I have a procedure written in PLJava that sends out updates over JMS in my postgres database.
What I would like to do is have that function called on an interval (every 15 seconds) internally in the database (preferably not from an outside process). Is this possible? Any ideas?
If you need no external access, you are presumably able to modify the database design so that you don't need the update at all. Can you explain more about what the update is doing?
As depesz said, you could use either cron or pgAgent, but they are only able to go down to a one minute granularity, not 15 seconds. Considering sleeping inside the stored procedure until the next iteration is not a good idea, because you will have an open transaction for all that time which is a really bad idea.
Strict answer: it is not possible. Since you don't want outside process, and PostgreSQL doesn't support jobs - you are out of luck.
If you'll reconsider using outside processes, then you're most likely want something like cron, or better yet pgagent.
On absolutely other hand - what do you need to do that has to happen every 30 seconds? this seems like a problem with design.
First, you'll spend the least amount of effort if you just go with a cron job.
However, if you were starting from scracth: You are trying to periodically replicate rows from your database. I think you are looking at a replication queue.
The PGQ project (used for Londiste replication, both from Skype's SkyTools) has a queue that you can use independently. When configuring it, you set a maximum event count, and a loop delay, before batched events are generated. You can get batches spaced by no more than 15 seconds that way. You now have to produce the events that will be batched, using a trigger that calls pgq.insert_event; and consume the queues. The consumer can call your PL/Java stored proc; you'll have to rewrite the procedure to send everything in the batch instead of scanning the base table for new events.
As far as I know postgresql doesn't support scheduled tasks. You'll need to use a script with cron or at (depending on your operating system.)
Sounds like you're doing sort of replication? Every 15s sounds like a lot of updates. Could you setup a trigger (or a number of triggers) instead of polling?
If you are using JMS why not just have th task wait for input on the queue?
Per your depesz comment, you have a PL/Java stored procedure that "flushes out database tables (updates) as java objects". Since you want it to run in 15 second intervals, it must be processing a batch of updates each time. Rather than processing a batch of updates in a stored procedure every 15 seconds, why not process them one at a time when they happen via an after update trigger and eliminate the need for a timed interval. If you are aggregrating data from multiple tables to build your objects than add the triggers to you upper most tables only.
In my case the problem was that agent couldn't authorize to database so after I've made all connections trusted from localhost the service started successfully and job works fine
for more information about error you should see into windows event viewer or eq in unix based system. see my config file C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\10\data\pg_hba.conf
Related
We have data warehouse setting where we use oracle 12c and informatica for ETL. We call some hourly procedures in informatica workflow. Sometimes these procedures take more than one hour for various reasons. Is it possible to set timeout event to generate mail alert at database level or informatica level which will terminate current execution and generate mail alert for the same.
Best Regards
Well... no. This and a bunch of other features are not part of Informatica. Here an external Orchestration tool is very much helpful. One that takes care of file watching and triggering workflows upon file arrival, reports that a workflow runs too long or too short, one that will notify in case a file you expect to get has not been received and so on.
I have data conversion and caching service running as self-hosted WCF service.
Now it uses database polling in constant short intervals to update its data.
I think it's unnecessary. The data can be changed only if one of the tables is changed, and when the data is changed depends on system users actions.
There is no problem in setting a trigger for specific tables, however I would need an action outside SQL-Server to update my cache. My WCF service could perform update when receiving specific URI via HTTP. So all I need is a command in table trigger which would send a request. Is it even possible?
I think about a hack I used back in the days with HTTP requests. I halted HTTP request response at server until data packet from somewhere else arrived. There was no delay between polling requests. I achieved fully asynchronous, "real-time" updates.
Maybe this approach is possible to apply with SQL? I think about a query which blocks termination until receives a signal. Well, it eventually times out, but it's good enough to try. Then - how to signal and wait in SQL? By locking and unlocking shared resource, like cursor or dummy table?
Any other options?
I need the cache update done at lowest possible frequency (because it's pretty expensive, so once per minute is great), but I need immediate update when the data is changed.
To answer your question, have you looked at xp_cmdshell?
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175046.aspx
However, the security/performance implications of such a decision could be non-trivial depending on your use case.
If i have a stored procedure or a trigger in Sql Server 2008, can it do some sql calculations 'in another non-blocking thread'? ie. something in the background
also, can two sql code blocks be ran in parallel? or two stored procs be ran in parallel?
for example. Imagine we are given the job calculating the scores for each Stack Overflow user (and please leave all 'do that elsehwere/service/batch/overnight/etc, elswhere) after a user does some 'action'.
so we have a trigger on the Post table, so when a new post is INSERTED, the trigger fires off and part of that logic, it calculates the user's latest score. Instead of waiting for the stored proc to finish and block the current sql thread / executire, can we ask it to calc the score in the background OR parallel.
cheers!
SQL Server does not have parallel or deferred execution: each block of running code in a connection is serial, one line after the other.
To decouple processing, you usually have to use SQL Server Agent jobs or use Service broker. These start executing in a new connection, new session etc
This makes sense:
What if you want to rollback your changes? What does the background thread do and how does it know?
What data does it use? New, Old, lock wait, snapshot?
What if it gets ahead of the main thread and uses stale data?
No, but you could write the request to a queue. Service Broker, a SQL Server component, provides support for this kind of thing. It's probably the best option available for asynchronous processing.
I looked around and found some ideas about how to do this, but no definitive best way. One of the ideas was to use sp_start_job to kick off an SQL Server Agent job that runs the DTS package. If this is the best way to do it, then the next question would be, "How do I schedule a DTS package from a job and make it non-recurring?"
