I have a requirement to transfer data from 2 tables (Table A and Table B) into a new table.
I am using a query to join both A and B tables using an ID column.
Table A and B are archive tables without any indexes. (Millions of records)
Table X and Y are a replica of A and B with good indexes. (Some thousands of records)
Below is the code for my project.
with data as
(
SELECT a.*, b.* FROM A_archive a
join B_archive b where a.transaction_id = b.transaction_id
UNION
SELECT x.*, y.* FROM X x
join Y y where x.transaction_id = y.transaction_id
)
INSERT INTO
Another_Table
(
columns
)
select * from data
On Conflict(transaction_id)
do udpate ...
The above whole thing is running in production environment and has nearly 140 million records.
Due to this production database is taking almost 10 hours to process the data and failing.
I am also having a distributed job scheduler in AWS to schedule this query inside a function and retrieve the latest records every 5 hours. The archive tables store closed invoice data. Pega UI will be using this table for retrieving data about closed invoices and showing to the customer.
Please suggest something that is a bit more performant.
UNION removes duplicate rows. On big unindexed tables that is an expensive operation. Try UNION ALL if you don't need deduplication. It will save the s**tton of data shuffling and comparisons required for deduplication.
Without indexes on your archival tables your JOIN operation will be grossly inefficient. Index, at a minimum, the transaction_id columns you use in your ON clause.
You don't say what you want to do with the resulting table. In many cases you'll be able to use a VIEW rather than a table for your purposes. A VIEW removes the work of creating the derived table. Actually it defers the work to the time of SELECT operations using the derived structure. If your SELECT operations have highly selective WHERE clauses the savings can be astonishing. For this to work well you may need to put appropriate indexes on your archival tables.
You use SELECT * when you could enumerate the columns you need. That certainly puts one redundant column into your result: it generates two copies of transaction_id. It also may generate other redundant or unused data. Always avoid SELECT * in production software unless you know you need it.
Keep this in mind: SQL is declarative, not procedural. You declare (describe) the result you require, and you let the server work out the best way to get it. VIEWs let the server do this work for you in cases like your table combination. It will use the indexes you provide as best it can.
That UNION must be costly, it pretty much builds a temp-table in the background containing all the A-B + X-Y records, sorts it (over all fields) and then removes any doubles. If you say 100 million records are involved then that's a LOT of sorting going on that most likely will involve swapping out to disk.
Keep in mind that you only need to do this if there are expected duplicates
in the result from the JOIN between A and B
in the result from the JOIN between X and Y
in the combined result from the two above
IF neither of those are expected, just use UNION ALL
In fact, in that case, why not have 1 INSERT operation for A-B and another one for X-Y? Going by the description I'd say that whatever is in X-Y should overrule whatever is in A-B anyway, right?
Also, as mentioned by O.Jones, archive tables or not, they should come at least with a (preferably clustered) index on the transaction_id fields you're JOINing on. (same for the Another_Table btw)
All that said, processing 100M records in 1 transaction IS going to take some time, it's just a lot of data that's being moved around. But 10h does sound excessive indeed.
Related
my table contains 1 billion records. It is also partitioned by month.Id and datetime is the primary key for the table. When I select
select col1,col2,..col8
from mytable t
inner join cte on t.Id=cte.id and dtime>'2020-01-01' and dtime<'2020-10-01'
It uses index scan, but takes more than 5 minutes to select.
Please suggest me.
Note: I have set work_mem to 1GB. cte table results comes with in 3 seconds.
Well it's the nature of join and it is usually known as a time consuming operation.
First of all, I recommend to use in rather than join. Of course they have got different meanings, but in some cases technically you can use them interchangeably. Check this question out.
Secondly, according to the relation algebra whenever you use join each rows of mytable table is combined with each rows from the second table, and DBMS needs to make a huge temporary table, and finally igonre unsuitable rows. Undoubtedly all the steps and the result would take much time. Before using the Join opeation, it's better to filter your tables (for example mytable based date) and make them smaller, and then use the join operations.
I have a table with three columns A, B, C, all of type bytea.
There are around 180,000,000 rows in the table. A, B and C all have exactly 20 bytes of data, C sometimes contains NULLs
When creating indexes for all columns with
CREATE INDEX index_A ON transactions USING hash (A);
CREATE INDEX index_B ON transactions USING hash (B);
CREATE INDEX index_C ON transactions USING hash (C);
index_A is created in around 10 minutes, while B and C are taking over 10 hours after which I aborted them. I ran every CREATE INDEX on their own, so no indices were created in parallel. There are also no other queries running in the database.
When running
SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity;
wait_event_type and wait_event are both NULL, state is active.
