I have an .Net Core application using EF Core with postgres. While the application is running, IF I run
docker exec -i postgres-db psql -U admin eventsDb --command "select pid as process_id, usename as username, datname as database_name, client_addr as client_address, application_name, backend_start, state, state_changefrom pg_stat_activity";
There are 7 processes running:
pid | username | database_name | client_address | application_name | backend_start | state | state_change
-----+----------+---------------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------------+--------+-------------------------------
33 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.496459+00 | |
35 | admin | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.497432+00 | |
232 | admin | eventsDb | 172.18.0.1 | | 2021-04-15 14:27:21.61369+00 | idle | 2021-04-15 14:27:21.675184+00
246 | admin | eventsDb | | psql | 2021-04-15 14:27:38.210868+00 | active | 2021-04-15 14:27:38.216957+00
31 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.495634+00 | |
30 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.494741+00 | |
32 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.496089+00 | |
(7 rows)
If I stop the application has 6 processes:
$ docker exec -i postgres-db psql -U admin eventsDb --command "select pid, usename as username, datname as database_name, client_addr as client_address, application_name, backend_start, state, state_change from pg_stat_activity";
pid | username | database_name | client_address | application_name | backend_start | state | state_change
-----+----------+---------------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------------+--------+-------------------------------
33 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.496459+00 | |
35 | admin | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.497432+00 | |
261 | admin | eventsDb | | psql | 2021-04-15 14:28:10.544338+00 | active | 2021-04-15 14:28:10.546737+00
31 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.495634+00 | |
30 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.494741+00 | |
32 | | | | | 2021-04-15 14:10:43.496089+00 | |
(6 rows)
The connection string is:
"Host=localhost;Username=admin;Password=<password>;Database=eventsDb;"
The question is:
Is this the normal behavior for EF Core when no database IO operation performed?
Related
this query takes 24 seconds and returns 1891 results:
SELECT p.STATE, p.REFNUM, p.CODE, p.TYPE, i.STATE, pj.NAME, pj.DOCUMENT
TABLE p
inner join TABLE2 i on i.REFNUM = p.REFNUM
inner join TABLE3 pj on pj.NUMBER = i.NUMBER and p.OFIC_ID = pj.OFIC_ID and p.PUB_ID = pj.PUB_ID
inner join OFICE o on t.OFIC_ID = p.OFIC_ID and o.PUB_ID = p.PUB_ID
inner join GROUP glad on glad.GROUP_CODE=p.GROUP_CODE
WHERE glad.GROUP_TYPE ='3' AND i.STATE = '1'
AND p.PUB_ID IN ('05','11','12','09','08','13','04','02','01','06','10','03','07','14')
AND pj.NAME LIKE 'BANK%'
ORDER BY o.NAME,p.ID;
I have these indexes:
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE1_REFNUM_ZONE ON TABLE1 (PUB_ID, OFIC_ID, REFNUM, ZONE_ID)
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE1_REFNUMPUB ON TABLE1 (REFNUM, PUB_ID, OFIC_ID, GROUP_CODE );
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE1_GROUP ON TABLE1 (PUB_ID, GROUP_CODE, REFNUM, OFIC_ID)
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE2_REF ON TABLE2 (REFNUM, NUMBER, STATE);
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE2_QUERY ON TABLE2 (NUMBER, TYPE, STATE, REFNUM, NUM, CODE);
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE2_REFNUM ON TABLE2 (REFNUM)
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE2_NUMBER ON TABLE2 (NUMBER)
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE3_NUM ON TABLE3 (NUMBER, PUB_ID, OFIC_ID, NAME );
CREATE INDEX IND_TABLE3_NAME ON TABLE3 ( NAME );
CREATE INDEX IND_GROUP_COD ON GROUP (GROUP_CODE, GROUP_TYPE)
I made the following queries to see how many records are in each table:
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE1 --> 18298458 results
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE2 --> 60627924 results
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE3 --> 18425913 results
SELECT count(*) FROM OFICE --> 65 results
