I have been working on offloading data from a very large table(Close to 400 million records) in a SQL Server 2016 environment. I have been doing so by updating a column in the table used as a delete flag. The procedure also offloads the data into a separate table for archiving purposes. The flag is to be used by a procedure at the end of every month to delete the rows in the main table where deletion is flagged.
My goal is to have an efficient procedure with minimal blocking as the table in question is used quite frequently.
From what I have been reading online about the matter, the best way to deal with large updates and inserts is through batching to avoid blocking as much as possible, however, marking the main table and inserting into the archive table need to happen within a transaction to be sure one does not complete without the other, or the end of month deletion may end up deleting without archiving.
Is batching the best course of action when done inside a transaction since the transaction uses an exclusive lock anyway?
Is there a better method I could be using?
Related
I'm in a very difficult situation with search, SQL Server and routine operations.
Every two hours a program runs and for at least 5 minutes the search implemented on another program doesn't work because the routine operation cleans the main table where all data is stored and after some elaboration the table will be refilled with new data.
There is a optimal way to manage this 5 minutes?
We try swapping table or renaming them but the relations will be lost and missing data will be delete in cascade.
The best solution will make the data always reachable.
(the table have around 3,5 million rows)
One way to do this would be to ensure that the routine operation cleans the table and repopulates using a transaction. Then in your code for searching, you'll need to set your TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL to SNAPSHOT (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/sql/snapshot-isolation-in-sql-server). This allows you to search for the data that was in there while the clean/refill operation is in progress.
I have an application which selects quite a large amount of data (pyodbc + sqlalchemy, db = SQL Server), does some operations on it (with pandas) and then inserts the results into another table.
My issue is now that I would like to mark the rows which I have selected originally at the end of my processing.
What is the best way to achieve this?
I currently prevent any new inserts etc to my first table with a pid lock (blocking the loader), but this of course is not a constraint on the DB and then bulk update the rows in the first table which don't have any mark yet
I could of course get a list of the ID's which were in my original data and update the ID's in batches which is probably really slow since there could be millions upon millions of rows)
Another option would be to lock the table at the start of my process, but is this actually a good idea? (what if my script dies to whatever reasons during the processing in a way that the "finally" block for releasing the lock is not executed)
Thankful for any ideas, thoughts etc!
Environment: Oracle 12C
Got a table with about 10 columns which include few clob and date columns. This is a very busy table for an ETL process as described below-
Flat files are loaded into the table first, then updated and processed. The insert and updates happen in batches. Millions of records are inserted and updated.
There is also a delete process to delete old data based on a date field from the table. The delete process runs as a pl/sql procedure and deletes from the table in a loop fetching first n records only based on date field.
I do not want the delete process to interfere with the regular insert/update . What is the best practice to code the delete so that it has minimal impact on the regular insert/update process ?
I can also partition the table and delete in parallel since each partition uses its own rollback segment but am looking for a simpler way to tune the delete process.
Any suggestions on using a special rollback segment or other tuning tips ?
The first thing you should look for is to decouple various ETL processes so that you need not do all of them together or in a particular sequence. Thereby, removing the dependency of the INSERTS/UPDATES and the DELETES. While a insert/update you could manage in single MERGE block in your ETL, you could do the delete later by simply marking the rows to be deleted later, thus doing a soft delete. You could do this as a flag in your table column. And use the same in your application and queries to filter them out.
By doing the delete later, your critical path of the ETL should minimize. Partitioning the data based on date range should definitely help you to maintain the data and also make the transactions efficient if it's date driven. Also, look for any row-by-row thus slow-by-slow transactions and make them in bulk. Avoid context switching between SQL and PL/SQL as much as possible.
If you partition the table as a date range, then you could look into DROP/TRUNCATE partition which will discard the rows stored in that partition as a DDL statement. This cannot be rolled back. It executes quickly and uses few system resources (Undo and Redo). You can read more about it in the documentation.
I have reports that perform some time consuming data calculations for each user in my database, and the result is 10 to 20 calculated new records for each user. To improve report responsiveness, a nightly job was created to run the calculations and dump the results to a snapshot table in the database. It only runs for active users.
So with 50k users, 30k of which are active, the job "updates" 300k to 600k records in the large snapshot table. The method it currently uses is it deletes all previous records for a given user, then inserts the new set. There is no PK on the table, only a business key is used to group the sets of data.
