Multiple updates performance improvement - postgresql

I have built an application with Spring Boot and JPA to migrate a Jira postgres database.
Basically, I have 5000 users that I need to migrate. Each user means 67 update queries in different tables.
Each query uses the LOWER function to compare ignoring case.
Some pseudo-code:
for (user : users){
for (query : queries) {
jdbcTemplate.execute(query.replace(user....
I ignore any errors, so if a single query fails, I still go on and execute the other 66.
I am running this in 10 separate threads and each user is taking roughly 120 seconds to migrate. (20 threads resulted in database dead lock)
At this pace, it's gonna take more than a day, which is not acceptable (I am running this in a test environment before doing in production).
The queries looks like this:
UPDATE table SET column = 'NEWUSERNAME' where LOWER(column) = LOWER('CURRENTUSERNAME');
Is there anything I can do to try and optimize this migration?
UPDATE:
I changed my approach. First, I select every element with the CURRENTUSERNAME and get it's ID. Then I create the UPDATE queries using the ID as the "where" clause.
Other than that, it is still taking a long time (4+ hours) to execute.
I am running millions of UPDATEs, each at a time. I know jdbcTemplate has a bulk method, but if a single UPDATE fails, I believe it roll's back every successful update too. Also, I am not aware of the performance improvement it would have, if any.
So, to update the question, given that I have millions of UPDATE queries to run, what would be the best way execute them? (bulk, multi threading, something else)

Related

Postgres: Count all INSERT queries executed in the past 1 minute

I can do currently active count of all INSERT queries executed on the PostgreSQL server like this:
SELECT count(*) FROM pg_stat_activity where query like 'INSERT%'
But is there a way to count all INSERT queries executed on the server in a given period of time? E.g. in the past minute?
I have a bunch of tables into which I send a lot of inserts and I would like to somehow aggregate how many rows I am inserting per minute. I could code a solution for this, but it'd be so much easier if this was possible to somehow extract directly from the server.
Any type of stats like this, in a certain period of time, would be very helpful, an average time it takes for the query to process, or knowing the bandwidth that goes through per minute, etc.
Note: I am using PostgreSQL 12
If not already done, install pg_stat_statements extension and take some snapshots of the view pg_stat_statements: the diff will give the number of queries executed between 2 snapshots.
Note: It doesn’t save each individual query, rather it parameterizes them and then saves the aggregated result.
See https://www.citusdata.com/blog/2019/02/08/the-most-useful-postgres-extension-pg-stat-statements/
I believe that you can use the audit trigger.
This audit will create a table that register INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE actions. So you can adapt. So every time that your database runs one of those commands, the audit table register the action, the table and the time of the action. So, it will be easy to do a COUNT() on desired table with a WHERE from a minute ago.
I couldn't come across anything solid, so I have created a table where I log a number of insert transactions using a script that runs as a cron job. It was simple enough to implement and I do not get estimations, but the real values instead. I actually count all new rows inserted to tables in a given interval.

DB2 Tables Not Loading when run in Batch

I have been working on a reporting database in DB2 for a month or so, and I have it setup to a pretty decent degree of what I want. I am however noticing small inconsistencies that I have not been able to work out.
Less important, but still annoying:
1) Users claim it takes two login attempts to connect, first always fails, second is a success. (Is there a recommendation for what to check for this?)
More importantly:
2) Whenever I want to refresh the data (which will be nightly), I have a script that drops and then recreates all of the tables. There are 66 tables, each ranging from 10's of records to just under 100,000 records. The data is not massive and takes about 2 minutes to run all 66 tables.
The issue is that once it says it completed, there is usually at least 3-4 tables that did not load any data in them. So the table is deleted and then created, but is empty. The log shows that the command completed successfully and if I run them independently they populate just fine.
If it helps, 95% of the commands are just CAST functions.
While I am sure I am not doing it the recommended way, is there a reason why a number of my tables are not populating? Are the commands executing too fast? Should I lag the Create after the DROP?
(This is DB2 Express-C 11.1 on Windows 2012 R2, The source DB is remote)
Example of my SQL:
DROP TABLE TEST.TIMESHEET;
CREATE TABLE TEST.TIMESHEET AS (
SELECT NAME00, CAST(TIMESHEET_ID AS INTEGER(34))TIMESHEET_ID ....
.. (for 5-50 more columns)
FROM REMOTE_DB.TIMESHEET
)WITH DATA;
It is possible to configure DB2 to tolerate certain SQL errors in nested table expressions.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEPGG_11.5.0/com.ibm.data.fluidquery.doc/topics/iiyfqetnint.html
When the federated server encounters an allowable error, the server allows the error and continues processing the remainder of the query rather than returning an error for the entire query. The result set that the federated server returns can be a partial or an empty result.
However, I assume that your REMOTE_DB.TIMESHEET is simply a nickname, and not a view with nested table expressions, and so any errors when pulling data from the source should be surfaced by DB2. Taking a look at the db2diag.log is likely the way to go - you might even be hitting a Db2 issue.
It might be useful to change your script to TRUNCATE and INSERT into your local tables and see if that helps avoid the issue.
As you say you are maybe not doing things the most efficient way. You could consider using cache tables to take a periodic copy of your remote data https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEPGG_11.5.0/com.ibm.data.fluidquery.doc/topics/iiyvfed_tuning_cachetbls.html

How to cache a query response with Postgres?

I have a database that syncs completely every 2 hours. All data is dropped and populated from the main data source.
I have some queries coming from client app, that have the same response for the current 2-hours dataset. So, if 100 clients run their apps, I will have to run this query 100 times for each of them, even though they don't differ.
How do I avoid running this real query against my database every time, but just keep its response somewhere and return it instead?
I think I can run this query after each sync and save to its own table then return from it.
What are other options, probably provided by Postgres itself?
You should use something like redis to store the result or your query in memory. It comes with many clients. You can invalidate the result of this query when it's time to.
There are other memory caching like memcache, easy to install & to use.
Note these are specific to postgres.

SQL Query slow during batch update of table

I have a postgresql table with about 250K records. It gets updated a few times an hour. However, the entire table gets deleted and new records added. (Batch job).
I don't have much control over that process. During the time it takes the transaction to delete/re-load queries on the table basically lock/hang until the job finishes. The job takes about a minute to run. We have real time users looking at this data (which is spatial data on a map with a time slider). They recogize the lost records very easily.
Is there anything that can be done about these 60 or so second query times during the update. I've thought about loading into a 2nd table, dropping the original and renaming the 2nd to the original but that introduces more chance of error. Are there any settings that will just grab data as is and not necessarily look for a consistent view of the data.
Basically just looking for ideas on how to handle this situation.
I'm running postgresql 9.3.1
Thanks

SQL Transactions - allow read original data before commit (snapshot?)

I am facing an issue, possibly quite easy to solve, I am just new to advanced transaction settings.
Every 30 minutes I am running an INSERT query that is getting latest data from a linked server to my client's server, to a table we can call ImportTable. For this I have a simple job that looks like this:
BEGIN TRAN
DELETE FROM ImportTable
INSERT INTO ImportTable (columns)
SELECT (columns)
FROM QueryGettingResultsFromLinkedServer
COMMIT
The thing is, each time the job runs the ImportTable is locked for the query run time (2-5 minutes) and nobody can read the records. I wish the table to be read-accessible all the time, with as little downtime as possible.
Now, I read that it is possible to allow SNAPSHOT ISOLATION in the database settings that could probably solve my problem (set to FALSE at the moment), but I have never played with different transaction isolation types and as this is not my DB but my client's, I'd rather not alter any database settings if I am not sure if it can break something.
I know I could have an intermediary table that the records are inserted to and then inserted to the final table and that is certainly a possible solution, I was just hoping for something more sophisticated and learning something new in the process.
PS: My client's server & database is fairly new and barely used, so I expect very little impact if I change some settings, but still, I cannot just randomly change various settings for learning purposes.
Many thanks!
Inserts wont normally block the table ,unless it is escalated to table level.In this case,you are deleting table first and inserting data again,why not insert only updated data?.for the query you are using transaction level (rsci)snapshot isolation will help you,but you will have an added impact of row version which means sql will store row versions of rows that changed in tempdb.
please see MCM isolation videos of Kimberely tripp for indepth understanding ,also dont forget to test in stage enviornment.
You are making this harder than it needs to be
The problem is the 2-5 minutes that you let be part of a transaction
It is only a few thousand rows - that part takes like a few milliseconds
If you need ImportTable to be available during those few milliseconds then put it in a SnapShot
Delete ImportTableStaging;
INSERT INTO ImportTableStaging(columns)
SELECT (columns)
FROM QueryGettingResultsFromLinkedServer;
BEGIN TRAN
DELETE FROM ImportTable
INSERT INTO ImportTable (columns) with (tablock)
SELECT (columns)
FROM ImportTableStaging
COMMIT
If you are worried about concurrent update to ImportTableStaging then use a #temp