDENTITY_INSERT setting is per connection. It would be complicated to get yourself into real trouble with the identity insert approach (would take something like MARS I guess, or bad error-handling). Nonetheless, I think trying to reuse IDs is a mistake!
I can see a potential performance issue when reusing identity values and that is if the identity column is indexed by a clustered index.
A strict growing number will cause inserted rows to always be added last in the clustered index and no page splits will occur.
If you start to insert reused numbers then you may cause page splits during those insertions.
If that is a problem is up to your domain.
Related
I have a large table that I need to re-sort periodically. I am partly basing this on a suggestion I was given to stay away from using cluster keys since I am inserting data ordered differently (by time) from how I need it clustered (by ID), and that can cause re-clustering to get a little out of control.
Since I am writing to the table on a hourly I am wary of causing problems with these two processes conflicting: If I CTAS to a newly sorted temp table and then swap the table name it seems like I am opening the door to have a write on the source table not make it to the temp table.
I figure I can trigger a flag when I am re-sorting that causes the ETL to pause writing, but that seems a bit hacky and maybe fragile.
I was considering leveraging locking and transactions, but this doesn't seem to be the right use case for this since I don't think I'd be locking the table I am copying from while I write to a new table. Any advice on how to approach this?
I've asked some clarifying questions in the comments regarding the clustering that you are avoiding, but in regards to your sort, have you considered creating a nice 4XL warehouse and leveraging the INSERT OVERWRITE option back into itself? It'd look something like:
INSERT OVERWRITE INTO table SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id;
Assuming that your table isn't hundreds of TB in size, this will complete rather quickly (inside an hour, I would guess), and any inserts into the table during that period will queue up and wait for it to finish.
There are some reasons to avoid the automatic reclustering, but they're basically all the same reasons why you shouldn't set up a job to re-cluster frequently. You're making the database do all the same work, but without the built in management of it.
If your table is big enough that you are seeing performance issues with the clustering by time, and you know that the ID column is the main way that this table is filtered (in JOINs and WHERE clauses) then this is probably a good candidate for automatic clustering.
So I would recommend at least testing out a cluster key on the ID and then monitoring/comparing performance.
To give a brief answer to the question about resorting without conflicts as written:
I might recommend using a time column to re-sort records older than a given time (probably in a separate table). While it's sorting, you may get some new records. But you will be able to use that time column to marry up those new records with the, now sorted, older records.
You might consider revoking INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE privileges on the original table within the same script or procedure that performs the CTAS creating the newly sorted copy of the table. After a successful swap you can re-enable the privileges for the roles that are used to perform updates.
I need to do a cursor update of a table (milions of rows). The script should resume from last updated row if it would be started again (e.g. in case of a server restart).
What is the best way to resolve this? Create a new table with the last saved id? Use the tables extended propertes to save this info?
I would add an "UpdateDate" or "LastProcessDate" or some similarly named datetime column to your table and use this. When running your update, simply process any number of records that aren't the max UpdateDate or are null:
where UpdateDate < (select max(UpdateDate) from MyTable) or UpdateDate is null
It's probably a good idea to grab the max UpdateDate (#maxUpdateDate?) at the beginning of your process/loop so it does not change during a batch, and similarly get a new UpdateDate (#newUpdateDate?) at the beginning of your process to update each row as you go. A UTC date will work best to avoid DST time changes.
This data would now be a real attribute of your entity, not metadata or a temporary placeholder, and this would seem to be the best way to be transactionally consistent and otherwise fully ACID. It would also be more self-documenting than other methods, and can be indexed should the need arise. A date can also hold important temporal information about your data, whereas IDs and flags do not.
Doing it in this way would make storing data in other tables or extended properties redundant.
Some other thoughts:
Don't use a temp table that can disappear in many of the scenarios where you haven't processed all rows (connection loss, server restart, etc.).
Don't use an identity or other ID that can have gaps filled, be reseeded, truncated back to 0, etc.
