Re: Indexing options to avoid contention -- 10gR2
- From: "Toon Koppelaars" <toon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:37:39 +0200
David,
Is a row-trigger currently maintaining the CREATE_DT and UPDATE_DT columns?
If so you could also opt for that row-trigger to dump (at create and update
of a row) the PK-value of the row into a second new table, that only has the
PK-column, together with some PROCESSED indicator.
And then if you need to capture the changes use this small table as a
nested-loop driver to your big one. First set processed flag to 'In process'
or something, then process them, then delete all 'In process' rows (there
could be new rows inserted during your processing, with process='n', by
now).
There would be *no* need to add any index, not on the big table (I'm
assuming the PK is indexed...:-) ), and not on this new small one...
Toon
On 4/9/08, David Aldridge <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have a large and busy OLTP table, 100GB or so, against which there is a
> need to capture changes. Until an asynchronous CDC solution is in place we
> have to rely on two columns: create_date and update_date (null until the
> first update), both being of DATE type of course.
>
> These are currently unindexed, but there is a desire to index them to
> improve change capture performance for queries such as:
>
> select ...
> from ...
> where (create_dt >= trunc(sysdate)-1 and create_dt < trunc(sysdate))
> or (update_dt >= trunc(sysdate)-1 and update_dt < trunc(sysdate))
>
> The desire is obviously to provide the maximum performance benefit while
> reducing the impact on the OLTP system.
>
> I thought of four different indexing options:
>
> i) Indexing the columns separately, leading in the best case to an unusual
> execution plan where the indexes are range scanned and the results merged
> before accessing the table.
> ii) A single composite index (create_date,update_date),leading to a fast
> full index scan.
> iii) A single composite index (update_date,create_date), rewriting the
> query predicate as ...
> (create_dt >= trunc(sysdate)-1 and create_dt < trunc(sysdate) and
> update_date is null)
> or (update_dt >= trunc(sysdate)-1 and update_dt < trunc(sysdate))
> ... and leading to two index range scans. (not sure about this)
> iv) A single-column function based index on (Nvl(update_dt,create_dt)) and
> rewriting the predicate appropriately.
>
> Whichever of these is chosen the growth pattern for the data naturally
> tends towards index contention as all the new values are equal to sysdate.
>
> So the nub of my problem comes down to these questions:
>
> Is it possible to mitigate the index contention problem with a suitably
> high initrans values? Does it seem likely that implementing a reverse index
> would be worthwhile in reducing contention (I could probably take the pain
> of the fast full scan if it was, although it would lead to a larger index
> due to the 50/50 block splits).
>
> Would you regard implementing a function-based index as risky in any
> significant way on major tables of a busy OLTP system? How about a reverse
> function based index?
>
> Basically, "what would you do"?
>
> Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'd like to go to the sytem developers with
> a fully thought out set of options (even if they do tell me to take a
> running jump anyway).
>
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Toon Koppelaars
RuleGen BV
+31-615907269
toon@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.rulegen.com
Author: "Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals"
Other related posts:
