Re: Tuning Update query

Thank You so much Mark.

I was thinking if we can still able to modify the existing INSERT query itself which populates the GTT_TAB which is already using 2-3 other source tables in the existing equi join. Below is how the existing INSERT query looks like.It's just a sample not exact query though.

So basically , As I mentioned, the insert which is loading data into the GTT_TAB is populating all the columns from 2-3 other tables but not populating any data in the columns which were later populated from PRODUCT_TAB using UPDATE statement. So let's say we need product_col1, product_col2, product_col3, product_col4 from table PRODUCT_TAB to be updated in GTT_TAB for a specific TID(transaction ID), PART_DT(partition date). But for a specific TID and PART_DT there exists multiple records in PRODUCT_TAB. In table product_tab we have unique keys as (TID, PART_DT, CODE(which is nothing but product code)).

So my thought was rather having new separate GTT's created for those UPDATE statement, if i can tweak the same existing INSERT statement(which populates GTT_TAB) to include table PRODUCT_TAB as OUTER JOIN and write multiple CASE statements to populate product_col1, product_col2, product_col3 etc based on Product_code. But it appears that I will encounter "single row subquery returning more than one row" error.. And also it may result in more rows in the final result set as there exists multiple rows for the combination of TID,PART_DT which is used as join criteria. The differentiating factor is column CODE in product_tab. So I want to understand , Is there a possible way out to make it happen in the existing INSERT query or I have to go for the separate INSERT queries using new GTT's as Jonathan and you both suggested?

Insert into GTT_TAB
(......
 )
select .....
from A, B, C
where A.tid=b.tid and b.tid=c.tid and a.part_dt= b.part_dt and b.part_dt=c.part_dt;

*Modified query;-*

Insert into GTT_TAB
(...... C1, C2, C3,C4
 )
select .....
*case when P.code='XX' then product_col1 else null end,* * case when P.code='YY' then product_coll2 else null end,*

• case when P.code='ZZ' then product_col3 else null end , *
• case when P.code='ZZ' then product_col4 else null end * from A, B, C,* product_tab P* where A.tid=b.tid and b.tid=c.tid and a.part_dt= b.part_dt and b.part_dt=c.part_dt *and c.tid= P.tid(+) and c.part_dt=P.part_dt(+) *;

Regards
Lok

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 10:33 PM Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:

> That says so me: do the load population of the GTT_0, and then convert
> each update as an insert into GTT_n, where n increases from 1 to m for each
> of the updates you have. If space is a problem, you can drop GTT_n-1 after
> each insert completes.
>
>
>
> I believe that is essentially the synthesis of what JL suggested with a
> trivial, one statement at a time version of the “scaling to infinity”
> method documented and by popular by Tim Gorman. The results **should be**
> full set operations at direct (aka append) speed. By cascading through GTTs
> you dispense with a ton of recoverability overhead, and then you can
> preserve the final result also inserting into the final destination.
>
>
>
> Depending on size, you might want to produce a GTT_Product_tab that
> includes just the rows that GTT_0 says you might require so you don’t have
> to paw through Product_tab n times.
>
>
>
> I guess that depends mostly on whether it is easier to debug your existing
> updates into correct copy/inserts or a one time build the full insert row
> select. Based on JL seeing the apparent bug in the updates, my guess would
> be a series of cascading inserts would be less time to debug for the team
> building this and it shouldn’t be significantly slower. Besides, it’s not
> clear that P.code=’AA’ even can be done in one step.
>
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Lok P
> *Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2021 6:11 AM
> *To:* Mark W. Farnham
> *Cc:* Jonathan Lewis; Oracle L
> *Subject:* Re: Tuning Update query
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the guidance here.
>
>
>
> While going through the code , I noticed that none of the UPDATED columns
> was getting populated as part of the INSERT query which is populating data
> in the GTT inside the code. Those are getting populated for the first time
> through the UPDATE statements i.e. post load. Which means I think, we can
> outer join those tables(like PRODUCT_TAB) directly in the INSERT query
> itself and populate the columns rather than doing it after data load.
>
>
>
> But then I see there exist one to many relationship between the sources
> table JOIN(which populates the base data into GTT ) and the PRODUCT_TAB, so
> it means the outer join is going to break things because the overall
> number of results set will increase which may not be correct. Or else we
> may have to use a DISTINCT clause to get those corrected.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Lok
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:03 PM Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have handy the script or load used to create GTT_TAB?
>
>
>
> It seems passing strange that you want to debug what is essentially a row
> by row case computation instead of creating the disjoint sets of rows to
> operate on as a bulk set.
>
>
>
> Consider GTT_TAB_XX_Y alias XX_Y, which contains only TMP.CIND=’Y’ and
> TMP.PART_DT for which the corresponding TMP.PART_DT = P.PART_DT has
> P.CODE=’XX’.
>
>
>
> Then insert into GTT_TAB
>
>
>
> Select p.<the column list from P>, xx_y.<the column list from XX_Y> where
> p.tid=xx_y.tid and p.part_dt=xx_y.part_id
>
>
>
> All the rows from xx_y are used and should be a full table scan, matching
> against the presumably indexed p.tid, p.partid from P.
>
>
>
> Do this for each of your separate “updates”, appending into GTT_TAB, and
> directly append the disjoint bits that require no update directly into
> GTT_TAB however you do now. The only tricky set is P.CODE=’AA’ for which
> you have two updates. For that, use GTT_TAB_AA_5 gets appended into
> GTT_TAB_AA_6 and GTT_TAB_AA_6 gets appended into GTT_TAB.
>
>
>
> All the other rows (which meet zero of your update predicates) you dump
> directly into GTT_TAB from wherever you are currently plucking them.
>
>
>
> This of course fixes your ‘Y’ problem and operates set wise using bulk
> inserts AND operates only on rows that need attention instead of filtering
> out the rows you’re not interested in for each update.
>
>
>
> Write out the differences as a dataflow diagram to understand why this
> always wins.
>
>
>
> mwf
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Lewis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2021 5:07 AM
> *To:* Lok P
> *Cc:* Oracle L
> *Subject:* Re: Tuning Update query
>
>
>
>
>
> a) I wasn't suggesting that you use an updatable join view, but I can see
> how you could misinterpret what I said. The idea was to see if you could
> write a single subquery that joined several of the source tables (such as
> PRODUCT_TAB) and then still carry out that full tablescan of the GTT but
> using that join as your subquery update rather than having "one tablescan
> and update = one subquery".
>
>
>
> I see you're already doing something of this kind using the MERGE command;
> if you're getting an ORA-01779 when you try to rewrite one of your updates
> as an update through an updatable join view this means that equivalent code
> to do a MERGE could produce a run-time error ORA-30926). The update portion
> of a merge and an updatable join view both require the same uniqueness but
> the view enforces the logical requirement at compile time while the merge
> command allows you to get away with the update so long as you get lucky
> with the data.
>
>
>
> I note that you still haven't moved the "tmp.cind = 'Y'" predicate to the
> correct position - that should have been the zeroth step before worrying
> about anything else. I assume the one update I picked out isn't the only
> one where this error occurs.
>
>
>
>
>
> b) Correct regarding multiple GTTs. Each "insert /*+ append */" would
> probably require it's own target GTT. Remember, though, that I haven't
> examined your original posting in detail, and you probably haven't told us
> everything a consultant would ask about so if your current code has some
> parts that update disjoint subsets of the data you might find parts of the
> rewrite where you could do multiple inserts into the same GTT.
>
>
>
> One thing to bear in mind - a possible bar to adopting this approach - is
> that you would have to commit after insert otherwise the next insert, or
> the next query against the target GTT would raise the (unexpectedly
> parallel) error: ORA-12838: cannot read/modify an object after modifying
> it in parallel
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 12:58, Lok P <loknath.73_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank You Jonathan and Lothar. I was trying to modify one of the sample
> updates(as below) as per your suggested method.
>
>
>
> UPDATE GTT_TAB TMP
>
> SET (c1, c2, c3, c4,c5.. c11) =
>
> ( (SELECT col1,col2,..col11
>
> FROM PRODUCT_TAB P
>
> WHERE P.TID = TMP.TID
>
> AND TMP.CIND = 'Y'
>
> AND P.PART_DT = TMP.PART_DT
>
> AND P.CODE = 'XX'))
>
>
>
> Jonathan, let me know if my understanding is correct on the suggested
> points
>
> *" a) See if you can minimise the number of update ste[ps by updating from
> a JOIN of several source tables" *
>
>
>
> So if I get the above point correct then I was trying to modify the UPDATE
> as below , but I am getting ORA-01779 while running to see the plan. So
> does it mean that the GTT has to have a unique key present in it to have
> this method work?
>
>
>
> UPDATE (SELECT P.COL1...P.col11,TMP.C1.. TMP.C11
>
> FROM PRODUCT_TAB P,GTT_TAB TMP
>
> WHERE P.TID = TMP.TID
>
> AND TMP.CIND = 'Y'
>
> AND P.PART_DT = TMP.PART_DT
>
> AND P.CODE = 'XX'
>
> ) SET C1=COL1, ... C11=COL11;
>
> ERROR at line 10:
>
> ORA-01779: cannot modify a column which maps to a non key-preserved
> table
>
>
>
> Regarding below point ,
>
> *"b) Rewrite the code to step through a series of GTT doing*
>
> * insert /*+ append */ into next_gtt select from previous_gtt join
> {source tables}"*
>
>
>
> Do you mean i have to replace the UPDATE with INSERT /*+APPEND*/...
> queries but as it cant be done in the same GTT , so i have to create
> multiple GTT's for each UPDATES, so as to replace them with INSERT APPEND
> queries?
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l