Partitioning, More Cost Savings, Better Performance, Better Management in 11g

Michael R. Messina, Management Consultant Rolta-TUSC, Oracle Open World 2010 (60 min)
Copyright 2009 Rolta International, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Introduction
Michael Messina Management Consultant with Rolta-TUSC Background includes Performance Tuning, High Availability and Disaster Recovery Using Oracle for approximately 16 years messinam@tusc.com www.tusc.com

Audience Experience
How many have utilized Partitioning and what have been some of your experiences? How many have utilized Table Compression and index compression (prior to 11g Advanced Compression) and what are your thoughts/experiences? How many are using Advanced Compression in Production? Thoughts?

Goals
Touch on industry challenges Explosive Data Growth Performance Costs Look at 2 Partitioning Features Introduced with 11g Examine 11g Advanced Compression and impact using 11g partitioning features Show how Partitioning and Advanced Compression together help address some of the industry challenges

Industry Challenges
Exploding Data Growth
Got to keep up

Performance
Query Performance Degradation as data volumes increase Backup time increases as data volumes increase

Costs - What are the True Costs?

Disk Space Purchase / Backup / Space Management / Power / Cooling

What can we do??

Exploding Data Growth

If you think storing data is a challenge now, it's nothing compared to what it could be in just a few years. Data Growth of 60% is common.
Data Growth
700 Database in 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 Year 4 5

Performance
Storage capacity grows at over 60% per year while performance improves at less than 10% per year. This trend has existed for over 10 years and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. , BNET

Releasing your Database Performance

Performance
Ref Partitioning what is advertised
Introduced with Oracle 11g Improves performance for parent child relationships Partitions the child with the parent

Interval Partitioning what is advertised

Introduced with 11g Same performance Benefits as Range partitioning

Manageability
Interval Partitioning
Introduced with 11g Defined using an interval Works much like Range Partitioning Partitions are created as needed eliminates need to manually add partitions.

Ref Partitioning
Introduced with 11g Simpler partition management, child partitions created automatically when parent partitions are created

True Disk Costs

The cost of managing storage hardware ranges from two to ten times the acquisition cost of the storage hardware. , BNET
Cost/GB GB Util Rate 45% 80% 80% Real Cost per GB $20.27 $22.21 $7.60 True Business Storage Cost $40.54 $202.70 $44.42 $222.10 $15.20 - $76

DAS SAN FC SAN SATA

$9.65 $18.51 $6.33

** The above costs are based on 16TB configuration. Monash University, Cost of Storage Direct Attached vs. SAN

Compression
Index Compression since 8i Table Compression since 9i
No Additional License Requirement Only for direct inserts Compression Not Maintained with updates and normal inserts Had to re-org table to re-compress over time.

Advanced Compression 11g

Additional License Requirement Compression Maintained with all DML activity No re-orgs required after initial compression

Compression
What can compression accomplish?
Shrink size of tables? Shrink Size of indexes? Improve buffer cache utilization? Improve I/O disk visits? Improve performance?

What can we do
Reduce Size of Existing?
Can we get a 10%, 20%, 30% reduction?

Reduce Size of Future Data?

Can we impact growth by 10%, 20%, 30%

Minimize performance impact of larger data volumes?

Disk Space, Backup/Recovery, Server Resources

Can we do all this without adding significant management overhead to the DBA?

Ref Partitioning
Examine Space Impact of Partitioning
Show disk space impact partitioned and unpartitioned.

Examine the true performance gain from Ref Partitioning

Demonstrate the partitioned and unpartitioned performance Demonstrate the partitioned and compressed performance

Ref Partitioning Un-Partitioned Table Size

ORDERS (78880 rows) SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------4096 ORDER_ITEMS (499792 rows) SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------16384

Ref Partitioning Impact on Table Sizes

ORDERS (78880 rows) SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------4736 ORDER_ITEMS (499792 rows) SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------13950 * Surprisingly we see the child table size reduced

Ref - Non Partitioned Table Performance

SELECT o.order_date, sum(oi.unit_price*oi.quantity) order_total FROM oe.orders o, oe.order_items oi WHERE o.order_date BETWEEN TO_DATE('01-APR1999','DD-MON-YYYY') AND TO_DATE('30-JUN1999','DD-MON-YYYY') AND o.order_id = oi.order_id GROUP BY order_date ORDER BY order_date ; .. 16 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.93

Ref - Non Partitioned Table Performance

Statistics ----------------------------------------1 recursive calls 0 db block gets 1967 consistent gets 1964 physical reads 0 redo size 970 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 427 bytes received via SQL*Net from client 3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 1 sorts (memory) 0 sorts (disk) 16 rows processed

Ref Partitioning Impact

SELECT o.order_date, sum(oi.unit_price*oi.quantity) order_total FROM oe.orders o, oe.order_items oi WHERE o.order_date BETWEEN TO_DATE('01APR-1999','DD-MON-YYYY') AND TO_DATE('30-JUN1999','DD-MON-YYYY') AND o.order_id = oi.order_id GROUP BY order_date ORDER BY order_date ; .. 16 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.57 * .93 to .57 / 38% Improvement

Ref Partitioning Impact

Statistics ----------------------------------------44 recursive calls 0 db block gets
1630 1621 0 896 427 3 1 0 16 consistent gets physical reads redo size bytes sent via SQL*Net to client bytes received via SQL*Net from client SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client sorts (memory) sorts (disk) rows processed

* PIO - from 1967 to 1630 / 17% Improvement LIO from 1964 to 1621 / 17% Improvement

Interval Partitioning
Examine Space Impact of Partitioning
Show disk space impact partitioned and unpartitioned.