The idea of having a max value stored in another table (essentially rolling your own sequence object) has generally been frowned upon and shown to be a dubious practice in SQL Server from what I've read, though I'm oddly having trouble locating a good article right now.
If at all possible, avoid cursors in favor of batches, and generally avoid batches in favor of full set-based updates.
sp_updateextendedproperty does seem to behave correctly with a rollback, though I'm not sure how locking works with that -- just FYI if you ultimately decide to go down that path.
I have got a table which has an id (primary key with auto increment), uid (key refering to users id for example) and something else which for my question won’t matter.
I want to make, lets call it, different auto-increment keys on id for each uid entry.
So, I will add an entry with uid 10, and the id field for this entry will have a 1 because there were no previous entries with a value of 10 in uid. I will add a new one with uid 4 and its id will be 3 because I there were already two entried with uid 4.
...Very obvious explanation, but I am trying to be as explainative an clear as I can to demonstrate the idea... clearly.
What SQL engine can provide such a functionality natively? (non Microsoft/Oracle based)
If there is none, how could I best replicate it? Triggers perhaps?
Does this functionality have a more suitable name?
In case you know about a non SQL database engine providing such a functioality, name it anyway, I am curious.
Thanks.
MySQL's MyISAM engine can do this. See their manual, in section Using AUTO_INCREMENT:
For MyISAM tables you can specify AUTO_INCREMENT on a secondary column in a multiple-column index. In this case, the generated value for the AUTO_INCREMENT column is calculated as MAX(auto_increment_column) + 1 WHERE prefix=given-prefix. This is useful when you want to put data into ordered groups.
The docs go on after that paragraph, showing an example.
The InnoDB engine in MySQL does not support this feature, which is unfortunate because it's better to use InnoDB in almost all cases.
You can't emulate this behavior using triggers (or any SQL statements limited to transaction scope) without locking tables on INSERT. Consider this sequence of actions:
Mario starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Bill starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Mario's session fires a trigger to computes MAX(id)+1 for user 4. You get 3.
Bill's session fires a trigger to compute MAX(id). I get 3.
Bill's session finishes his INSERT and commits.
Mario's session tries to finish his INSERT, but the row with (userid=4, id=3) now exists, so Mario gets a primary key conflict.
In general, you can't control the order of execution of these steps without some kind of synchronization.
The solutions to this are either:
Get an exclusive table lock. Before trying an INSERT, lock the table. This is necessary to prevent concurrent INSERTs from creating a race condition like in the example above. It's necessary to lock the whole table, since you're trying to restrict INSERT there's no specific row to lock (if you were trying to govern access to a given row with UPDATE, you could lock just the specific row). But locking the table causes access to the table to become serial, which limits your throughput.
Do it outside transaction scope. Generate the id number in a way that won't be hidden from two concurrent transactions. By the way, this is what AUTO_INCREMENT does. Two concurrent sessions will each get a unique id value, regardless of their order of execution or order of commit. But tracking the last generated id per userid requires access to the database, or a duplicate data store. For example, a memcached key per userid, which can be incremented atomically.
It's relatively easy to ensure that inserts get unique values. But it's hard to ensure they will get consecutive ordinal values. Also consider:
What happens if you INSERT in a transaction but then roll back? You've allocated id value 3 in that transaction, and then I allocated value 4, so if you roll back and I commit, now there's a gap.
What happens if an INSERT fails because of other constraints on the table (e.g. another column is NOT NULL)? You could get gaps this way too.
If you ever DELETE a row, do you need to renumber all the following rows for the same userid? What does that do to your memcached entries if you use that solution?
SQL Server should allow you to do this. If you can't implement this using a computed column (probably not - there are some restrictions), surely you can implement it in a trigger.
MySQL also would allow you to implement this via triggers.
In a comment you ask the question about efficiency. Unless you are dealing with extreme volumes, storing an 8 byte DATETIME isn't much of an overhead compared to using, for example, a 4 byte INT.
It also massively simplifies your data inserts, as well as being able to cope with records being deleted without creating 'holes' in your sequence.
