High Performance PL/SQL

Report
High Performance PL/SQL
Guy Harrison
Chief Architect, Database Solutions
Copyright © 200\8 Quest Software
PL/SQL top tips
1. Optimize network traffic
2. Array processing
3. Set PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL
4. Loop processing
5. Recursion
6. NoCopy
7. Associative arrays
8. Bind variables in NDS
9. Number crunching
10. Using the profiler
11. G
Tip 0: It’s usually the SQL
• Most PL/SQL routines spend most of their time
executing SELECT statements and DML
• Tune these first:
– Identify proportion of time spent in SQL (profiler, V$SQL)
– Use SQL Trace+ tkprof or the profiler to identify top SQL
• SQL tuning is a big topic but:
– Look at statistics collection policies
• In development AND in production
– Consider adequacy of indexing
– Learn hints
– Exploit 10g/11g tuning facilities (if licensed)
– Don’t issue SQL when you don’t need to
PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL
• Introduced in 10g
• Controls transparent optimization of PL/SQL code
similar to reorganizing code
– Level 0: No optimization
– Level 1: Minor optimizations, not much reorganization
– Level 2: (the default) Significant reorganization including loop
optimizations and automatic bulk collect
– Level 3: (11g only) Further optimizations, notably automatic in-lining
of subroutines
Motivations for stored procedures
• Historically:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Security
Client-Server division of labour
Separation of business logic
Manageability
Portability ?
Network overhead
Divide and conquer complex SQL
• Today
– Middle tier provides most of these
– Network traffic is perhaps the strongest remaining motivation
Optimizing network traffic
• PL/SQL
routines most
massively
outperform
other languages
when network
round trips are
significant.
Network traffic
• Routines that process large numbers of rows and return
simple aggregates are also candidates for a stored
procedure approach
Stored procedure alternative
Network traffic example
Array processing
• Considered bad:
• Excessive loop iterations
• Increases logical reads (rows in the same block
fetched separately)
Array processing
• Considered better:
• Selects all data in a single operation
• Large result sets might take longer as memory grows
• Other concurrent sessions may have limited memory
for sorts, etc.
• Out of memory errors are possible
Array processing
• Considered best:
• Never more that p_array_size elements in collection
• Best throughput, acceptable memory utilization
Array processing (plsql_optimize_level=1)
No bulk collect
Elapsed Time
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Bulk collect without LIMIT
1
10
100
1000
10000
Bulk Collect Size
100000
1000000
Bulk Collect and PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL
• PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL>1 causes transparent
BULK COLLECT LIMIT 100
• This means that FOR loops can actually be more
efficient that unlimited BULK COLLECT!
300
Elasped time (s)
********************************************************************************
250
SQL ID : 6z2hybgm1ahkh
No Bulk Collect
SELECT /*+ cache(t) */ PK, DATA
FROM
200BULK_COLLECT_TAB
Bulk Collect no limit
call
count
cpu
elapsed
disk
query
current
rows
150
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------Parse
1
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
Execute
1
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
100
Fetch
25000
3.26
12.49
73530
98241
0
2499998
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------total
25002
3.26
12.49
73530
98241
0
2499998
50
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing
user id: 88
(recursive depth: 1)
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
Array Size
Reduce unnecessary Looping
• Unnecessary loop iterations burn CPU
Poorly formed loop
34.31
3.96
Well formed loop
0
5
10
15
20
Elapsed time (s)
25
30
35
Remove loop Invariant terms
• Any term in a loop that does not vary should be
extracted from the loop
• PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL>1 does this automatically
Loop invariant terms relocated
Loop invariant performance improvements
11.09
Original loop
5.87
Optimized loop
5.28
plsql_optimize_level=2
0
2
4
6
Elapsed time (s)
8
10
12
Recursive routines
• Recursive routines
often offer elegant
solutions.
• However, deep
recursion is
memory-intensive
and usually not
scalable
Recursion memory overhead
1400
PGA memory (MB)
1200
1000
800
Recursive
600
Non-recursive
400
200
0
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
Recursive Depth
8000000
10000000
NOCOPY
• The NOCOPY clause causes a parameter to be
passed “by reference” rather than “by value”
• Without NOCOPY, a copy of each parameter variable
is created within the subroutine
• This is particularly expensive when collections are
passed as parameters
NoCopy performance gains
• 4,000 row, 10 column “table”; 4000 lookups:
864.96
NO NOCOPY
0.28
NOCOPY
0
100
200
300
400
500
Elapsed time (s)
600
700
800
900
Associative arrays
• Traditionally, sequential scans of PLSQL tables are
used for caching database table data:
Associative arrays
• Associative arrays allow for faster and simpler
lookups:
Associative array performance
• 10,000 random customer lookups with 55,000
customers
Sequential scan
29.79
0.04
Associative lookups
0
5
10
15
Elapsed time (s)
20
25
30
Bind variables in Dynamic SQL
• Using bind variables allows sharable SQL, reduces
parse overhead and minimizes latch contention
• Unlike other languages, PL/SQL uses bind variables
transparently
• However, dynamic SQL makes it easy to “forget”
Using bind variables
Bind variable performance
• 10,000 calls like this:
No Binds
7.84
3.42
Bind variables
0
1
2
3
4
5
Elasped Time (s)
6
7
8
Number crunching
• Until recently, it’s been hard to determine how much
time is spent in PLSQL code, vs time in SQL inside
PLSQL:
Java for computation?
11g
10g
Java
PLSQL Native
PLSQL
9i
8i
0
5
10
15
20
Elapsed Time (s)
Your results will vary
25
30
35
Why Native didn’t work well for me…
• I need a routine with no SQL and no built in functions!
The profiler
• DBMS_PROFILER is the best way to find PL/SQL
“hot spots”:
Toad profiler support
Hierarchical profiler
$ plshprof -output hprof demo1.trc
Plshprof output
DBMS_HPROF tables
Toad Hierarchical profiler
11g and other stuff
•
•
•
•
•
•
11g Native compilation
11g In-lining
Data types (SIMPLE_INTEGER)
IF and CASE ordering
SQL tuning (duh!)
PLSQL Function cache
Function cache example
• Suits deterministic but expensive functions
• Expensive table lookups on non-volatile tables
• 100 executions, random date ranges 1-30 days:
5.21
No function cache
1.51
Function cache
0
1
2
3
Elapsed time (s)
4
5
6
Thank You – Q&A

similar documents