Monthly Archives: May 2016

In-Memory OLTP: Optimizing data load

In-Memory OLTP: Optimizing data load

Inserting large sets of data to memory-optimized tables might be required when initially migrating data from:

harddrive-based or memory-optimized tables in

  • the same database
  • a separate database (not directly supported)

Some of the ways to load data into memory-optimized tables are:

  • SSIS
  • BULK INSERT
  • bcp
  • INSERT/SELECT

SELECT INTO is not supported for memory-optimized tables.

Harddrive-based tables

Let’s review the basic requirements to optimally load data to harddrive-based tables.

PowerPoint Presentation

Recovery model: Most if not all OLTP databases run with the recovery model set to FULL. DBAs are taught from birth that when loading data, the recovery model should be set to BULK_LOGGED so that the transaction log doesn’t explode when you load data. The next transaction log backup will still include all the data that was loaded, but if you set the recovery model to BULK_LOGGED, you won’t require the extra storage to accommodate transaction log growth.

Itzik Ben-Gan wrote an excellent article on minimal logging here. It covers Trace Flag 610 and many other aspects of loading data into harddrive-based tables.

Indexes: For harddrive-based tables, we should have the minimum amount of indexes in place or enabled, because all index modifications are fully logged, which slows down the data load (TF 610 changes this behavior). You’ll still have to rebuild/create those indexes, and that will be logged, but it’s often faster to do that than load data with indexes in place, if for some reason TF 610 can’t be used.

Clustered indexes: For harddrive-based tables, we want to load the data sorted by the clustering key, so that we can eliminate any sorting.

Memory-optimized tables

Basic requirements to optimally load data to memory-optimized tables:

PowerPoint Presentation

Most DBAs are surprised to learn that DML changes to memory-optimized tables are always fully logged, regardless of the database recovery model. For INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE on memory-optimized tables, there is no such thing as “minimally logged”.

In SQL Server 2016 we finally have the ability to use the ALTER TABLE command to change memory-optimized tables. Most ALTER TABLE operations are executed in parallel and have the benefit of being minimally logged.

I did the following to verify that index creation is indeed minimally logged (based on SQL 2016 RC3**):

  • Create a memory-optimized table and load 15 million rows
  • Execute BACKUP LOG and CHECKPOINT (a few times)
  • Execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM fn_dblog(NULL, NULL), result is 30 rows
  • ALTER TABLE/ADD NOT NULL column: 7 seconds
  • Execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM fn_dblog(NULL, NULL), result is 308 rows
  • Execute BACKUP LOG and CHECKPOINT (a few times)
  • Execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM fn_dblog(NULL, NULL), result is 35 rows
  • ALTER TABLE ADD INDEX: 13 seconds
  • Execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM fn_dblog(NULL, NULL), result is 118 rows

**If an index column is currently off-row, creating an index that references this column causes the column to be moved in-row. If the index is dropped, the column is again moved off-row. In both of these scenarios, ALTER TABLE is fully logged and single-threaded.

Then I executed a command that is definitely not minimally logged:

  • ALTER TABLE/ADD NOT NULL nvarchar(max) column: 6 minutes, 52 seconds
  • Execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM fn_dblog(NULL, NULL), result is 210,280 rows

So from a logging perspective, it probably doesn’t make a lot of difference if non-clustered indexes are in place when data is loaded to memory-optimized tables. But concurrency will definitely suffer when creating indexes with ALTER TABLE/ADD INDEX, as the table is offline for the entire duration of any ALTER commands. That might be somewhat mitigated by the fact that you can now create multiple indexes, constraints, etc, with a single ALTER TABLE statement:

ALTER TABLE dbo. MyInMemTable ADD INDEX IX_Column1(Column1) , INDEX IX_Column2 (Column2)

“Clustered” indexes

Sadly, using the label “clustered” to describe any index on memory-optimized tables will confuse many people. For harddrive-based tables, a clustered index determines the physical order of data pages on disk, and clustered indexes for harddrive-based tables are the primary source of data – they are in fact the actual data for the table.

With regard to how data for memory-optimized tables is stored in memory, it’s not possible to have any form of ordering. Yes, you can create a “clustered” index on a memory-optimized table, but it is not the primary source of data for that table. The primary source of data is still the memory-optimized table in memory.

Loading

You should determine a way to break up the data loading process so that multiple clients can be executed in parallel. By client I mean SSMS, Powershell, SQLCMD, etc. This is no different than the approach you would take for loading data to harddrive-based tables.

When reviewing the following chart, remember that natively compiled stored procedures won’t work for any scenario that includes both harddrive-based and memory-optimized tables.

Source

Method

Notes

harddrive-based, same db

INSERT/SELECT

Supported, but excruciatingly painful with large data sets (single INSERT/SELECT statement), even if using a HASH index with bucket count properly configured. I succeeded in locking up my server several times with this approach.

harddrive-based, different db

INSERT/SELECT

Not supported.

You can use tempdb to stage the data, i.e. SELECT INTO ##temptable. Then process data with multiple clients.

harddrive-based, files

bcp out/ bcp in

Supported

harddrive-based, different db

indexed memory-optimized table variable

Supported, but not “transactional”.

Modifications to rows in a memory-optimized table variable creates row versions (see note below).

BULK INSERT is also supported, with the same restrictions as INSERT/SELECT (can’t go cross-database).

Different Source and Destination databases

a. If you are copying data between databases, i.e. Database A is the source for harddrive-based data you want to migrate, and Database B is the destination for memory-optimized data, you can’t use INSERT/SELECT. That’s because if there is a memory-optimized table as the source or destination of the INSERT/SELECT, you’ll be going “cross-database”, and that’s not allowed. You’ll either need to copy harddrive-based data to a global table (##) in TempDB, to an external file and then use BCP, or to a memory-optimized table variable (further explanation below).

b. Next, you’ll have to get the data into the memory-optimized tables. If using a ##TempTable, you can use stored procedures to process distinct key value ranges, allowing the procedures to be executed in parallel. For performance reasons, before calling these stored procedures, you’ll need to create an index on the primary key of the ##TempTable. If using stored procedures, you should determine the optimal batch size for your server/storage (see chart at the end of this post for my results using this method).

c. Natively compiled stored procedures won’t work in this scenario, because you can’t reference disk-based tables or TempDB from natively compiled stored procedures.

d. Instead of using a ##TempTable, it’s possible to insert data into an indexed memory-optimized table variable from the source database, and then use INSERT/SELECT from that variable into the destination database. That would solve the issue of making a second copy on disk, but be careful if you need to transform the data in the memory-optimized table variables, because unlike inserts, updating data in memory-optimized table variables creates row versions, which will consume memory. That’s in addition to the memory required for the memory-optimized table variable itself.

e. Garbage collection is a process that frees memory consumed by row versions, which were created as a result of changes to data in memory-optimized tables. Unfortunately, the garbage collection process does not free up memory consumed by memory-optimized table variables. Those row versions will consume memory until the memory-optimized table variable goes out of scope.

In order to use a natively compiled stored procedure for copying data from one table to another, the source and destination tables must both be memory-optimized, and both must reside in the same database.

Hardware/software used for testing

Software

  • Windows Server 2012 Datacenter
  • SQL 2016 RC3
  • sp_configure max memory: 51200 MB
  • Resource pool of 70%

Hardware

  • Make/model: custom built
  • Physical memory: 64GB
  • Memory stick: Samsung M386A4G40DM0 32GB x 2
  • Dual Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPU
  • Transaction log on Intel 750 PCIe SSD
  • Checkpoint File Pairs on OWC Mercury Accelsior PCIe SSD

Testing details:

  • SELECT INTO ##TempTable was used to prepare the source table.
  • The source table had an index on an IDENTITY column which was the primary key. The “table on SSD” in the chart below was stored on the Intel 750 PCIe SSD
  • All inserts were done by calling an interpreted TSQL stored procedure which processed rows in batches, using “PrimaryKey BETWEEN val1 and val2”. No key generation was involved, because in the procedure, SET IDENTITY_INSERT was ON.
  • There was a single HASH index on the memory-optimized table, with BUCKET_COUNT set to 10 million, in order to handle the initial data set of 5 million rows. Increasing the BUCKET_COUNT TO 30 million did not make any appreciable difference in the final test (with three sessions loading 5 million rows each).

PowerPoint Presentation

In-Memory OLTP relationship status: “it’s complicated”

Because partitioning is not supported for memory-optimized tables, Microsoft has posted workarounds here and here.

These workarounds describe how to use:

a. application-level partitioning

b. table partitioning for on-disk tables that contain cold data, in combination with memory-optimized tables for hot data.

Both of these workarounds maintain separate tables with identical schema. The first workaround would not require app changes, but the second workaround would require changes in order to know which table to insert/update/delete rows in. Technologists are not crazy about changing existing applications.

Even if we accept that these are viable solutions for existing applications, there are other potential problems with using either of these approaches.

Parent/Child issues

An OLTP database schema is usually highly normalized, with lots of parent/child relationships, and those relationships are usually enforced with PRIMARY KEY and FOREIGN KEY constraints. SQL 2016 allows us to implement PK/FK constraints for memory-optimized tables, but only if all participating tables are memory-optimized.

That leads us to an interesting problem:

How can we enforce PK and FK relationships if a database contains both disk-based and memory-optimized tables, when each table requires the same validation?