If you DO need this, be careful with the field names. If you have uid and id in a table, I'd expect id to be unique in that table, and uid to refer to something else. Perhaps, instead, use the field names property_id and amendment_id.
In terms of implementation, there are generally two options.
1). A trigger
Implementations vary, but the logic remains the same. As you don't specify an RDBMS (other than NOT MS/Oracle) the general logic is simple...
Start a transaction (often this is Implicitly already started inside triggers)
Find the MAX(amendment_id) for the property_id being inserted
Update the newly inserted value with MAX(amendment_id) + 1
Commit the transaction
Things to be aware of are...
- multiple records being inserted at the same time
- records being inserted with amendment_id being already populated
- updates altering existing records
2). A Stored Procedure
If you use a stored procedure to control writes to the table, you gain a lot more control.
Implicitly, you know you're only dealing with one record.
You simply don't provide a parameter for DEFAULT fields.
You know what updates / deletes can and can't happen.
You can implement all the business logic you like without hidden triggers
I personally recommend the Stored Procedure route, but triggers do work.
It is important to get your data types right.
What you are describing is a multi-part key. So use a multi-part key. Don't try to encode everything into a magic integer, you will poison the rest of your code.
If a record is identified by (entity_id,version_number) then embrace that description and use it directly instead of mangling the meaning of your keys. You will have to write queries which constrain the version number but that's OK. Databases are good at this sort of thing.
version_number could be a timestamp, as a_horse_with_no_name suggests. This is quite a good idea. There is no meaningful performance disadvantage to using timestamps instead of plain integers. What you gain is meaning, which is more important.
You could maintain a "latest version" table which contains, for each entity_id, only the record with the most-recent version_number. This will be more work for you, so only do it if you really need the performance.
I have a SQL Server table in production that has millions of rows, and it turns out that I need to add a column to it. Or, to be more accurate, I need to add a field to the entity that the table represents.
Syntactically this isn't a problem, and if the table didn't have so many rows and wasn't in production, this would be easy.
Really what I'm after is the course of action. There are plenty of websites out there with extremely large tables, and they must add fields from time to time. How do they do it without substantial downtime?
One thing I should add, I did not want the column to allow nulls, which would mean that I'd need to have a default value.
So I either need to figure out how to add a column with a default value in a timely manner, or I need to figure out a way to update the column at a later time and then set the column to not allow nulls.
ALTER TABLE table1 ADD
newcolumn int NULL
GO
should not take that long... What takes a long time is to insert columns in the middle of other columns... b/c then the engine needs to create a new table and copy the data to the new table.
I did not want the column to allow nulls, which would mean that I'd need to have a default value.
Adding a NOT NULL column with a DEFAULT Constraint to a table of any number of rows (even billions) became a lot easier starting in SQL Server 2012 (but only for Enterprise Edition) as they allowed it to be an Online operation (in most cases) where, for existing rows, the value will be read from meta-data and not actually stored in the row until the row is updated, or clustered index is rebuilt. Rather than paraphrase any more, here is the relevant section from the MSDN page for ALTER TABLE:
Adding NOT NULL Columns as an Online Operation
Starting with SQL Server 2012 Enterprise Edition, adding a NOT NULL column with a default value is an online operation when the default value is a runtime constant. This means that the operation is completed almost instantaneously regardless of the number of rows in the table. This is because the existing rows in the table are not updated during the operation; instead, the default value is stored only in the metadata of the table and the value is looked up as needed in queries that access these rows. This behavior is automatic; no additional syntax is required to implement the online operation beyond the ADD COLUMN syntax. A runtime constant is an expression that produces the same value at runtime for each row in the table regardless of its determinism. For example, the constant expression "My temporary data", or the system function GETUTCDATETIME() are runtime constants. In contrast, the functions NEWID() or NEWSEQUENTIALID() are not runtime constants because a unique value is produced for each row in the table. Adding a NOT NULL column with a default value that is not a runtime constant is always performed offline and an exclusive (SCH-M) lock is acquired for the duration of the operation.
While the existing rows reference the value stored in metadata, the default value is stored on the row for any new rows that are inserted and do not specify another value for the column. The default value stored in metadata is moved to an existing row when the row is updated (even if the actual column is not specified in the UPDATE statement), or if the table or clustered index is rebuilt.
Columns of type varchar(max), nvarchar(max), varbinary(max), xml, text, ntext, image, hierarchyid, geometry, geography, or CLR UDTS, cannot be added in an online operation. A column cannot be added online if doing so causes the maximum possible row size to exceed the 8,060 byte limit. The column is added as an offline operation in this case.
The only real solution for continuous uptime is redundancy.
I acknowledge #Nestor's answer that adding a new column shouldn't take long in SQL Server, but nevertheless, it could still be an outage that is not acceptable on a production system. An alternative is to make the change in a parallel system, and then once the operation is complete, swap the new for the old.
For example, if you need to add a column, you may create a copy of the table, then add the column to that copy, and then use sp_rename() to move the old table aside and the new table into place.
If you have referential integrity constraints pointing to this table, this can make the swap even more tricky. You probably have to drop the constraints briefly as you swap the tables.
For some kinds of complex upgrades, you could completely duplicate the database on a separate server host. Once that's ready, just swap the DNS entries for the two servers and voilà!
I supported a stock exchange company
in the 1990's who ran three duplicate
database servers at all times. That
way they could implement upgrades on
one server, while retaining one
production server and one failover
server. Their operations had a
standard procedure of rotating the
three machines through production,
failover, and maintenance roles every
day. When they needed to upgrade
hardware, software, or alter the
database schema, it took three days to
propagate the change through their
servers, but they could do it with no
interruption in service. All thanks
to redundancy.
"Add the column and then perform relatively small UPDATE batches to populate the column with a default value. That should prevent any noticeable slowdowns"
And after that you have to set the column to NOT NULL which will fire off in one big transaction. So everything will run really fast until you do that so you have probably gained very little really. I only know this from first hand experience.
You might want to rename the current table from X to Y. You can do this with this command sp_RENAME '[OldTableName]' , '[NewTableName]'.
Recreate the new table as X with the new column set to NOT NULL and then batch insert from Y to X and include a default value either in your insert for the new column or placing a default value on the new column when you recreate table X.
I have done this type of change on a table with hundreds of millions of rows. It still took over an hour, but it didn't blow out our trans log. When I tried to just change the column to NOT NULL with all the data in the table it took over 20 hours before I killed the process.
Have you tested just adding a column filling it with data and setting the column to NOT NULL?
So in the end I don't think there's a magic bullet.
select into a new table and rename. Example, Adding column i to table A:
select *, 1 as i
into A_tmp
from A_tbl
//Add any indexes here
exec sp_rename 'A_tbl', 'A_old'
exec sp_rename 'A_tmp', 'A_tbl'
Should be fast and won't touch your transaction log like inserting in batches might.
(I just did this today w/ a 70 million row table in < 2 min).
You can wrap it in a transaction if you need it to be an online operation (something might change in the table between the select into and the renames).
Another technique is to add the column to a new related table (Assume a one-to-one relationship which you can enforce by giving the FK a unique index). You can then populate this in batches and then you can add the join to this table wherever you want the data to appear. Note I would only consider this for a column that I would not want to use in every query on the original table or if the record width of my original table was getting too large or if I was adding several columns.
We have a set of databases that have a table defined with an Identity column as the primary key. As a sub-set of these are replicated to other servers, a seed system was created so that they could never clash. That system was by using a starting seed with an increment of 50.
In this way the table on DB1 would generate 30001, 30051 etc, where Database2 would generate 30002, 30052 and so on.
I am looking at adding another database into this system (it is split for scaling/loading purposes) and have discovered that the identites have got out of sync on one or two of the databases - i.e. database 3 that should have numbers ending in 3, doesn't anymore. The seeding and increments is still correct according to the table design.