Why are the second index creations taking so long, and can I do anything to speed them up?
Ensure the statistics on your table are up-to-date.
Then execute the following query:
SELECT attname, n_distinct, correlation
from pg_stats
where tablename = '<Your table name here>'
Basically, the database will have more work to create indexes when:
The number of distinct values gets higher.
The correlation (= are values in the field physically stored in order) is close to 0.
I suspect you will see field A is different in terms of distinct values and/or a higher correlation than the other 2 fields.
Edit: Basically, creating an index = FULL SCAN of the table and create entries in the index as you progress. With the stats you have shared below that means:
Column A: it was detected as unique
A single scan is enough as the DB knows 1 record = 1 index entry.
Columns B & C : it was detected as having very few distinct values + abs(correlation) is very low.
Each index entry takes an entire FULL SCAN of the table.
Note: the description is simplified to highlight the difference.
Solution 1:
Do not create indexes for B and C.
It might sound stupid but in fact and as explained here, a small correlation means the indexes will probably not be used (an index is useful only when entries are not scattered in all the table blocks).
Solution 2:
Order records on the disk.
The initialization would be something like this:
CREATE TABLE Transactions_order as SELECT * FROM Transactions;
TRUNCATE TABLE Transactions;
INSERT INTO Transactions SELECT * FROM Transactions_order ORDER BY B,C,A;
DROP TABLE Transactions_order;
The tricky part comes next: with insert/update/delete records, you need to keep track of the correlation and ensure it does not drop too much.
If you can't guarantee that, stick to solution 1.
Solution3:
Create partitions and enjoy partition pruning.
There are quite a lot of efforts being made for partitioning recently in postgresql. It could be worth having a look into it.
I wanted to load the table which is having a table size of more than 1 TB size from S3 to Redshift.
I cannot use DISTSTYLE as ALL because it is a big table.
I cannot use DISTSTYLE as EVEN because I want to use this table in joins which are making performance issue.
Columns on my table are
id INTEGER, name VARCHAR(10), another_id INTEGER, workday INTEGER, workhour INTEGER, worktime_number INTEGER
Our redshift cluster has 20 nodes.
So, I tried distribution key on a workday but the table is badly skewed.
There are 7 unique work days and 24 unique work hours.
How to avoid the skew in such cases?
How we avoid skewing of the table in case of an uneven number of row counts for the unique key (let's say hour1 have 1million rows, hour2 have 1.5million rows, hour3 have 2million rows, and so on)?
Distribute your table using DISTSTYLE EVEN and use either SORTKEY or COMPOUND SORTKEY. Sort Key will help your query performance. Try this first.
DISTSTYLE/DISTKEY determines how your data is distributed. From the columns used in your queries, it is advised choose a column that causes the least amount of skew as the DISTKEY. A column which has many distinct values, such as timestamp, would be a good first choice. Avoid columns with few distinct values, such as credit card types, or days of week.
You might need to recreate your table with different DISTKEY / SORTKEY combinations and try out which one will work best based on your typical queries.
For more info https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_best-practices-sort-key.html
Here is the architecture that I recommend
1) load to a staging table with dist even and sort by something that is sorted on your loaded s3 data - this means you will not have to vacuum the staging table
2) set up a production table with the sort / dist you need for your queries. after each copy from s3, load that new data into the production table and vacuum.
3) you may wish to have 2 mirror production tables and flip flop between them using a late binding view.
its a bit complex to do this you need may need some professional help. There may be specifics to your use case.
As of writing this(Just after Re-invent 2018), Redshift has Automatic Distribution available, which is a good starter.
The following utilities will come in handy:
https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-redshift-utils/tree/master/src/AdminScripts
As indicated in Answers POSTED earlier try a few combinations by replicating the same table with different DIST keys ,if you don't like what Automatic DIST is doing. After the tables are created run the admin utility from the git repos (preferably create a view on the SQL script in the Redshift DB).
Also, if you have good clarity on query usage pattern then you can use the following queries to check how well the sort key are performing using the below SQLs.
/**Queries on tables that are not utilizing SORT KEYs**/
SELECT t.database, t.table_id,t.schema, t.schema || '.' || t.table AS "table", t.size, nvl(s.num_qs,0) num_qs
FROM svv_table_info t
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT tbl, COUNT(distinct query) num_qs
FROM stl_scan s
WHERE s.userid > 1
AND s.perm_table_name NOT IN ('Internal Worktable','S3')
GROUP BY tbl) s ON s.tbl = t.table_id
WHERE t.sortkey1 IS NULL
ORDER BY 5 desc;
/**INTERLEAVED SORT KEY**/
--check skew
select tbl as tbl_id, stv_tbl_perm.name as table_name,
col, interleaved_skew, last_reindex
from svv_interleaved_columns, stv_tbl_perm
where svv_interleaved_columns.tbl = stv_tbl_perm.id
and interleaved_skew is not null;
of course , there is always room for improvement in the SQLs above, depending on specific stats that you may want to look at or drill down to.
