If a query is constantly sent to a database at short intervals, say every 5 seconds, could the number of reads generated cause problems in terms of performance or availability? If the database is Oracle are there any tricks that can be used to avoid a performance hit? If the queries are coming from an application is there a way to reduce any impact through software design?
Unless your query is very intensive or horribly written then it won't cause any noticeable issues running once every few seconds. That's not very often for queries that are generally measured in milliseconds.
You may still want to optimize it though, simply because there are better ways to do it. In Oracle and ADO.NET you can use an OracleDependency for the command that ran the query the first time and then subscribe to its OnChange event which will get called automatically whenever the underlying data would cause the query results to change.
It depends on the query. I assume the reason you want to execute it periodically is because the data being returned will changed frequently. If that's the case, then application level caching is obviously not an option.
Past that, is this query "big" in terms of the number of rows returned, tables joined, data aggregated / calculated? If so, it could be a problem if:
You are querying faster than it takes to execute the query. If you are calling it once a second, but it takes 2 seconds to run, that's going to become a problem.
If the query is touching a lot of data and you have a lot of other queries accessing the same tables, you could run into lock escalation issues.
As with most performance questions, the only real answer is to test. In this case test with realistic data in the DB and run this query concurrent with the other query load you expect on the system.
Along the lines of Samuel's suggestion, Oracle provides facilities in JDBC to do database change notification so that your application can subscribe to changes in the underlying data rather than re-running the query every few seconds. If the data is changing less frequently than you're running the query, this can be a major performance benefit.
Another option would be to use Oracle TimesTen as an in memory cache of the data on the middle tier machine(s). That will reduce the network round-trips and it will go through a very optimized retrieval path.
Finally, I'd take a look at using the query result cache to have Oracle cache the results.
Related
I am using very large tables containing hundreds of millions of rows, and I am measuring the performances of some queries using SQL Developer, I figured out that there is an option called Unshared SQL worksheet, it allows me to execute many queries at the same time. Executing many queries at the same time is suitable for me especially that some queries or procedure take hours to be executed.
My question is does executing many queries at the same time affect performances? (by performances I mean the duration of execution of queries)
Every query costs something to execute. That's just physics. Your database has a fixed amount of resources - CPU, memory, I/O, temp disk - to service queries (let's leave elastic cloud instances out of the picture). Every query which is executing simultaneously is asking for resources from that fixed pot. Potentially, if you run too many queries at the same time you will run into resource contention, which will affect the performance of individual queries.
Note the word "potentially". Whether you will run into actual problem depends on many things: what resources your queries need, how efficiently your queries have been written, how much resource your database server has available, how efficiently it's been configured to support multiple users (and whether the DBA has implemented profiles to manage resource usage). So, like with almost every database tuning question, the answer is "it depends".
This is true even for queries which hit massive tables such as you describe. Although, if you have queries which you know will take hours to run you might wish to consider tuning them as a matter of priority.
I'm writing a RESTful API which queries an RDBMS. The first time the SQL query in question is run, it's taking around 10 seconds. Subsequent runs of the query with the same bind variables take milliseconds. I believe this is due to the results being present in the buffer cache.
I don't want to store the results of this query in the application layer due to space considerations and would rather run it every time I need it. For performance reasons, I'm relying on the fact that the results will be retrieved through a buffer cache hit. Subsequent query runs will be seconds or minutes apart and it appears that the results stay present in the buffer cache for longer than this.
Is it a reasonable design decision to leverage the buffer cache in this manner?
I would suggest wrapping the query logic at the application layer in some sort of function. Then, implement the function using a query, which can rely on the query cache.
In the future, you may want to change the implementation to locally cache the results. Encapsulating the functionality makes it easy to change the implementation, without affecting other code.
Is this a reasonable design decision?
I would suggest you'd want to do some fairly extensive load and performance testing to answer that question.
I am a pessimist, but when you have queries that take 10 seconds, it's not unusual for them to slow down over time (you're probably not hitting an index, so as the data grows, the performance gets worse). Those queries also tend to struggle with contention for resources, so performance degrades as the number of concurrent queries increases.
I'd also want to look at which business events would cause a cache refresh in Oracle, and their frequency. If you're querying orders in a web shop for instance, you may get new data every second, so your cache will not have a long time-to-live.
If you rely on the buffer cache to keep the application performant, I'd want to understand exactly what happens when the cache is missed, how many concurrent queries you can handle, and what happens when 10 seconds becomes 20 or 30 or 60.
I'm working with MS-SQL Server, and we have several views that have the potential to return enormous amounts of processed data, enough to spike our servers to 100% resource usage for 30 minutes straight with a single query (if queried irresponsibly).
There is absolutely no business case in which such huge amounts of data would need to be returned from these views, so we'd like to lock it down to make sure nobody can DoS our SQL servers (intentionally or otherwise) by simply querying these particular views without proper where clauses etc.
Is it possible, via triggers or another method, to check the where clause etc. and confirm whether a given query is "safe" to execute (based on thresholds we determine), and reject the query if it doesn't meet our guidelines?
