I have a general inquiry related to processing rows from a query. In general, I always try to format/process my rows in SQL itself, using numerous CASE WHEN statements to pre-format my db result, limiting rows and filling columns based on other columns.
However, you can also opt to just select all your rows and do the post-processing in code (asp.NET in my case). What do you guys think is the best approach in terms of performance?
Thanks in advance,
Stijn
I would recommend doing the processing in the code, unless you have network bandwidth considerations. The simple reason for this is that is is generally easier to make code changes than database changes. Furthermore, performance is more often related to the actual database query and disk access rather than the amount of data returned.
However, I'm assuming that your are referring to "minor" formatting changes to the result. Standard where clauses should naturally be done in the database.
Related
I've been recently assigned on a project using Teradata.
I've been told to strictly use DROP+CREATE instead of DELETE ALL, because the latter "leaves some space allocated someway". This is counter-intuitive to me, and I think it's probably wrong. I searched the web for a comparison between the two methods, but I found nothing.
This only reinforces my belief that DELETE ALL doesn't suffer from the issue above.
However, if this is the case, I must prove it (both practically and theoretically).
So, my question is: is there a difference in space allocation between the two methods? If not, is there an official document (user guide, technical specification, whatever else) that proves it?
Thank you!
There's a discussion here: http://teradataforum.com/teradata/20120403_105705.htm about the very same subject (although it does not really answer the "leaves some space allocated someway" part). They actually recommend DELETE ALL but for other (performance) reasons:
I'll quote just in case the link goes dead:
"Delete all" will be quicker, although being practical there often isn't a lot of difference in the performance of them.
However, especially for a process that is run regularly (say a daily batch process) then I recommend the "delete all" approach. This will do less work as it only removes the data and leaves the definition in place. Remember that if you remove the definition then this requires accessing multiple dictionary tables, and of course you then have to access those same tables (typically) when you re-create the object.
Apart from the performance aspect, the downside of the drop/create approach is that every time you create an object Teradata inserts "default rows" into the AccessRights table, even if subsequent access to the object is controlled via Role security and/or database level security. As you may well know the AccessRights table can easily get large and very skewed. In my experience many sites have a process which cleans this table on a regular basis, removing redundant rows. If your (typically batch) processes regularly drop/create objects, then you're simply adding rows into the table which have previously been removed by a clean process, and which will be removed in the future by the same process. This all sounds like a complete waste of time to me.
Your impression is correct, you didn't find any reference to "DELETE leaves some space allocated" in any place, because it's simply wrong :-)
DELETE ALL is similar to a TRUNCATE in other DBMSes and in most cases use fastpath processing:
First of all, you cannot do DROP/CREATE in one transaction in Teradata (in Oracle there are other problems with everyday DDL) so when ETL processes become complicated you might end up with the dependence where more important business processes depend on less important (like you might see the customers table empty just because the interests rates were not refreshed
or you have an exceeding varchar value in just one minor column)
My opinion: Use transactions and modular programming. In Teradata this means avoiding DDL where possible and using DELETE/UPDATE/MERGE/INSERT instead of DROP/CREATE.
We have a slightly different situation in Postgres where DDL statements are transactional.
Here's my problem.
I want to ingest lots and lots of data .... right now millions and later billions of rows.
I have been using MySQL and I am playing around with PostgreSQL for now.
Inserting is easy, but before I insert I want to check if that particular records exists or not, if it does I don't want to insert. As the DB grows this operation (obviously) takes longer and longer.
If my data was in a Hashmap the look up would be o(1) so I thought I'd create a Hash index to help with lookups. But then I realised that if I have to compute the Hash again every time I will slow the process down massively (and if I don't compute the index I don't have o(1) lookup).
So I am in a quandry, is there a simple solution? Or a complex one? I am happy to try other datastores, however I need to be able to do reasonably complex queries e.g. something to similar to SELECT statements with WHERE clauses, so I am not sure if no-sql solutions are applicable.
I am very much a novice, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a trivial solution.
Nosql Stores are good for handling huge inserts and updates
MongoDB has really good feature for update/Insert (called as upsert) based on whether the document is existing.
Check out this page from mongo doc
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Updating#Updating-UpsertswithModifiers
Also you can checkout the safe mode in mongo connection. Which you can set it as false to get more efficiency in inserts.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Connections
You could use CouchDB. Its no SQL so you can't do queries per se, but you can create design documents that allow you to run map/reduce functions on your data.
I have a typical scenario that I'm struggling with from a performance standpoint. The user selects a value from a dropdown and clicks a button. A stored procedure takes that value as an input parameter, executes, and returns the results to a grid. For just one of the values ('All'), the query runs for roughly 2.5 minutes. For the rest of the values the query runs less than 1ms.
Obviously, having the user wait for 2.5 minutes just isn't going to fly. So, what are some typical strategies to handle this?
Some of my own thoughts:
New table that stores the information for the 'All' value and is generated nightly
Cache the data on the caching server
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!