I am obviously going to have to work around this problem somehow (probably by setting a high initial value), but can anyone tell me what would cause them to get out of sync like this? From a query on the DB I can see the sequence went as follows: 32403,32453, 32456, 32474, 32524, 32574 and has continued in increments of 50 ever since it went wrong.
As far as I am aware no bulk-inserts or DTS or anything like that has put new data into these tables.
Second (bonus) question - how to reset the identity so that it goes back to what I want it to actually be!
EDIT:
I know the design is in principle a bit ropey - I didn't ask for criticism of it, I just wondered how it could have got out of sync. I inherited this system and changing the column to a GUID - whilst undoubtedly the best theoretical solution - is probably not going to happen. The system evolved from a single DB to multiple DBs when the load got too large (a few hundred GBs currently). Each ID in this table will be referenced in many other places - sometimes a few hundred thousand times each (multiplied by about 40,000 for each item). Updating all those will not be happening ;-)
Replication = GUID column.
To set the value of the next ID to be 1000:
DBCC CHECKIDENT (orders, RESEED, 999)
If you want to actually use Primary Keys for some meaningful purpose other than uniquely identify a row in a table, then it's not an Identity Column, and you need to assign them some other explicit way.
If you want to merge rows from multiple tables, then you are violating the intent of Identity, which is for one table. (A GUID column will use values that are unique enough to solve this problem. But you still can't impute a meaningful purpose to them.)
Perhaps somebody used:
SET IDENTITY INSERT {tablename} ON
INSERT INTO {tablename} (ID, ...)
VALUES(32456, ....)
SET IDENTITY INSERT {tablename} OFF
Or perhaps they used DBCC CHECKIDENT to change the identity. In any case, you can use the same to set it back.
It's too risky to rely on this kind of identity strategy, since it's (obviously) possible that it will get out of synch and wreck everything.
With replication, you really need to identify your data with GUIDs. It will probably be easier for you to migrate your data to a schema that uses GUIDs for PKs than to try and hack your way around IDENTITY issues.
To address your question directly,
Why did it get out of sync may be interesting to discuss, but the only result you could draw from the answer would be to prevent it in the future; which is a bad course of action. You will continue to have these and bigger problems unless you deal with the design which has a fatal flaw.
How to set the existing values right is also (IMHO) an invalid question, because you need to do something other than set the values right - it won't solve your problem.
This isn't to disparage you, it's to help you the best way I can think of. Changing the design is less work both short term and long term. Not to change the design is the pathway to FAIL.
This doesn't really answer your core question, but one possibility to address the design would be to switch to a hi_lo algorithm. it wouldn't require changing the column away from an int. so it shouldn't be nearly as much work as changing to a guid.
Hi_lo is used by the nhibernate ORM, but I couldn't find much documentation on it.
Basically the way a Hi_lo works is you have 1 central place where you keep track of your hi value. 1 table in 1 of the databases that every instance of your insert application can see. then you need to have some kind of a service (object, web service, whatever) that has a life somewhat longer than a single entity insert. this service when it starts up will go to the hi table, grab the current value, then increment the value in that table. Use a read committed lock to do this so that you won't get any concurrency issues with other instances of the service. Now you would use the new service to get your next id value. It internally starts at the number it got from the db, and when it passes that value out, increments by 1. keeping track of this current value and the "range" it's allowed to pass out. A simplistic example would be this.
service 1 gets 100 from "hi_value" table in db. increments db value 200.
service 1 gets request for a new ID. passes out 100.
another instance of the service, service 2 (either another thread, another middle tier worker machine, etc) spins up, gets 200 from the db, increments db to 300.
service 2 gets a request for a new id. passes out 200.
service 1 gets a request for a new id. passes out 101.
if any of these ever gets to passing out more than 100 before dying, then they will go back to the db, and get the current value and increment it and start over. Obviously there's some art to this. How big should your range be, etc.
A very simple variation on this is a single table in one of your db's that just contains the "nextId" value. basically manually reproducing oracle's sequence concept.