So my question is, when removing and adding up to 600k records every night, are there techniques to optimize the table to handle this? For instance, since the data can be recreated on demand, is there a way to disable logging for the table as these changes are made?
UPDATE:
One issue is I cannot do this in batch because the way the script works, it's examining one user at a time, so it looks at a user, deletes the previous 10-20 records, and inserts a new set of 10-20 records. It does this over and over. I am worried that the transaction log will run out of space or other performance issues could occur. I would like to configure the table to now worry about data preservation or other items that could slow it down. I cannot drop the indexes and all that because people are accessing the table concurrently to it being updated.
It's also worth noting that indexing could potentially speed up this bulk update rather than slow it down, because UPDATE and DELETE statements still need to be able to locate the affected rows in the first place, and without appropriate indexes it will resort to table scans.
I would, at the very least, consider a non-clustered index on the column(s) that identify the user, and (assuming you are using 2008) consider the MERGE statement, which can definitely avoid the shortcomings of the mass DELETE/INSERT method currently employed.
According to The Data Loading Performance Guide (MSDN), MERGE is minimally logged for inserts with the use of a trace flag.
I won't say too much more until I know which version of SQL Server you are using.
This is called Bulk Insert, you have to drop all indexes in destination table and send insert commands in large packs (hundreds of insert statements) separated by ;
Another way is to use BULK INSERT statement http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188365.aspx
but it involves dumping data to file.
See also: Bulk Insert Sql Server millions of record
It really depends upon many things
speed of your machine
size of the records being processed
network speed
etc.
Generally it is quicker to add records to a "heap" or an un-indexed table. So dropping all of your indexes and re-creating them after the load may improve your performance.
Partitioning the table may see performance benefits if you partition by active and inactive users (although the data set may be a little small for this)
Ensure you test how long each tweak adds or reduces your load and work from there.
We are currently running a SQL Job that archives data daily at every 10PM. However, the end users complains that from 10PM to 12, the page shows a time out error.
Here's the pseudocode of the job
while #jobArchive = 1 and #countProcecessedItem < #maxItem
exec ArchiveItems #countProcecessedItem out
if error occured
set #jobArchive = 0
delay '00:10'
The ArchiveItems stored procedure grabs the top 100 item that was created 30 days ago, process and archive them in another database and delete the item in the original table, including other tables that are related with it. finally sets the #countProcecessedItem with the number of item processed. The ArchiveItems also creates and deletes temporary tables it used to hold some records.
Note: if the information I've provide is incomplete, reply and I'll gladly add more information if possible.
Only thing not clear is it the ArchiveItems also delete or not data from database. Deleting rows in SQL Server is a very expensive operation that causes a lot of Locking condition on the database, with possibility to have table and database locks and this typically causes timeout.
If you're deleting data what you can do is:
Set a "logical" deletion flag on the relevant row and consider it in the query you do to read data
Perform deletes in batches. I've found that (in my application) deleting about 250 rows in each transaction gives the faster operation, taking a lot less time than issuing 250 delete command in a separate way
Hope this helps, but archiving and deleting data from SQL Server is a very tough job.
While the ArchiveItems process is deleting the 100 records, it is locking the table. Make sure you have indexes in place to make the delete run quickly; run a Profiler session during that timeframe and see how long it takes. You may need to add an index on the date field if it is doing a Table Scan or Index Scan to find the records.
On the end user's side, you may be able to add a READUNCOMMITTED or NOLOCK hint on the queries; this allows the query to run while the deletes are taking place, but with the possibility of returning records that are about to be deleted.
Also consider a different timeframe for the job; find the time that has the least user activity, or only do the archiving once a month during a maintenance window.
As another poster mentioned, slow DELETEs are often caused by not having a suitable index, or a suitable index needs rebuilding.
During DELETEs it is not uncommon for locks to be escalated ROW -> PAGE -> TABLE. You reduce locking by
Adding a ROWLOCK hint (but be aware
it will likely consume more memory)
Randomising the Rows that are
deleted (makes lock escalation less
likely)
Easiest: Adding a short WAITFOR in
ArchiveItems
WHILE someCondition
BEGIN
DELETE some rows
-- Give other processes a chance...
WAITFOR DELAY '000:00:00.250'
END
I wouldn't use the NOLOCK hint if the deletes are happening during periods with other activity taking place, and you want to maintain integrity of your data.