Update
A little bit more info:
sp returns two result sets. The first is a group by rollup summary and the second is the first result set, disaggregated (roughly 80,000 rows).
I would first look at if your have the proper indexes in place. Using the Query Analyzer and the Database Tuning Assistant is a simple and often effective way of seeing what indexes might help.
If you still have performance problems after creating the appropriate indexes you might then look at adding tables/views to speed things up. If your query does a lot of joins you might consider creating an indexed view that allows you to do a select with no joins on the denormalized data. Since indexed views are persisted you can see big gains from their use.
You can read up on indexed views here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd171921%28v=sql.100%29.aspx
and read about the database tuning adviser here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms166575.aspx
Also, how many records does "All" return? I have seen people get hung up on the "All" scenario before, but if it returns 1 million records or something then the data is not usable to a person anyways...
Caching data is a good thing, but.... if the SP is inherently flawed, then you might want to actually fix it instead of trying to bandage it with caching.
You might also want to (since you didn't mention here) look at the number of rows "All" returns compared to the other selections and think about your indexes.
Also in your SP does the "All" cause it to run a different sets of tsql as in maybe a case or an if... or is it running the same code just with a different "WHERE"?
It might simply be that "ALL" just returns A LOT of records. You may want to implement paging and partial dataset return using ajax... (kinda like return the first 1000 records early so that it can be displayed and also show a throbber on the screen while the rest of the dataset is returned)
These are all options... if the number of records really isnt that different between ALL and the others... then it probably has something to do with the query/index/program flow.
We've developed a system with a search screen that looks a little something like this:
(source: nsourceservices.com)
As you can see, there is some fairly serious search functionality. You can use any combination of statuses, channels, languages, campaign types, and then narrow it down by name and so on as well.
Then, once you've searched and the leads pop up at the bottom, you can sort the headers.
The query uses ROWNUM to do a paging scheme, so we only return something like 70 rows at a time.
The Problem
Even though we're only returning 70 rows, an awful lot of IO and sorting is going on. This makes sense of course.
This has always caused some minor spikes to the Disk Queue. It started slowing down more when we hit 3 million leads, and now that we're getting closer to 5, the Disk Queue pegs for up to a second or two straight sometimes.
That would actually still be workable, but this system has another area with a time-sensitive process, lets say for simplicity that it's a web service, that needs to serve up responses very quickly or it will cause a timeout on the other end. The Disk Queue spikes are causing that part to bog down, which is causing timeouts downstream. The end result is actually dropped phone calls in our automated VoiceXML-based IVR, and that's very bad for us.
What We've Tried
We've tried:
Maintenance tasks that reduce the number of leads in the system to the bare minimum.
Added the obvious indexes to help.
Ran the index tuning wizard in profiler and applied most of its suggestions. One of them was going to more or less reproduce the entire table inside an index so I tweaked it by hand to do a bit less than that.
Added more RAM to the server. It was a little low but now it always has something like 8 gigs idle, and the SQL server is configured to use no more than 8 gigs, however it never uses more than 2 or 3. I found that odd. Why isn't it just putting the whole table in RAM? It's only 5 million leads and there's plenty of room.
Poured over query execution plans. I can see that at this point the indexes seem to be mostly doing their job -- about 90% of the work is happening during the sorting stage.
Considered partitioning the Leads table out to a different physical drive, but we don't have the resources for that, and it seems like it shouldn't be necessary.
In Closing...
Part of me feels like the server should be able to handle this. Five million records is not so many given the power of that server, which is a decent quad core with 16 gigs of ram. However, I can see how the sorting part is causing millions of rows to be touched just to return a handful.
So what have you done in situations like this? My instinct is that we should maybe slash some functionality, but if there's a way to keep this intact that will save me a war with the business unit.
Thanks in advance!
Database bottlenecks can frequently be improved by improving your SQL queries. Without knowing what those look like, consider creating an operational data store or a data warehouse that you populate on a scheduled basis.
Sometimes flattening out your complex relational databases is the way to go. It can make queries run significantly faster, and make it a lot easier to optimize your queries, since the model is very flat. That may also make it easier to determine if you need to scale your database server up or out. A capacity and growth analysis may help to make that call.
Transactional/highly normalized databases are not usually as scalable as an ODS or data warehouse.
Edit: Your ORM may have optimizations as well that it may support, that may be worth looking into, rather than just looking into how to optimize the queries that it's sending to your database. Perhaps bypassing your ORM altogether for the reports could be one way to have full control over your queries in order to gain better performance.
Consider how your ORM is creating the queries.
If you're having poor search performance perhaps you could try using stored procedures to return your results and, if necessary, multiple stored procedures specifically tailored to which search criteria are in use.
determine which ad-hoc queries will most likely be run or limit the search criteria with stored procedures.. can you summarize data?.. treat this
app like a data warehouse.
create indexes on each column involved in the search to avoid table scans.
create fragments on expressions.
periodically reorg the data and update statistics as more leads are loaded.
put the temporary files created by queries (result sets) in ramdisk.
consider migrating to a high-performance RDBMS engine like Informix OnLine.
