Index Dynamics – Part 3

Ver este articulo en Español

See previous post Index Dynamics – Part II or first part Index Dynamics – Part I

On this part, I’m going to share with you the final results for my 2 week experiment with indexes on their habitat, a production environment.

I’ve to forewarn that some data was not available, as the ANALYZE method fails for objects currently locked, given that our environment is a “live” production database and for consistency we scheduled all tests for a given time, which some days collided with business process. The Used Space graph shows those NA data points; however for INDEX1 and INDEX4 the Nov 7th data for Deltas was interpolated, the only index for which we have all samples is INDEX2, coincidentally our research subject.

First let’s see the Used Space graph, here you may see how the Used Space percentage continues the decay trend, which means that free space within the index nodes is increasing.

Compare the current Used Space figures to those sampled before the rebuild, observe that after 15 days some indexes are midway to have the same amount of free space. That recalls the frequent doubts regarding index maintenance: “Must rebuild indexes? How long will last the structure ‘optimus’ state?”

Used Space    First    Now
INDEX1(10c)    69%     99%
INDEX4(6c)     63%     74%
INDEX2(4c)     53%     77%
INDEX3(2c)     45%     92%

Given our partial-conclusion stated last post (Index Dynamics – Part II)
”The branch blocks are the stressed part of the B-Tree right after the rebuild”
We now might see less activity for Branch Blocks during the following days, which actually occurred.

One remark: observe the Nov 6th high for INDEX1 and the previous behavior, was on that day the transaction rate motivated a higher reorganization within the index, showing us the impact business patterns have on data structures.

I have to mention that my production environment went through a period close week, therefore increased activity and closing processes made their mark on observations. An example of this is the resulting graphs for Leaf Blocks, with noticeable inter-day spikes.

Let’s pay a visit to our research subject, INDEX2. This chart is online with everything previously stated, no surprises here.

This study motivated the following questions (that’s the problem with research, you answer one question and many new take the place):
1) How PCT_FREE (or PCT_USED) impacts the decay curve?
2) Are the splitting constants embedded in the code, optimal figures?
3) Do we need a feature for PCT_FREE change after rebuild has been done?

Conclusions

* High stress within the branch blocks may be observed as soon as transactions start to modify the index structure; the stress period or intensity, will depend on transaction rate and index attributes.

Recommendation

* Do not rebuild indexes right before processes or high load days, if heavy writing is expected: the index leaf block split overhead may impact performance.

I’ve the pending assignment of proposing a mathematical model for the Index Decay Rate… I’m working on that, with the help of Calculus. My next delivery will talk about that, I’m pretty close…

Thank you for reading, don’t forget to leave your comments.

See previous post Index Dynamics – Part II or first part Index Dynamics – Part I

Bookmark this on Delicious

Index Dynamics – Part 2 (Halloween on the Block)

Ver este artículo en Español

View starting post: Index Dynamics – Part 1

As I’ve promised, today will share with you mid-term results for my index observations.

First we may see a graph of Used Space, as reported by column PCT_USED of table INDEX_STATS (right after an ANALYZE over each index). This percentage accounts the space allocated to the B-Tree that is used.

There is one line for every index we are considering, and note the legend on the graph showing the index name and the number of columns inside parenthesis.

What can be observed in this chart?
1) After rebuild (done on saturday), every index starts with 95% used space.
2) First day is sunday, the system had almost 0 activity, therefore our indexes’ space usage show slight changes.
3) Starting on monday, INDEX1 reported wrong data for PCT_USED and the other indexes began their “decay” trend.
4) After a whole week of activity, indexes gained free space, some of them faster than others (for instance INDEX4 went from 95% to 84% used space, that is 11% on 5 days).

Point 3 raised a service request with Oracle.
Point 4 may be explained in terms of:
a) Table transactionality (how many insertions/deletes/updates it had)
b) Index type, if unique or non-unique.
c) Number of columns conforming the index.
d) Type of every indexed column.