Hope this helps.
I am solving an performance issue on PostgreSQL 9.6 dbo based system. Intro:
12yo system, similar to banking system, with most queried primary table called transactions.
CREATE TABLE jrn.transactions (
ID BIGSERIAL,
type_id VARCHAR(200),
account_id INT NOT NULL,
date_issued DATE,
date_accounted DATE,
amount NUMERIC,
..
)
In the table transactions we store all transactions within a bank account. Field type_id determines the type of a transaction. Servers also as C# EntityFramework Discriminator column. Values are like:
card_payment, cash_withdrawl, cash_in, ...
14 types of transaction are known.
In generally, there are 4 types of queries (no. 3 and .4 are by far most frequent):
select single transaction like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions WHERE id = 3748734
select single transaction with JOIN to other transaction like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions AS m INNER JOIN jrn.transactions AS r ON m.refund_id = r.id WHERE m.id = 3748734
select 0-100, 100-200, .. transactions of given type like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions WHERE account_id = 43784 AND type_id = 'card_payment' LIMIT 100
several aggregate queries, like: SELECT SUM(amount), MIN(date_issued), MAX(date_issued) FROM jrn.transactions WHERE account_id = 3748734 AND date_issued >= '2017-01-01'
In last few month we had unexpected row count growth, now 120M.
We are thinking of table partitioning, following to PostgreSQL doc: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html
Options:
partition table by type_id into 14 partitions
add column year and partition table by year (or year_month) into 12 (or 144) partitions.
I am now restoring data into out test environment, I am going to test both options.
What do you consider the most appropriate partitioning rule for such situation? Any other options?
Thanks for any feedback / advice etc.
Partitioning won't be very helpful with these queries, since they won't perform a sequential scan, unless you forgot an index.
The only good reason I see for partitioning would be if you want to delete old rows efficiently; then partitioning by date would be best.
Based on your queries, you should have these indexes (apart from the primary key index):
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (account_id, date_issued);
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (refund_id);
The following index might be a good idea if you can sacrifice some insert performance to make the third query as fast as possible (you might want to test):
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (account_id, type_id);
What you have here is almost a perfect case for column-based storage as you may get it using a SAP HANA Database. However, as you explicitly have asked for a Postgres answer and I doubt that a HANA database will be within the budget limit, we will have to stick with Postgres.
Your two queries no. 3 and 4 go quite into different directions, so there won't be "the single answer" to your problem - you will always have to balance somehow between these two use cases. Yet, I would try to use two different techniques to approach each of them individually.
From my perspective, the biggest problem is the query no. 4, which creates quite a high load on your postgres server just because it is summing up values. Moreover, you are just summing up values over and over again, which most likely won't change often (or even at all), as you have said that UPDATEs nearly do not happen at all. I furthermore assume two more things:
transactions is INSERT-only, i.e. DELETE statements almost never happen (besides perhaps in cases of some exceptional administrative intervention).
The values of column date_issued when INSERTing typically are somewhere "close to today" - so you usually won't INSERT stuff way in the past.
Out of this, to prevent aggregating values over and over again unnecessarily, I would introduce yet another table: let's call it transactions_aggr, which is built up like this:
create table transactions_aggr (
account_id INT NOT NULL,
date_issued DATE,
sumamount NUMERIC,
primary key (account_id, date_issued)
)
which will give you a table of per-day preaggregated values.
To determine which values are already preaggregated, I would add another boolean-typed column to transactions, which indicates to me, which of the rows are contained in transactions_aggr and which are not (yet). The query no. 4 then would have to be changed in such a way that it reads only non-preaggregated rows from transactions, whilst the rest could come from transactions_aggr. To facilitate that you could define a view like this:
select account_id, date_issued, sum(amount) as sumamount from
(
select account_id, date_issued, sumamount as amount from transactions_aggr as aggr
union all
select account_id, date_issued, sum(amount) as amount from transactions as t where t.aggregated = false
)
group by account_id, date_issued
Needless to say that putting an index on transactions.aggregated (perhaps in conjunction with the account_id) could greatly help to improve the performance here.
Updating transactions_aggr can be done using multiple approaches:
You could use this as a one-time activity and only pre-aggregate the current set of ~120m rows once. This would at least reduce the load on your machine doing aggregations significantly. However, over time you will run into the same problem again. Then you may just re-execute the entire procedure, simply dropping transactions_aggr as a whole and re-create it from scratch (all the original data still is there in transactions).