Initiate another thread to start displaying N rows from the result set while the query
continues to execute.
Is it quicker to make one trip to the database and bring back 3000+ plus rows, then manipulate them in .net & LINQ or quicker to make 6 calls bringing back a couple of 100 rows at a time?
It will entirely depend on the speed of the database, the network bandwidth and latency, the speed of the .NET machine, the actual queries etc.
In other words, we can't give you a truthful general answer. I know which sounds easier to code :)
Unfortunately this is the kind of thing which you can't easily test usefully without having an exact replica of the production environment - most test environments are somewhat different to the production environment, which could seriously change the results.
Is this for one user, or will many users be querying the data? The single database call will scale better under load.
Speed is only one consideration among many.
How flexible is your code? How easy is it to revise and extend when the requirements change? How easy is it for another person to read and maintain your code? How portable is your code? what if you change to a diferent DBMS, or a different progamming language? Are any of these considerations important in your case?
Having said that, go for the single round trip if all other things are equal or unimportant.
You mentioned that the single round trip might result in reading data you don't need. If all the data you need can be described in a single result table, then it should be possible to devise a query that will get that result. That result table might deliver some result data in more than one row, if the query denormalizes the data. In that case, you might gain some speed by obtaining the data in several result tables, and composing the result yourself.
You haven't given enough information to know how much programming effort it will be to compose a single query or to compose the data returned by 6 queries.
As others have said, it depends.
If you know which 6 SQL statements you're going to execute beforehand, you can bundle them into one call to the database, and return multiple result sets using ADO or ADO.NET.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311274
the problem I have here is that I need it all, i just need it displayed separately...
The answer to your question is 1 query for 3000 rows is better than 6 queries for 500 rows. (given that you are bringing all 3000 rows back regardless)
However, there's no way you're going (to want) to display 3000 rows at a time, is there? In all likelihood, irrespective of using Linq, you're going to want to run aggregating queries and get the database to do the work for you. You should hopefully be able to construct the SQL (or Linq query) to perform all required logic in one shot.
Without knowing what you're doing, it's hard to be more specific.
* If you absolutely, positively need to bring back all the rows, then investigate the ToLookup() method for your linq IQueryable< T >. It's very handy for grouping results in non-standard ways.
Oh, and I highly recommend LINQPad (free) for trying out queries with Linq. It has loads of examples, and it also shows you the sql and lambda forms so you can familiarize yourself with Linq<->lambda form<->Sql.
Well, the answer is always "it depends". Do you want to optimize on the database load or on the application load?
My general answer in this case would be to use as specific queries as possible at the database level, therefore using 6 calls.
Thx
I was kind of thinking "ball park", but it sounds as though its a choice thing...the difference is likely small.
I was thinking that getting all the data and manipulating in .net would be the best - I have nothing concrete to base this on (hence the question), I just tend to feel that calls to the DB are expensive and if I know i need all the data...get it in one hit?!?
Part of the problem is that you have not provided sufficient information to give you a precise answer. Obviously, available resources need to be considered.
If you pull 3000 rows infrequently, it might work for you in the short term. However, if there are say 10,000 people that execute the same query (ignoring cache effects), this could become a problem for both the app and db.
Now in the case of something like pagination, it makes sense to pull in just what you need. But that would be a general rule to try to only pull what is necessary. It's much more elegant to use a scalpel instead of a broadsword. =)
If you are talking about a query that has already been run by SQL (so optimized by SQL Server), working with LINQ or a SqlDataReader might actually have the same performance.
The only difference will be "how hard will it be to maintain your code?"
LINQ doesn't query anything to the database until you ask for the result with ".ToList()" or ".ToArray()" or even ".Count()". LINQ is dynamically building your query so it is exactly the same as having a SqlDataReader but with runtime verification.
Rather than speculating, why don't you try both and measure the results?
It depends
1) if your connector implementation precaches a lot of objects AND you have big rows (for example blobs, contry polygons etc.) you have a problem, you have to download a LOT of data. I've optimalized once a code that had this problem and it was just downloading some megs of garbage all the time via localhost, and my software runs now 10 times faster because i removed the precaching by an option
2) If your rows are small and you have a good chance that you need to read through all the 3000, you're better going on a big resultset
3) If you don't use prepared statements, all queries have to be parsed! Big resultset might be better.
Hope it helped
I always stick to the rule of "bring in what I need" and nothing more...the problem I have here is that I need it all, I just need it displayed separately.
So say...
I have a table with userid and typeid. I want to display all records with a userid, and display on the page in grids say separated by typeid.
At the moment I call sproc that does "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1",
then on the page set the datasource of a grid to from t in tab where typeid=2 select t;
Rather than calling a different sproc "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1 and typeid=2" 6 times.
??