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE1 p INNER JOIN GROUP glad on glad.GROUP_CODE=p.GROUP_CODE where glad.GROUP_TYPE ='3' AND p.PUB_ID IN ('05','11','12','09','08','13','04','02','01','06','10','03','07','14') --> 1314077 results
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE1 p INNER JOIN GROUP glad on glad.GROUP_CODE=p.GROUP_CODE where glad.GROUP_TYPE ='3' AND p.PUB_ID IN ('05') --> 53754 results
SELECT count(*) FROM TABLE3 WHERE NAME LIKE 'BANK%' --> 1922081 results
this is the plan generated by oracle:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 291K| 38M| 384K| | |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 291K| 38M| 384K| | |
| 2 | HASH JOIN | | 291K| 38M| 375K| | |
| 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | OFICE | 64 | 960 | 3 | | |
| 4 | HASH JOIN | | 291K| 34M| 375K| | |
| 5 | INDEX SKIP SCAN | IND_GROUP_COD | 47 | 329 | 1 | | |
| 6 | HASH JOIN | | 452K| 50M| 375K| | |
| 7 | PART JOIN FILTER CREATE | :BF0000 | 452K| 50M| 375K| | |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 452K| 50M| 375K| | |
| 9 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | | | |
| 10 | STATISTICS COLLECTOR | | | | | | |
| 11 | HASH JOIN | | 2100K| 166M| 252K| | |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 2100K| 166M| 252K| | |
| 13 | STATISTICS COLLECTOR | | | | | | |
| 14 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 19 |
| 15 | PARTITION HASH ALL | | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 32 |
| 16 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE3 | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 608 |
| 17 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 1 | 27 | 103K| | |
| 18 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 32M| 845M| 103K| | |
| 19 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE1_REFNUM_ZONE| | | | | |
| 20 | TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID| TABLE1 | 1 | 35 | 70380 | ROWID | ROWID |
| 21 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 19M| 650M| 70380 | 1 | 19 |
| 22 | PARTITION HASH JOIN-FILTER | | 19M| 650M| 70380 |:BF0000|:BF0000|
| 23 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE1 | 19M| 650M| 70380 | 1 | 608 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it takes time because this one is using TABLE ACCESS FULL for TABLE1 and TABLE3
if I perform the query filtering only PUB_ID='05' instead of all the numbers in the above query, the query returns 181 results and takes 8 seconds and in that case oracle generates this plan:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 797 | 108K| 312K| | |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 797 | 108K| 312K| | |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS | | 797 | 108K| 312K| | |
| 3 | HASH JOIN | | 1238 | 160K| 312K| | |
| 4 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| OFICE | 3 | 45 | 2 | | |
| 5 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SYS_C0034405 | 3 | | 1 | | |
| 6 | HASH JOIN | | 2091 | 240K| 312K| | |
| 7 | PART JOIN FILTER CREATE | :BF0000 | 66316 | 5375K| 241K| | |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 66316 | 5375K| 241K| | |
| 9 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 53085 | 2903K| 82490 | 1 | 19 |
| 10 | PARTITION HASH ALL | | 53085 | 2903K| 82490 | 1 | 32 |
| 11 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE3 | 53085 | 2903K| 82490 | 1 | 608 |
| 12 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 1 | 27 | 3 | | |
| 13 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 762K| 25M| 68657 | 1 | 19 |
| 14 | PARTITION HASH JOIN-FILTER | | 762K| 25M| 68657 |:BF0000|:BF0000|
| 15 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE1 | 762K| 25M| 68657 | 1 | 608 |
| 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_GROUP_COD | 1 | 7 | 0 | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYS_C0034405 is the primary key of OFFICE which contains these fields: (PUB_ID, REG_ID)
if in addition to filtering only PUB_ID='05' I remove the "order by", the query takes only 3.5 seconds but I definitely have to return the ordered data and I would prefer to be able to filter several PUB_IDs
