Thanks Mark. If I get it correct , you are suggesting a method to scan
the blocks in the buffer cache which are getting deleted. But considering
we are going to hold ~3days worth of data at any point in time, I was
thinking if it's easy one to just scan or gather stats with auto sample
size after delete to get the blocks cleaned. but before that is it the same
effect i.e. delayed block cleanout which we are suffering from here? I
thought Lothar might be pointing to some other similar effect but not
exactly delayed block cleanout. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:41 AM Mark W. Farnham <mwf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you stash (probably insert append, then after the subsequent read
truncate) into a table the rowid of all the rows you are about to delete
(using the same predicate), then do the delete, then commit, that will give
you the list of the candidate blocks. If you read from the table you
deleted from where rowid in (select rowid from the new table) from a
different node on your Exadata, you’re probably going to get that in sga.
IF not, you can pl/sql loop them one block at a time.
*From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Pap
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2021 2:34 PM
*To:* Lothar Flatz
*Cc:* Oracle L
*Subject:* Re: Insert Query issue
Thank you Lothar.
It appears to be something matching to delayed block cleanout effect in
which post DML sometimes we have to perform a segment scan so that the
commit scn can be updated for all the blocks and for that sometimes we have
to do it using manual stats gathering or forced segment full scan to pass
all the data blocks through buffer cache. But for that we used to see one
stats i.e. 'transaction table consistent read undo records applied' on the
SELECT query execution.
So is this tidying up of block post delete something similar as above and
we can get that verified and confirmed from some session statistics from
v$sesstat while the insert is running at run time? Also I am thinking what
can be done so as to tidying up the blocks after delete, if a force segment
full scan or stats gather post deletion can anyway help, so as to not
impact the insert performance?
*Betreff: *
Re: Insert Query issue
*Datum: *
Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:59:25 +0200
*Von: *
Lothar Flatz <l.flatz@xxxxxxxxxx> <l.flatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
*An: *
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
there reason should be that after a delete rows are marked as technical
deleted, but the block is not yet tidied up. (I suppose that would mean
e.g. that other rows are not yet shifted for contiguous space etc.)
The tidying is done on the next insert, which therefore will be
substantially slower for once.
I heard this explanation long ago , but suppose it still holds.
My whole understanding of this is a bit vague.
I guess Jonathan could fill in some details here.
Regards
Lothar
Am 29.07.2021 um 18:10 schrieb Pap:
This legacy database is on version 11.2.0.4 of oracle Exadata.
We are having below conventional insert query introduced and its a bulk
insert happening with an arraysize of ~352 from informatica. And the
response time was ~3millisec/execution i.e. for one chunk or ~352 rows. But
we noticed suddenly the response time becomes
tripled(~8-9millisec/execution) for the same set of rows/array size insert.
No changes done to the underlying table structure.
During digging into the AWR views we found that the increase in response
time for this insert query started after we introduced the delete script to
purge data from this table. The delete is also happening in bulk fashion
with an arraysize of 100K through plsql procedure and its deleting data
with CRE_TS<sysdate-3. And it's clear from dba_hist_sqlstat that it's the
cpu_time_delta and IOWAIT_DELTA which increased thus making the
ELAPSED_TIME_delta go up by three times for the INSERT query. No such
increase in BUFFER_GETS_delta observed. But one thing we notice is that the
DELETE is not running at exactly the same time as the insert/data load
script runs. So howcome this delete is impacting the INSERT query? Is this
that as delete is making some blocks empty so that now the INSERT has to
now see through all to find the empty blocks before insert and thus
spending more time?
The table is ~215GB in size and is not partitioned holding ~1.7billion
rows. There exists only a primary key composite index on two number data
type columns. With Blevel-3 , and having index size ~65GB with ~7.3million
leaf blocks.
Below is the AWR plan for the INSERT and DELETE queries.
INSERT INTO TAB1(TAID,TID,AID,APP_NM,CRE_TS) VALUES ( :1, :2, :3,:4, :5)
-------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Cost |
-------------------------------------------------
| 0 | INSERT STATEMENT | | 1 |
| 1 | LOAD TABLE CONVENTIONAL | | |
-------------------------------------------------
Query Block Name / Object Alias (identified by operation id):
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 - INS$1
Note
-----
- cpu costing is off (consider enabling it)
DELETE FROM USER1.TAB1 WHERE ROWID = :1
Plan hash value: 2488984540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes
| Cost (%CPU)| Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | DELETE STATEMENT | | | |
1 (100)| |
| 1 | DELETE | TAB1 | | |
| |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY USER ROWID| TAB1 | 1 | 25 |
1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Query Block Name / Object Alias (identified by operation id):
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 - DEL$1
2 - DEL$1 / TAB1@DEL$1
Outline Data
-------------
/*+
BEGIN_OUTLINE_DATA
IGNORE_OPTIM_EMBEDDED_HINTS
OPTIMIZER_FEATURES_ENABLE('11.2.0.4')
DB_VERSION('11.2.0.4')
ALL_ROWS
OUTLINE_LEAF(@"DEL$1")
ROWID(@"DEL$1" "TAB1"@"DEL$1")
END_OUTLINE_DATA
*/
