Search

OakieTags

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 20 guests online.

Recent comments

Affiliations

Exadata, to index or not to index, that is the question

We will take a look at in this blog post, by testing several different approaches and comparing the time and the statistics for each scenario.

The tests have been performed on a quarter rack ExaData database machine (2 db nodes – with 16 cores each and 3 storage servers). The database is setup for a data warehouse implementation and has been patched with bundle patch 5 at the time of testing.

The tests were executed on a table with 403M rows distributed over 14 range partitions – 7 non-compressed and 7 partitions compressed with HCC query option.  Each test spans over two partitions covering 57.5M rows.  Please note the dimension tables contain 4000 or less rows.  The data is production data and are event based data, meaning data is generated when a certain events occur.

TABLE_NAME  PARTITION_NAME COMPRESS COMPRESS_FOR LAST_ANALYZED  SAMPLE_SIZE   NUM_ROWS
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100901  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100902  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100903  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100904  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100905  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100906  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100907  DISABLED              27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100908  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100909  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100910  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100911  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100912  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100913  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
EVENT_PART  TEST_20100914  ENABLED  QUERY HIGH   27-SEP-10         28793000   28793000
 

Each test-case/SQL has been executed 5 times under different scenario:

(1)    Without any bitmap or regular indexes on non-compressed partitions
           Storage FTS on event_part and dimensions
(2)    Without any bitmap or regular indexes on HCC partitions
            Storage FTS on event_part and dimensions
(3)    With primary key  constraint on dimension tables only
          Storage FTS on event_part with primary key look up on dimensions
(4)    With bitmap and primary key indexes on non-compressed partitions
            Bitmap index lookup on event_part and primary key lookup on dimensions
(5)    With bitmap and primary key  indexes on HCC partitions
           Bitmap index lookup on event_part and primary key lookup on dimensions 

The test cases used are from a warehouse environment and I have modified the column and table names. For the bitmap test-cases I had to hint the queries to ensure the bitmap indexes was actually used.

The output from the test cases is over 20K lines, so I have summed up the elapsed time and a few statistics in tables below to provide a better overview. 

select /*+ MONITOR  basic */
            st.s_name,  pt.p_name,  cct.pc_name,  ep.c_level, count(ep.c_id)
  from event_part ep,  t_test tt, s_test st, p_test pt, cc_test cct
   where tt.t_id between 20100901 and 20100902
        and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
        and ep.t_id between 20100901 and 20100902
        and ep.s_id = st.s_id
        and ep.p_id = pt.p_id
        and ep.cc_id = cct.c_id
    group by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level
    order by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level;
 

Table figure for basic breakdown – Test case 1

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

8.87

12.00

09.22

185.05

149.55

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

0

0

0

0

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

5,209,325,568

0

5,209,325,568

0

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

2,562,203,600

0

2,562,201,584

0

0

cell flash cache read hits

9

26

9

9,290

2,063

CC Total Rows for Decompression

 

57,586,000

 

 

57,586,000

 This is a basic query, which is used for high level summaries and serves as a good base line to compare with, for the other test-cases.  There is no use of a where clause in the test case, so we will not benefit from any storage indexes in this case.  The first 3 tests are without any indexes on the fact table and are performing much better than test 4 and 5 and we should of course not expect the CBO to follow this path anyway.   It is evident for test 1 and 3 that the performance gained is supported by the storage server offloading and the smart scans.  The above CC stats for test 2, tell us that the db node performs the decompression, so this test will have to burn extra CPU cycles compared to test 1 and 3.  There is more to be mentioned for test 2, but I’ll try to cover that in the conclusion.

 select /*+ MONITOR lc breakdown */
           st.s_name, pt.p_name,  cct.pc_name,  ep.c_level,  count(ep.c_id)
 from event_part ep, t_test tt, s_test st, p_test pt, cc_test cct
 where tt.t_id between 20100903 and 20100904
      and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
      and ep.t_id between 20100903 and 20100904
      and ep.s_id = st.s_id and ep.p_id = pt.p_id
      and ep.cc_id = cct.c_id and ep.c_id = 7
 group by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level
 order by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level;
 

Table figure for LC breakdown - Test case 2

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

2.05

19.17

1.84

30.33

36.58

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

4,186,636,288

0

4,186,636,288

0

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

5,209,292,800

0

5,209,292,800

0

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

317,496,848

0

317,497,280

0

0

cell flash cache read hits

18

59

36

1,043

219

CC Total Rows for Decompression

0

57,782,554

0

0

7,842,364

Similar finding as we saw from the 1st test case; however, in this test-case we are performing the breakdown for a certain ID and therefore the performance of test 1 and 3, improved further from the IO saved by the Storage Index.   For this test case, I ran test 1 and 3 on the save partitions and it is worth noticing, that second time around the savings from the Storage Index improved; so the storage indexes are further maintained/improved as we select data from the tables and partitions.

select /*+ MONITOR lp breakdown */
           st.s_name,  pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level,  count(ep.c_id)
 from event_part ep,  t_test tt,  s_test st,  p_test pt,  cc_test cct
 where tt.t_id between 20100905 and 20100906
       and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
      and ep.t_id between 20100905 and 20100906
      and ep.s_id = st.s_id  and ep.p_id = pt.p_id
      and ep.cc_id = cct.c_id and ep.p_id = 4611686019802841877
 group by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level
 order by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level;
 

Table figure for lp breakdown - Test case 3

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

 2.99

 6.01

 2.72

 49.22

 39.29

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

 2,623,143,936

 

0

 

2,623,799,296

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

 

674,439,456

 

0

 

 

674,436,288

 

0

 

0

cell flash cache read hits

64

44

10

2,113

635

CC Total Rows for Decompression

 

0

 

57,979,108

 

0

 

0

 

15,582,048

 Similar findings as we saw from the 2nd test case; this test is just performed on a different ID, which has a higher distinct count than the first ID we tested in test case 2; and as a result of that and on how the data is sorted during insert we are seeing less IO saved by the storage index.

 select /*+ MONITOR spcl breakdown */
           st.s_name, pt.p_name,  cct.pc_name,  ep.c_level, count(ep.c_id)
  from event_part ep, t_test tt,   s_test st, p_test pt,  cc_test cct
 where tt.t_id between 20100906 and 20100907
      and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
      and ep.t_id between 20100906 and 20100907
      and ep.s_id = st.s_id and ep.p_id = pt.p_id
      and ep.cc_id = cct.c_id and ep.s_id = 1
      and ep.cc_id =7 and ep.p_id = 4611686019802841877
  group by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level
  order by st.s_name, pt.p_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level;
 

Table figure for spcl breakdown – Test case 4

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

1.67

13.69

01.14

12.77

7.90

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

 

4,531,191,808

 

0

 

4,532,174,848

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

 

237,932,736

 

0

 

237,933,312

 

0

 

0

cell flash cache read hits

73

52

10

594

183

CC Total Rows for Decompression

 

0

 

57,782,554

 

0

 

0

 

5,614,752

This test case is performed with a where clause on multiple ID’s.  Again test 1 and 3 are taking advantage of the Exadata features and are performing well.   Test 4 and 5 are still not close to test 1 or 3, but have definitely become a bit more competitive.  Comparing the two HCC tests (2 and 5) test 5 seems to do better as it only has to burn CPU cycles for 10% of the results set of test 2.   A valid question to ask here would be why we are not seeing any benefits from either Storage offloading or indexing on test 2, but again I’ll defer that discussion to the conclusion.

select /*+ MONITOR  ttl */
           st.s_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level, count(ep.c_id) row_count,
           round(min((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60),2) min_g_min,
           round(avg((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60.0),2)  avg_g_min,
          round(max((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60),2) max_g_min
  from event_part ep,  t_test tt,   s_test st,  cc_test cct
 where  tt.t_id between 20100901 and 20100902
      and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
      and ep.t_id between 20100901 and 20100902
      and ep.s_id = st.s_id
      and ep.character_class_id = cct.class_id
  group by st.shard_name, cct.public_class_name, ep.character_level
  order by  st.shard_name, cct.public_class_name, ep.character_level;
 

Table figure for ttl breakdown - Test case 5

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

12.82

15.50

11.67

254.26

304.92

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

5,209,325,568

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

 

2,328,566,432

 

0

 

2,328,567,440

 

0

 

0

cell flash cache read hits

9

15

9

132,467

2,341

CC Total Rows for Decompression

 

0

 

57,586,000

 

0

 

0

 

61,643,318

Very similar findings as we saw from the 1st test case; the only difference is this query looks examine the time to something.

select /*+ MONITOR ttlsc */
           st.s_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level,  count(ep.c_id) row_count,
           round(min((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60),2) min_g_min,
           round(avg((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60.0),2)  avg_g_min,
           round(max((ep.ceg - ep.cbg) / 60),2) max_g_min
 from event_part ep, t_test tt, shard_test st, cc_test cct
where tt.t_id between 20100903 and 20100904
      and ep.t_id = tt.t_id
      and ep.t_id between 20100903 and 20100904
      and ep.s_id = st.s_id
      and ep.cc_id = cct.c_id
      and ep.s_id = 2
      and ep.cc_id =6
    group by st.s_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level
    order by st.s_name, cct.pc_name, ep.c_level;
 

Table figure for ttlsc breakdown - Test case 6

Stats / Tests

1

2

3

4

5

Elapsed time sec

 1.16

4.57

1.01

12.71

 03.87

cell physical IO bytes saved by storage index

 

4,697,096,192

 

0

 

4,698,832,896

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload

 

5,209,292,800

 

0

 

5,209,292,800

 

0

 

0

cell physical IO interconnect bytes returned by smart scan

 

55,906,960

 

0

 

55,906,384

 

0

 

0

cell flash cache read hits

 9

31

10

3891

 107

CC Total Rows for Decompression

 0

 57,749,795

 0

 0

1,998,299

 Very similar findings as we saw for the 4th test case.

 Conclusion

Most warehouse like queries I have performed in our Exadata environment is doing well without indexes on fact tables.  So it is no surprise to me to hear more and more people are dropping most of their indexes and take advantage of the Exadata features.   If you like to keep the primary key indexes on your dimension tables to ensure the hassle of resolving the duplicate key issues, that seems to be a valid option as well.

In my environment I’m still to find a case where the bitmap index search could compete with the no index approach; and let just say we found such a case, when it would still have to show significant improvements before  I would choose that path;  Consider the benefits of not having to maintain the bitmap indexes after each load.   There are also several restrictions with bitmap indexes that would be nice not to have to worry about.

Now, I mentioned that I would get back to the test 2 results, which were based on Storage FTS on partitions compressed with the HCC query option.   In the past I have performed queries on HCC tables and have seen IO savings from the Storage indexes.  

Initially i suspected the test2 results observed above to be a bug or alternatively be related to my HCC compressed partitions are only 29MB a piece versa 2.4GB uncompressed.  Oracle support/development has confirmed it to be related to the data size, as we can see from the stat "cell physical IO bytes eligible for predicate offload", which doesn't get bumped up after query.  The reason for that is after partition pruning,  the table is too small for predicate push to kick in and since predicate push doesn't kick in, the Storage Indexes won't kick in either.

Please be aware i don't know the Storage index internals, but I look forward to learn.

Exadata use of smart scans on bitmap indexes.

After receiving a few questions offline regarding Bitmap indexes in data warehousing, i just like to mention that i'm not saying you should not test or consider using bitmap indexes in your implementation.  It all depends on your data and scenario.  Also it is possible for Exadata to use smart scans on bitmap indexes.  Please see http://blog.tanelpoder.com/2011/03/15/exadata-can-do-smart-scans-on-bitmap-indexes/
Thanks & Regards,
-Peter

Update

Post updated on November 15th 2010, after receiving feedback from Oracle support/ development regarding Storage Indexes not kicking in on the test-case for partitions compressed with EHCC.   As you can read in the conclussion part, the table is too small for predicate push to kick in and since predicate push doesn't kick in, the Storage Indexes won't kick in either.
-Peter

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can enable syntax highlighting of source code with the following tags: <code>, <blockcode>, <c>, <cpp>, <drupal5>, <drupal6>, <java>, <javascript>, <sql>, <php>, <python>, <ruby>, <vb>, <xml>. The supported tag styles are: <foo>, [foo].
  • You may insert videos with [video:URL]

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.