I thought the query could be improved if I removed the "inner join" from GROUP and changed the filter "glad.GROUP_TYPE ='3'" to "p.GROUP_CODE in ('01','07','10','21 ')" (these are all type 3 codes), because now it should use the IND_TABLE1_GROUP index but instead of improving, it gets worse, it takes 13 seconds even filtering only PUB_ID='05'; This is the plan that oracle generates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 47 | 6251 | 172K| | |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 47 | 6251 | 172K| | |
| 2 | HASH JOIN | | 47 | 6251 | 172K| | |
| 3 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 47786 | 2613K| 82490 | 1 | 19 |
| 4 | PARTITION HASH ALL | | 47786 | 2613K| 82490 | 1 | 32 |
| 5 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE3 | 47786 | 2613K| 82490 | 1 | 608 |
| 6 | HASH JOIN | | 41945 | 3154K| 89633 | | |
| 7 | NESTED LOOPS | | 41945 | 3154K| 89633 | | |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 75740 | 3154K| 89633 | | |
| 9 | STATISTICS COLLECTOR | | | | | | |
| 10 | NESTED LOOPS | | 18935 | 924K| 15985 | | |
| 11 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED | OFICE | 3 | 45 | 2 | | |
| 12 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SYS_C0034405 | 3 | | 1 | | |
| 13 | INLIST ITERATOR | | | | | | |
| 14 | TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID BATCHED| TABLE1 | 6312 | 215K| 7039 | ROWID | ROWID |
| 15 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE1_GROUP | 6828 | | 284 | | |
| 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE2_REFNUM | 4 | | 2 | | |
| 17 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TABLE2 | 2 | 54 | 4 | | |
| 18 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 2 | 54 | 2 | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if I put all the PUB_IDs, Oracle generates this plan (it doesn't even use the IND_TABLE1_GROUP index anymore):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 35661 | 4631K| 345K| | |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 35661 | 4631K| 345K| | |
| 2 | HASH JOIN | | 35661 | 4631K| 344K| | |
| 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | OFICE | 64 | 960 | 3 | | |
| 4 | HASH JOIN | | 35661 | 4109K| 344K| | |
| 5 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 1360K| 45M| 79580 | 1 | 19 |
| 6 | PARTITION HASH ALL | | 1360K| 45M| 79580 | 1 | 32 |
| 7 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE1 | 1360K| 45M| 79580 | 1 | 608 |
| 8 | HASH JOIN | | 2100K| 166M| 252K| | |
| 9 | NESTED LOOPS | | 2100K| 166M| 252K| | |
| 10 | STATISTICS COLLECTOR | | | | | | |
| 11 | PARTITION RANGE ALL | | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 19 |
| 12 | PARTITION HASH ALL | | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 32 |
| 13 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TABLE3 | 1681K| 89M| 82582 | 1 | 608 |
| 14 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 1 | 27 | 103K| | |
| 15 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | IND_TABLE2_QUERY | 32M| 845M| 103K| | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the following tables
User
+--------+------+
| UserID | Name |
+--------+------+
| User1 | John |
| User2 | Mike |
+--------+------+
Device
+----------+------------+------------+------+
| DeviceID | DeviceName | DeviceType | Good |
+----------+------------+------------+------+
| 1 | Device1 | A | 0 |
| 2 | Device2 | A | 1 |
| 3 | Device7 | B | 0 |
| 4 | Device8 | B | 1 |
| 5 | Device11 | C | 0 |
| 6 | Device12 | C | 1 |
+----------+------------+------------+------+
UserDevice
+--------------+--------+----------+
| UserDeviceID | UserID | DeviceID |
+--------------+--------+----------+
| z | User1 | 1 |
| y | User1 | 3 |
| x | User1 | 5 |
| w | User2 | 2 |
| v | User2 | 4 |
| u | User2 | 6 |
+--------------+--------+----------+
I want to join these tables like below
+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| UserName | DeviceTypeA | DeviceTypeB | DeviceTypeC |
+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| User1 | Device1 | Device7 | Device11 |
| User2 | Device2 | Device8 | Device22 |
+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
I tried all types of join query but unfortunately, I could not get the data in the above format. Could someone please help?