Thanks,
Tim
xp_cmdshell would allow you to execute dtsrun.
I wouldn't suggest tying this kind of functionality to a trigger. Triggers are supposed to be fast. I don't think there is any way to launch a DTS package that will be as fast as I would want a trigger to be. If this resonates with you, then I would suggest having your trigger simply insert a row into a special table, and then have a job that executes as often as you need for your purpose (every minute? every 10 seconds?) that monitors this table and kicks off the appropriate DTS package as needed.
Instead of using xp_cmdshell, I did this:
When a certain value in a table changes, the trigger uses msdb.sp_start_job to start a job. This job should not run on a schedule, only when initiated by a user. I set the job schedule to run one time, which is now in the past, and I unchecked the enabled box.
This job has one step, which is DTSRun /~Z0xHEXENCRYPTEDVALUE. The DTS package copies some rows from this server to another server on a different platform and on success resets values in the table with the trigger for next time. The trigger checks a table value before calling sp_start_job, so that the job starts only under certain conditions, not every time.
Since sp_start_job runs asyhchronously the trigger completes quickly. The only drawback to this is that I need to poll the value that was reset on success and either let the user know it worked, or after some time out period, it did not work.
The alternative would be to use xp_cmdshell if I needed synchronous operation, which might not be a good idea from inside of a trigger.
We have a stored procedure that runs nightly that in turn kicks off a number of other procedures. Some of those procedures could logically be run in parallel with some of the others.
How can I indicate to SQL Server whether a procedure should be run in parallel or serial — ie: kicked off of asynchronously or blocking?
What would be the implications of running them in parallel, keeping in mind that I've already determined that the processes won't be competing for table access or locks- just total disk io and memory. For the most part they don't even use the same tables.
Does it matter if some of those procedures are the same procedure, just with different parameters?
If I start a pair or procedures asynchronously, is there a good system in SQL Server to then wait for both of them to finish, or do I need to have each of them set a flag somewhere and check and poll the flag periodically using WAITFOR DELAY?
At the moment we're still on SQL Server 2000.
As a side note, this matters because the main procedure is kicked off in response to the completion of a data dump into the server from a mainframe system. The mainframe dump takes all but about 2 hours each night, and we have no control over it. As a result, we're constantly trying to find ways to reduce processing times.
I had to research this recently, so found this old question that was begging for a more complete answer. Just to be totally explicit: TSQL does not (by itself) have the ability to launch other TSQL operations asynchronously.
That doesn't mean you don't still have a lot of options (some of them mentioned in other answers):
Custom application: Write a simple custom app in the language of your choice, using asynchronous methods. Call a SQL stored proc on each application thread.
SQL Agent jobs: Create multiple SQL jobs, and start them asynchronously from your proc using sp_start_job. You can check to see if they have finished yet using the undocumented function xp_sqlagent_enum_jobs as described in this excellent article by Gregory A. Larsen. (Or have the jobs themselves update your own JOB_PROGRESS table as Chris suggests.) You would literally have to create separate job for each parallel process you anticipate running, even if they are running the same stored proc with different parameters.
OLE Automation: Use sp_oacreate and sp_oamethod to launch a new process calling the other stored proc as described in this article, also by Gregory A. Larsen.
DTS Package: Create a DTS or SSIS package with a simple branching task flow. DTS will launch tasks in individual spids.
Service Broker: If you are on SQL2005+, look into using Service Broker
CLR Parallel Execution: Use the CLR commands Parallel_AddSql and Parallel_Execute as described in this article by Alan Kaplan (SQL2005+ only).
Scheduled Windows Tasks: Listed for completeness, but I'm not a fan of this option.
I don't have much experience with Service Broker or CLR, so I can't comment on those options. If it were me, I'd probably use multiple Jobs in simpler scenarios, and a DTS/SSIS package in more complex scenarios.
One final comment: SQL already attempts to parallelize individual operations whenever it can*. This means that running 2 tasks at the same time instead of after each other is no guarantee that it will finish sooner. Test carefully to see whether it actually improves anything or not.
We had a developer that created a DTS package to run 8 tasks at the same time. Unfortunately, it was only a 4-CPU server :)
*Assuming default settings. This can be modified by altering the server's Maximum Degree of Parallelism or Affinity Mask, or by using the MAXDOP query hint.
Create a couple of SQL Server agent jobs where each one runs a particular proc.
Then from within your master proc kick off the jobs.
The only way of waiting that I can think of is if you have a status table that each proc updates when it's finished.
Then yet another job could poll that table for total completion and kick off a final proc. Alternatively, you could have a trigger on this table.
The memory implications are completely up to your environment..
UPDATE:
If you have access to the task system.. then you could take the same approach. Just have windows execute multiple tasks, each responsible for one proc. Then use a trigger on the status table to kick off something when all of the tasks have completed.
UPDATE2:
Also, if you're willing to create a new app, you could house all of the logic in a single exe...
You do need to move your overnight sprocs to jobs. SQL Server job control will let you do all of the scheduling you are asking for.
You might want to look into using DTS (which can be run from the SQL Agent as a job). It will allow you pretty fine control over which stored procedures need to wait for others to finish and what can run in parallel. You can also run the DTS package as an EXE from your own scheduling software if needed.
NOTE: You will need to create multiple copies of your connection objects to allow calls to run in parallel. Two calls using the same connection object will still block each other even if you don't explicitly put in a dependency.