I may propose the following hypothesis: the index used space decay rate is directly proportional to the table’s transactionality, to the number of columns and types of them, and inversely proportional to the type of the index (Unique or non-Unique) and block size.

As you already know, B-Tree indexes have two types of nodes: called Branches and Leafs.

Now, let’s see where is that space allocated, look this chart that shows increment or delta on daily samples taken from column LF_BLKS.

You may see a great saving due to rebuild, however that saving fades slowly during the following days. Next chart makes a zoom, in order to watch closely the variation rate experimented during those days.

Keep in mind the rate at which leaf blocks are incremented, later you’ll see how it’s related to new key insertions (transactionality).

What about the branches? … that’s what we’re going to see on next chart: the behavior of those indexes for branch blocks. I’ve taken the sampled value for BR_BLKS and got the variation rate versus the previous day.

Please observe, the stepped peak for INDEX2 and INDEX4, during the first day of activity the number of branch blocks almost doubled, that means an intense reorganization within the index. That may be caused due to the nature of these indexes (all are UNIQUE) and a high transactionality rate.

For the INDEX3, we observe that the increase is splited between 2 days, Sunday and Monday. This table presented activity the day after the rebuild was done.

We have to ignore the INDEX4, cause their figures are not reliable.

Why is there a higher increase on the number of branch blocks? We may answer that question recalling the percentage of free space (5%) we had after the rebuild, that is a very small margin for a leaf block, and the chances of split increase if we have a UNIQUE index. We must remember that a leaf block split, may involve a branch block split.

Our partial conclusions may be stated as follow:
1) Depending on the percentage of free space, after rebuilding indexes, their state becomes “less” stable.
2) Indexes tend to take a “stable” form, with the pass of time.
3) The branch blocks are the stressed part of the B-Tree right after the rebuild.

I will finish this experiment next Saturday, and share with you all remaining findings next Tuesday; yes, seven days from now… or eight days? anyway…
I hope to get near a mathematical model for the Index Decay Rate, cross fingers.

Thank you for reading, keep in touch!

See next part on Index Dynamics – Part III or go to first part Index Dynamics – Part I

Index dynamics

Ver este articulo en Español

Today I will start with a series of 3 posts depicting the follow up of 4 index behavior on a Production database.

The purpose of this exercise is try to unveil the morphology these four indexes take during a given period of time, under what kind of load, model it in a graphical way. Since indexes are quite a black box, this exercises also proposes a complementary procedure for index quality measure.

Experiment subjects were selected using information on DBA_SEGMENTS+DBA_HIST_SEGMENTS, with focus on size and activity, indexes were choosen within the 400Mb-500Mb range thinking on fast ALTER INDEX REBUILD and fast ANALYZE VALIDATE STRUCTURE.

Our four candidates are (names were replaced in order to protect their identity)

OBJNAME                  BLOCKS      BYTES HEIGHT PCTUSED
-------------------- ---------- ---------- ------ -------
INDEX1                    62464  511705088      4      69
INDEX2                    60416  494927872      4      53
INDEX3                    61056  500170752      4      45
INDEX4                    54272  444596224      4      63

We have our “Before” snapshots, now we need to rebuild all four indexes and take “Initial” snapshots to start the experiment. After this operation our figures are:

OBJNAME                  BLOCKS      BYTES HEIGHT PCT_USED
-------------------- ---------- ---------- ------ --------
INDEX1                    41600  340787200     4       95
INDEX2                    34176  279969792     4       95
INDEX3                    28032  229638144     3       95
INDEX4                    37888  270445017     4       95

Note the amount of space “empty” the indexes had before rebuild, for INDEX2 and INDEX2 we may ask ourselves “How are the tables used in order to get index keys so dispersed?”. INDEX1 and INDEX4 seem within normal parameters. All four indexes now have the same initial condition on 5% free space.

On October 31th, Friday … Hallowen, we are going to see what has been happening with our indexes;and who knows, you may testify witchcraft… or, is it science? What do you think?

Keep in touch…

See next part of this story on Index Dynamics – Part II