You can do this using PIVOT (documentation)
SELECT P.[Name], P.A AS DeviceTypeA, P.B AS DeviceTypeB, P.C AS DeviceTypeC
FROM
(
SELECT U.[Name], D.DeviceName, D.DeviceType
FROM [User] U
INNER JOIN DeviceUser DU
ON DU.UserID = U.UserID
INNER JOIN Device D
ON D.DeviceID = DU.DeviceID
) AS X
PIVOT
(
MAX(X.DeviceName)
FOR X.DeviceType IN([A], [B], [C])
) AS P;
Note however that this will return only one device name for a certain user and device type even if there are more devices of a device type for a that user.
I have a a query where i compare 350 rows with other tables which are having 50000 rows it takes 5 minutes to give result.Any faster way to retrieve values get earlier.
select lower(rtrim(substring(rt_queue, 3, 6))) + " Ticor - " + convert(varchar(4), sort_grp_id) + " " + rtrim(batch_no) + ".prn" as FILENAME from tprt_queue where cycle_date >= (select CYCLE from tb_jpachi_cycle) and batch_no <> 'JOBCTR-' and rt_queue not like '%CN%' and status = 'TINTED' and lower(rtrim(substring(prt_queue, 3, 6))) + " Bicor - " + convert(varchar(4), sort_grp_id) + " " + rtrim(batch_no) + ".prn" not in (
select FILENAME from tb_jpachi_filesprocess ) order by rt_dt
This one contains 100000 rows : select FILENAME from tb_jpachi_filesprocess
Later it will increase day by day.
Here is query plan :
QUERY PLAN FOR STATEMENT 1 (at line 1).
STEP 1
The type of query is EXECUTE.
Executing a newly cached statement (SSQL_ID = 230588804).
QUERY PLAN FOR STATEMENT 1 (at line 0).
STEP 1
The type of query is DECLARE.
QUERY PLAN FOR STATEMENT 2 (at line 1).
Optimized using Serial Mode
STEP 1
The type of query is SELECT.
10 operator(s) under root
|ROOT:EMIT Operator (VA = 10)
|
| |RESTRICT Operator (VA = 9)(0)(0)(0)(0)(9)
| |
| | |SEQUENCER Operator (VA = 8) has 2 children.
| | |
| | | |SCALAR AGGREGATE Operator (VA = 1)
| | | | Evaluate Ungrouped ONCE AGGREGATE.
| | | |
| | | | |SCAN Operator (VA = 0)
| | | | | FROM TABLE
| | | | | tb_jpachi_cycle
| | | | | Table Scan.
| | | | | Forward Scan.
| | | | | Positioning at start of table.
| | | | | Using I/O Size 2 Kbytes for data pages.
| | | | | With LRU Buffer Replacement Strategy for data pages.
| | |
| | | |SQFILTER Operator (VA = 7) has 2 children.
| | | |
| | | | |RESTRICT Operator (VA = 3)(0)(0)(0)(6)(0)
| | | | |
| | | | | |SCAN Operator (VA = 2)
| | | | | | FROM TABLE
| | | | | | tprt_queue
| | | | | | Using Clustered Index.
| | | | | | Index : pk_tprt_queue
| | | | | | Forward Scan.
| | | | | | Positioning at index start.
| | | | | | Using I/O Size 16 Kbytes for index leaf pages.
| | | | | | With LRU Buffer Replacement Strategy for index leaf pages.
| | | | | | Using I/O Size 16 Kbytes for data pages.
| | | | | | With LRU Buffer Replacement Strategy for data pages.
| | | |
| | | | Run subquery 1 (at nesting level 1).
| | | |
| | | | QUERY PLAN FOR SUBQUERY 1 (at nesting level 1 and at line 2).
| | | |
| | | | Correlated Subquery.
| | | | Subquery under an IN predicate.
| | | |
| | | | |SCALAR AGGREGATE Operator (VA = 6)
| | | | | Evaluate Ungrouped ANY AGGREGATE.
| | | | | Scanning only up to the first qualifying row.
| | | | |
| | | | | |RESTRICT Operator (VA = 5)(9)(0)(0)(15)(0)
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |SCAN Operator (VA = 4)
| | | | | | | FROM TABLE
| | | | | | | tb_jpachi_filesprocess
| | | | | | | Table Scan.
| | | | | | | Forward Scan.
| | | | | | | Positioning at start of table.
| | | | | | | Using I/O Size 16 Kbytes for data pages.
| | | | | | | With LRU Buffer Replacement Strategy for data pages.
| | | |
| | | | END OF QUERY PLAN FOR SUBQUERY 1.