Or can we configure the server to reject given execution plans based on estimated time-to-completion etc.?
One potential way to reduce the overall cost of certain queries coming from a certain group of people is to use the resource governor. You can throttle how much CPU and/or memory is used up be a particular user/group. This is effective if you have a "wild west" kind of environment where some users submit bad queries that eat your resources alive. See here.
Another thing to consider is to set your MAXDOP (max degree of parallelism) to prevent any single query from taking all of the available CPU threads. That is, if MAXDOP is 1, then any query can only take 2 CPU threads to process. This is useful to prevent a large query from letting smaller quick ones processing. See here.
Kind of hacky but put a top x in every view
You cannot enforce it at the SQL side but on the app size they could use a TimeOut. But if they lack QC they probably lack the discipline for TimeOut. If you have some queries going 30 minutes they are probably setting a value longer than the default.
I'm not convinced about Blam's top X in each view. Without a corresponding ORDER BY clause the data will be returned in an indeterminate order. There may benefits to CDC's MAXDOP suggestion. Not so much for itself, but for the other queries that want to run at the same time.
I'd be inclined to look at moving to stored procedures. Then you can require input parameters and evaluate them before the query gets run in earnest. If, for example, a date range is too big, you can restrict it. You should also find out who is running the expensive query and what they really need. Seems like they might benefit from some ETL. Just some ideas.
I am currently addressing a situation where our web application receives at least a Million requests per 30 seconds. So these requests will lead to generating 3-5 Million row inserts between 5 tables. This is pretty heavy load to handle. Currently we are using multi threading to handle this situation (which is a bit faster but unable to get a better CPU throughput). However the load will definitely increase in future and we will have to account for that too. After 6 months from now we are looking at double the load size we are currently receiving and I am currently looking at a possible new solution that is scalable and should be easy enough to accommodate any further increase to this load.
Currently with multi threading we are making the whole debugging scenario quite complicated and sometimes we are having problem with tracing issues.
FYI we are already utilizing the SQL Builk Insert/Copy that is mentioned in this previous post
Sql server 2008 - performance tuning features for insert large amount of data
However I am looking for a more capable solution (which I think there should be one) that will address this situation.
Note: I am not looking for any code snippets or code examples. I am just looking for a big picture of a concept that I could possibly use and I am sure that I can take that further to an elegant solution :)
Also the solution should have a better utilization of the threads and processes. And I do not want my threads/processes to even wait to execute something because of some other resource.
Any suggestions will be deeply appreciated.
Update: Not every request will lead to an insert...however most of them will lead to some sql operation. The appliciation performs different types of transactions and these will lead to a lot of bulk sql operations. I am more concerned towards inserts and updates.
and these operations need not be real time there can be a bit lag...however processing them real time will be much helpful.
I think your problem looks more towards getting a better CPU throughput which will lead to a better performance. So I would probably look at something like an Asynchronous Processing where in a thread will never sit idle and you will probably have to maintain a queue in the form of a linked list or any other data structure that will suit your programming model.
The way this would work is your threads will try to perform a given job immediately and if there is anything that would stop them from doing it then they will push that job into the queue and these pushed items will be processed based on how it stores the items in the container/queue.
In your case since you are already using bulk sql operations you should be good to go with this strategy.
lemme know if this helps you.
Can you partition the database so that the inserts are spread around? How is this data used after insert? Is there a natural partion to the data by client or geography or some other factor?
Since you are using SQL server, I would suggest you get several of the books on high availability and high performance for SQL Server. The internals book muight help as well. Amazon has a bunch of these. This is a complex subject and requires too much depth for a simple answer on a bulletin board. But basically there are several keys to high performance design including hardware choices, partitioning, correct indexing, correct queries, etc. To do this effectively, you have to understand in depth what SQL Server does under the hood and how changes can make a big difference in performance.
Since you do not need to have your inserts/updates real time you might consider having two databases; one for reads and one for writes. Similar to having a OLTP db and an OLAP db:
Read Database:
Indexed as much as needed to maximize read performance.
Possibly denormalized if performance requires it.
Not always up to date.
Insert/Update database:
No indexes at all. This will help maximize insert/update performance
Try to normalize as much as possible.
Always up to date.
You would basically direct all insert/update actions to the Insert/Update db. You would then create a publication process that would move data over to the read database at certain time intervals. When I have seen this in the past the data is usually moved over on a nightly bases when few people will be using the site. There are a number of options for moving the data over, but I would start by looking at SSIS.
This will depend on your ability to do a few things:
have read data be up to one day out of date
complete your nightly Read db update process in a reasonable amount of time.
On oracle 10gr2, I have several sql queries that I am comparing performance. But after their first run, the v$sql table has the execution plan stored for caching, so for one of the queries I go from 28 seconds on first run to .5 seconds after.
I've tried
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH BUFFER_CACHE;
After running this, the query consistently runs at 5 seconds, which I do not believe is accurate.
Thought maybe deleting the line item itself from the cache:
delete from v$sql where sql_text like 'select * from....
but I get an error about not being able to delete from view.