You have a nice period somewhere during the week/month/in the night, where you have little or no queries are coming in. Then you can open a transaction, read all transactions WHERE aggregated = false and add them with UPDATEs to transactions_aggr. Keep in mind to then toggle aggregated to true (should be done in the same transaction). The tricky part of this, however, is that you must pay attention to what reading queries will "see" of this transaction: Depending on your requirements of accuracy during that timeframe of this "update job", you may have to consider switching the transaction isolation level to "READ_COMMITED" to prevent ghost reads.
On the matter of your query no. 3 you then could try to really go for the approach of partitioning based on type_id. However, I perceive your query as a little strange, as you are performing a LIMIT/OFFSET without ordering (e.g. there is no ORDER BY statement in place) having specified (NB: You are not saying that you would be using database cursors). This may lead to the effect that the implicit order, which is currently used, is changed, if you enable partitioning on the table. So be careful on side-effects which this may cause on your program.
And one more thing: Before really doing the partition split, I would first check on the data distribution concerning type_id by issuing
select type_id, count(*) from transactions group by type_id
Not that it turns out that, for example, 90% of your data is with card_payment - so that you will have a heavily uneven distribution amongst your partitions and the biggest performance hogging queries are those which would still go into this single "large partition".
Hope this helps a little - and good luck!
Am I safe to assume that where I have stored procedures using the tempdb to write a temporary table, I'd be better off switching these to table variables to get better performance?
Temp tables are better in performance. If you use a Table Variable and the Data in the Variable gets too big, the SQL Server converts the Variable automatically into a temp table.
It depends, like almost every Database related question, on what you try to do. So it is hard to answer without more information.
So my answer is, try it and have a look at the execution plan. Use the fastest way with the lowest costs.
MSDN - Displaying Graphical Execution Plans (SQL Server Management Studio)
#Table can be faster as there is less "setup time" since the object is in memory only.
#Tables have a lot of catches though.
You can have a primary key on a #Table but thats about it. Other indexes Clustered NonClustered for combinations of columns are not possible.
Also if your table is going to contain any real data volumes (more then about 200 maybe 1000 rows) then accessing the table will be slower. Especially when you will probably not have a useful index on it.
#Tables are a pain in procs as they need to be dropped when debugging, They take longer to create. and they take longer to setup as you need to add indexs as a second step. But if you have lots of data then its #tables every time.
Even in cases where you have less then 100 rows of data in a table you may still want to use #Tables as you can create a usefull index on the table.
In summary i use #Tables most of the time for the ease when doing simple proc etc. But anything that need to perform should be a #Table.
#Tables have no statistics so the execution plan entails more guesswork. Hence the recommended upper limit of 1000-ish rows. #Tables have statistics but these can be cached between invocations. If your cardinalities differ significantly each time the SP runs you'd want to REBUILD and RECOMPILE each time. This is an overhead, of course, but one which must be balanced against the cost of a rubbish plan.
Both types will do IO to TempDB.
So no, #Tables are not a panacea.
Table variables can perform very poorly as the number of rows in them increases.
Why is this?
Table variables don’t have distribution statistics and don’t trigger recompiles. Because of this, SQL Server is not able to estimate the number of rows in a table variable like it does for normal tables. When the optimiser compiles code that contains a table variable, it assumes a table is empty and uses an expected row count of 1 for the cardinality estimate. Because the optimiser only thinks a table variable contains a single row, it picks operators for the execution plan that work well with a small set of records, like the NESTED LOOPS operator for a JOIN operation.
As an example, I have just fixed a stored procedure which was performing poorly. The code was populating a table variable and using it in a join to filter the number of rows to accounts which were relevant:
FROM dbo.DimInvestorAccount
INNER JOIN #accounts acclist
ON acclist.AccountNumber = DimInvestorAccount.investorAccountNumber
+ 9 additional tables joined...
When run for list of 1700 accounts, the query was taking 1m17s. Just changing the filter table definition from:
DECLARE #accounts TABLE (AccountNumber VARCHAR(20) COLLATE Latin1_General_BIN INDEX idx NONCLUSTERED)
to
CREATE TABLE #accounts (AccountNumber VARCHAR(20) COLLATE Latin1_General_BIN INDEX idx NONCLUSTERED)
brought the query time down to 800ms. Note that with 5 rows in the table, there was no significant difference - both temp table and table variable run in +/-400ms.
Microsoft's recommendation is to use Table Variables if the number of rows is <100.
Note that Microsoft have made changes in SQL Server 2019 to improve this (v15.x/Compatibility level 150)