Examine the true performance gain from Interval Partitioning

Demonstrate the partitioned and unpartitioned performance Demonstrate the partitioned and compressed performance

Interval - Non-Partitioned Table Size

Un-Partitioned Table 889,888 Rows SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------45056

Interval Partitioning Impact on Table Size

Partitioned Table 889,888 Rows SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------58816
* 45M to 58M represents and increase in size when table is partitioned.

Interval - Non Partitioned Table Performance

Un-Partitioned Table 889,888 Rows
SQL> select deptno, avg(sal) from emp where hiredate between to_date('01-JAN-1982', 'DDMON-YYYY') and to_date('01-JAN-1983', 'DD-MON-YYYY') group by deptno ; ..

Elapsed: 00:00:03.37

Interval - Non Partitioned Table Statistics

Statistics -------------------------------7 recursive calls 0 db block gets 5548 consistent gets 5674 physical reads 0 redo size 546 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 416 bytes received via SQL*Net from client 2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 0 sorts (memory) 0 sorts (disk) 3 rows processed

Interval Partitioning Impact

Partitioned Table 889,888 Rows
SQL> select deptno, avg(sal) from emp_part where hiredate between to_date('01-JAN-1982', 'DD-MON-YYYY') and to_date('01-JAN1983', 'DD-MON-YYYY') group by deptno ;

..
Elapsed: 00:00:01.57 * 3.37 to 1.57 / 53% Improvement

Interval Partitioning Impact

Statistics ----------------------------------1 recursive calls 0 db block gets 658 consistent gets 652 physical reads 0 redo size 546 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 416 bytes received via SQL*Net from client 2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 0 sorts (memory) 0 sorts (disk) 3 rows processed * LIO 5548 to 658 / 88% Improvement PIO 5674 to 653 / 88% Improvement

Accomplished With Partitioning Positive

Reduced logical I/O Reduced Physical I/O Improved elapse time

Negative
Increased the size of the table

Impact of Compression on Size of Ref-Partitioned Tables

ORDERS (78880 rows)
SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------4352
* 8% reduction over partitioned table 5% increase on Original table.

ORDER_ITEMS (499792 rows)

SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------11520
* 29% reduction over partitioned table 17% reduction over Original table

Impact of Ref Partitioning and Compression Together

Elapsed: 00:00:00.43
Statistics ------------------------------------1 recursive calls 0 db block gets 413 consistent gets 407 physical reads 0 redo size 896 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 427 bytes received via SQL*Net from client 3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 1 sorts (memory) 0 sorts (disk) 16 rows processed * .43 seconds - 53% improvement to original /

24% improvement partitioned un-compressed

Impact of Compression on Size of Interval Partitioned Table

Partitioned Table 889,888 Rows
SUM(BYTES)/1024 --------------39168 * 39% reduction on partition and uncompressed table 13% reduction from original table

Impact of Interval Partitioning and Compression Together

Elapsed: 00:00:00.59
Statistics --------------------------------1 recursive calls 0 db block gets 373 consistent gets 367 physical reads 0 redo size 546 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 416 bytes received via SQL*Net from client 2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 0 sorts (memory) 0 sorts (disk) 3 rows processed * PIO - Original 5548 to 373 a 93% Imprv. Partitioned 658 to 373 a 43% Imprv. LIO - Original 5677 to 367 a 93% Imprv. Partitioned 653 to 367 a 43% Imprv.

Partitioning and Compression Summary

What can partitioning accomplish Improve Performance
Break large table into chunks reducing I/O

Minimize Management Cost

Utilize interval and Ref partitioning where new partitions are created automatically. Manage though individual Partitions adding flexibility for Table and index Management

Improve Database backup Performance

Mark tablespaces holding older Data partitions Read-Only as it eliminates the need to backup with each full backup of the database.

Partitioning and Compression Summary

What Can Compression Accomplish? Reduce Disk Space Costs
Compress partitioned tables reducing the size of tables

Improve Performance
Compress tables to reduce I/O read operations

Partitioning Conclusions
Partitioning can improve I/O utilization Partitioning can improve performance Partitioning increases space utilization Compression reduces space utilization Compression can improve performance Compression with partitioning can improve performance more then either of them alone and can reduce space utilization. Interval Partitioning and Ref Partitioning reduces maintenance impact for partitioning

Questions/Discussion

THANK YOU