Peter gave you the answer to the question you asked.
alter system flush shared_pool;
That is the statement you would use to "delete prepared statements from the cache".
(Prepared statements aren't the only objects flushed from the shared pool, the statement does more than that.)
As I indicated in my earlier comment (on your question), v$sql is not a table. It's a dynamic performance view, a convenient table-like representation of Oracle's internal memory structures. You only have SELECT privilege on the dynamic performance views, you can't delete rows from them.
flush the shared pool and buffer cache?
The following doesn't answer your question directly. Instead, it answers a fundamentally different (and maybe more important) question:
Should we normally flush the shared pool and/or the buffer cache to measure the performance of a query?
In short, the answer is no.
I think Tom Kyte addresses this pretty well:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/03-jul/o43asktom.html
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/o43asktom-094944.html
<excerpt>
Actually, it is important that a tuning tool not do that. It is important to run the test, ignore the results, and then run it two or three times and average out those results. In the real world, the buffer cache will never be devoid of results. Never. When you tune, your goal is to reduce the logical I/O (LIO), because then the physical I/O (PIO) will take care of itself.
Consider this: Flushing the shared pool and buffer cache is even more artificial than not flushing them. Most people seem skeptical of this, I suspect, because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. I'll show you how to do this, but not so you can use it for testing. Rather, I'll use it to demonstrate why it is an exercise in futility and totally artificial (and therefore leads to wrong assumptions). I've just started my PC, and I've run this query against a big table. I "flush" the buffer cache and run it again:
</excerpt>
I think Tom Kyte is exactly right. In terms of addressing the performance issue, I don't think that "clearing the oracle execution plan cache" is normally a step for reliable benchmarking.
Let's address the concern about performance.
You tell us that you've observed that the first execution of a query takes significantly longer (~28 seconds) compared to subsequent executions (~5 seconds), even when flushing (all of the index and data blocks from) the buffer cache.
To me, that suggests that the hard parse is doing some heavy lifting. It's either a lot of work, or its encountering a lot of waits. This can be investigated and tuned.
I'm wondering if perhaps statistics are non-existent, and the optimizer is spending a lot of time gathering statistics before it prepares a query plan. That's one of the first things I would check, that statistics are collected on all of the referenced tables, indexes and indexed columns.
If your query joins a large number of tables, the CBO may be considering a huge number of permutations for join order.
A discussion of Oracle tracing is beyond the scope of this answer, but it's the next step.
I'm thinking you are probably going to want to trace events 10053 and 10046.
Here's a link to an "event 10053" discussion by Tom Kyte you may find useful:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:63445044804318
tangentially related anecdotal story re: hard parse performance
A few years back, I did see one query that had elapsed times in terms of MINUTES on first execution, subsequent executions in terms of seconds. What we found was that vast majority of the time for the first execution time was spent on the hard parse.
This problem query was written by a CrystalReports developer who innocently (naively?) joined two humongous reporting views.
One of the views was a join of 62 tables, the other view was a join of 42 tables.
The query used Cost Based Optimizer. Tracing revealed that it wasn't wait time, it was all CPU time spent evaluating possible join paths.
Each of the vendor supplied "reporting" views wasn't too bad by itself, but when two of them were joined, it was agonizingly slow. I believe the problem was the vast number of join permutations that the optimizer was considering. There is an instance parameter that limits the number of permutations considered by the optimizer, but our fix was to re-write the query. The improved query only joined the dozen or so tables that were actually needed by the query.
(The initial immediate short-term "band aid" fix was to schedule a run of the query earlier in the morning, before report generation task ran. That made the report generation "faster", because the report generation run made use of the already prepared statement in the shared pool, avoiding the hard parse.
The band aid fix wasn't a real solution, it just moved the problem to a preliminary execution of the query, when the long execution time wasn't noticed.
Our next step would have probably been to implement a "stored outline" for the query, to get a stable query plan.
Of course, statement reuse (avoiding the hard parse, using bind variables) is the normative pattern in Oracle. It mproves performance, scalability, yada, yada, yada.
This anecdotal incident may be entirely different than the problem you are observing.
HTH
It's been a while since I worked with Oracle, but I believe execution plans are cached in the shared pool. Try this:
alter system flush shared_pool;
The buffer cache is where Oracle stores recently used data in order to minimize disk io.
We've been doing a lot of work lately with performance tuning queries, and one culprit for inconsistent query performance is the file system cache that Oracle is sitting on.
It's possible that while you're flushing the Oracle cache the file system still has the data your query is asking for meaning that the query will still return fast.
Unfortunately I don't know how to clear the file system cache - I just use a very helpful script from our very helpful sysadmins.
FIND ADDRESS AND HASH_VALUE OF SQL_ID
select address,hash_value,inst_id,users_executing,sql_text from gv$sqlarea where sql_id ='7hu3x8buhhn18';
PURGE THE PLAN FROM SHARED POOL
exec sys.dbms_shared_pool.purge('0000002E052A6990,4110962728','c');
VERIFY
select address,hash_value,inst_id,users_executing,sql_text from gv$sqlarea where sql_id ='7hu3x8buhhn18';