I am using Row Group And Column Group in SSRS 2008 R2.
I have design the report contain two row groups(et.PixelăName) and one column group(et.Date).
Preview Report as bellow:
| Date1 | Date2 | Date2 |
Pixel | Name | Input | Ng | Name | Input | Ng | Name | Input | Ng |
| XXX1 | 1000 | 2 | | | | | | |
| | | | YYY1 | 2000 | 1 | | | |
2M | | | | YYY2 | 1000 | 2 | | | |
| | | | YYY3 | 3000 | 5 | | | |
| | | | | | | ZZZ1 | 800 | 2 |
| | | | | | | ZZZ2 | 500 | 3 |
|Total | 1000 | 2 |Total | 6000 | 8 |Total | 1300 | 5 |
My question is, How do I get the Preview Report don't show white space column in report.
For example:
| Date1 | Date2 | Date2 |
Pixel | Name | Input | Ng | Name | Input | Ng | Name | Input | Ng |
| XXX1 | 1000 | 2 | YYY1 | 2000 | 1 | ZZZ1 | 800 | 2 |
2M | | | | YYY2 | 1000 | 2 | ZZZ2 | 500 | 3 |
| | | | YYY3 | 3000 | 5 | | | |
|Total | 1000 | 2 |Total | 6000 | 8 |Total | 1300 | 5 |
It's the grouping by name which is causing the issue that you are having. Since the name is different they won't be on the same line.
On the plus side, you can probably work around this. If the data is like you display it, I would group on the numeric number in the name instead of the whole name.
=MID(Fields!Name.Value, 4, LEN(Fields!Name.Value) - 3)
Of course you couldn't have XXX and YYY data on the same date with this expression otherwise you would have multiple rows.
Does anyone know where the Invoice data is stored in Magento database?
For example, I've found that the order data is stored in sales_order, sales_flat_order, sales_flat_order_item.
I've also found out that the main invoice data is stored in sales_order_entity, sales_order_entity_decimal and sales_order_entity_int. Through that I can change the subtotal and totals of the invoice in the system.
But! I don't know where to find the items data? For orders, that data is in sales_flat_order_item, but my sales_flat_invoice_item table is empty?!
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1921/invoicey.jpg
I will tell you what I know for 1.4.0.1 which is the version i currently develop for, it may or may not be the same for whatever version you are using.
Also, why are you in the database anyways? Magento has made models for you to use so that you don't have to work in the database. Regardless I will describe how I find whatever attribute I'm looking for ...
For starters I'm assuming that your already logged into the database via a mysql client, run
SELECT `entity_type_id`,`entity_type_code`,`entity_table` FROM `eav_entity_type`
which will get you something like ...
+----------------+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| entity_type_id | entity_type_code | entity_table |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| 1 | customer | customer/entity |
| 2 | customer_address | customer/address_entity |
| 3 | catalog_category | catalog/category |
| 4 | catalog_product | catalog/product |
| 5 | quote | sales/quote |
| 6 | quote_item | sales/quote_item |
| 7 | quote_address | sales/quote_address |
| 8 | quote_address_item | sales/quote_entity |
| 9 | quote_address_rate | sales/quote_entity |
| 10 | quote_payment | sales/quote_entity |
| 11 | order | sales/order |
| 12 | order_address | sales/order_entity |
| 13 | order_item | sales/order_entity |
| 14 | order_payment | sales/order_entity |
| 15 | order_status_history | sales/order_entity |
| 16 | invoice | sales/order_entity |
| 17 | invoice_item | sales/order_entity |
| 18 | invoice_comment | sales/order_entity |
| 19 | shipment | sales/order_entity |
| 20 | shipment_item | sales/order_entity |
| 21 | shipment_comment | sales/order_entity |
| 22 | shipment_track | sales/order_entity |
| 23 | creditmemo | sales/order_entity |
| 24 | creditmemo_item | sales/order_entity |
| 25 | creditmemo_comment | sales/order_entity |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------------------------+
We want to know more about the "invoice_item" entity so lets see what attributes it has ... run
SELECT `attribute_id`,`entity_type_id`,`attribute_code`,`backend_type` FROM `eav_attribute` WHERE `entity_type_id`=17;
and you'll get something like ...
+--------------+----------------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| attribute_id | entity_type_id | attribute_code | backend_type |
+--------------+----------------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| 349 | 17 | additional_data | text |
| 340 | 17 | base_cost | decimal |
| 346 | 17 | base_discount_amount | decimal |
| 345 | 17 | base_price | decimal |
| 679 | 17 | base_price_incl_tax | decimal |
| 348 | 17 | base_row_total | decimal |
| 681 | 17 | base_row_total_incl_tax | decimal |
| 347 | 17 | base_tax_amount | decimal |
| 567 | 17 | base_weee_tax_applied_amount | decimal |
| 568 | 17 | base_weee_tax_applied_row_amount | decimal |
| 579 | 17 | base_weee_tax_disposition | decimal |
| 580 | 17 | base_weee_tax_row_disposition | decimal |
| 337 | 17 | description | text |
| 342 | 17 | discount_amount | decimal |
| 336 | 17 | name | varchar |
| 334 | 17 | order_item_id | int |
| 333 | 17 | parent_id | static |
| 341 | 17 | price | decimal |
| 678 | 17 | price_incl_tax | decimal |
| 335 | 17 | product_id | int |
| 339 | 17 | qty | decimal |
| 344 | 17 | row_total | decimal |
| 680 | 17 | row_total_incl_tax | decimal |
| 338 | 17 | sku | varchar |
| 343 | 17 | tax_amount | decimal |
| 571 | 17 | weee_tax_applied | text |
| 569 | 17 | weee_tax_applied_amount | decimal |
| 570 | 17 | weee_tax_applied_row_amount | decimal |
| 577 | 17 | weee_tax_disposition | decimal |
| 578 | 17 | weee_tax_row_disposition | decimal |
+--------------+----------------+----------------------------------+--------------+
the last column (backend_type) combined with the table for the entity (entity_table) is where the attribute for that entity will be so attribute "additional_data" should be in sales_order_entity_text with an attribute_id of 349.
Armed with this information now we just need to find an invoice, I'll use an example from a test install of mine. Lets look for the "base_price" of an invoice item.
First lets find all the items that are associated to the invoice (in my case invoice entity_id of 1303954)
SELECT * FROM `sales_order_entity` WHERE `entity_type_id`=17 AND `parent_id`=1303954;
which gives 2 items
+-----------+----------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| entity_id | entity_type_id | attribute_set_id | increment_id | parent_id | store_id | created_at | updated_at | is_active |
+-----------+----------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| 1303955 | 17 | 0 | | 1303954 | NULL | 2011-06-01 14:10:48 | 2011-06-01 14:10:48 | 1 |
| 1303956 | 17 | 0 | | 1303954 | NULL | 2011-06-01 14:10:48 | 2011-06-01 14:10:48 | 1 |
+-----------+----------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
Lets choose the first one and find the 'base_price'
SELECT * FROM `sales_order_entity_decimal` WHERE `attribute_id`=345 AND `entity_id`=1303955;
Which gives us ....
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+---------+
| value_id | entity_type_id | attribute_id | entity_id | value |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+---------+
| 7361390 | 17 | 345 | 1303955 | 31.2500 |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+---------+
Which of course its just a simple update to change it.
Again if you can do it via a Magento model I would highly suggest you do it that way, but if manual is the only way to go then well I hope this helped :)