Sample scenario

In a simplified scenario, let’s say we have the following tables:

Parent table: memory-optimized, States_InMem

Child table 1: memory-optimized, contains hot data, Addresses_InMem

Child table 2: disk-based, contains cold data, Addresses_OnDisk

We must satisfy at least three conditions:

a. Condition 1: an insert/update on the memory-optimized child table must validate StateID

b. Condition 2: an insert/update on the disk-based child table must validate StateID

c. Condition 3: deleting a row from the parent table must not create orphaned child records

Example 1:

Condition 1

Assume Addresses_InMem has a column named StateID that references States_InMem.StateID.

If we create the States_InMem table as memory- optimized, the Addresses_InMem table can define a FOREIGN KEY that references it. Condition 1 is satisfied.

Condition 2

The disk-based Addresses_Disk table can use a trigger to validate the StateID for inserts or updates. Condition 2 is satisfied.

Condition 3

If we want to delete a record from the memory-optimized Parent table (States_InMem), the FK from memory-optimized Addresses_InMem will prevent the delete if child records exist (assuming we don’t cascade).

Triggers on memory-optimized tables must be natively compiled, and that means they cannot reference disk-based tables. Therefore, when you want to delete a record from the memory-optimized parent table, triggers cannot be used to enforce referential integrity to the disk-based child table.

Without a trigger or a parent/child relationship enforced at the database level, it will be possible to delete a record from States_InMem that references Addresses_OnDisk, thereby creating an orphaned child record. Condition 3 is NOT satisfied.

This “memory-optimized triggers cannot reference disk-based tables” issue also prevents the parent table from being disk-based (described next).

Example 2:

Parent table: disk-based, States_OnDisk

Child table 1: Hot data in memory-optimized table, Addresses_InMem

Child table 2: Cold data in disk-based table, Addresses_Disk

We can only define PK/FK between memory-optimized tables, so that won’t work for validating Addresses_InMem.StateID

As just described, we cannot use triggers on Addresses_InMem to enforce referential integrity, because triggers on memory-optimized tables must be natively compiled, and that means they cannot reference disk-based tables (States_OnDisk).

One solution might be to have all DML for this type of lookup table occur through interop stored procedures. But this has some drawbacks:

1. if a stored procedure must access both disk-based and memory-optimized tables, it cannot be natively compiled

2. Without PRIMARY and FOREIGN KEY rules enforced at the database engine level, invalid data can be introduced

Ideally we would like to have only a single copy of the parent table that can be referenced from either disk-based or memory-optimized child tables.

Separate “lookup” database

You might think that you can simply put reference tables in a separate database, but this approach won’t work, because memory-optimized tables don’t support cross-database queries. Also, the example of the States lookup table is overly simplified – it’s a single table that is a parent to child tables, but itself has no parent.

What if the tables were not Addresses and States, but instead Orders and OrderDetails? Orders might have a parent record, which can also have a parent record, and so on. Even if it was possible to place referenced tables in a separate database, this complexity will likely prevent you from doing so.

Double entry

For small lookup tables with no “parent”, one potential solution would be to store the reference data twice (on disk and in-memory). In this scenario you would modify only the disk-based table, and use triggers on the disk-based table to keep the memory-optimized lookup table in synch.

Entire table in memory

Of course if you put entire tables in memory (a single table that holds both hot and cold data), all of these problems go away. Depending on the complexity of the data model, this solution might work. However, placing both hot and cold data in memory will affect recovery time, and therefore RTO (see my other blog post on recovery for databases with memory-optimized data here).

All data in memory

You could also put your entire database in memory, but In-Memory OLTP isn’t designed for this. Its purpose is to locate tables with the highest activity to memory (or a subset of data for those hot tables). Putting your entire database in memory has even more impact on RTO than placing hot/cold data for a few tables in memory.

Also, cold data won’t benefit from most of what In-Memory OLTP has to offer, as by definition cold data rarely changes. However, there will likely be some benefit from querying data that resides solely in memory-optimized tables (no latching/locking).

Temporal

If your data is temporal in nature, it’s possible to use the new Temporal table feature of SQL 2016 to solve part of the issues discussed. It would work only for memory-optimized tables that are reference tables, like the States table.

You could define both the memory-optimized reference table and your memory-optimized referencing tables to be temporal, and that way the history of both over time is captured. At a given point in time, an Addresses record referenced a specific version of the States record (this will also work for disk-based tables, but the subject of this blog post is how In-Memory OLTP can be used to handle hot/cold data).

It’s recommended to use a clustered columnstore index on the history table to minimize the storage footprint and maximize query performance. Partitioning of the history table is also supported.

Archival data

If due to regulatory requirements multiple years of data must be retained, then you could create a view that encompassed both archival and hot data in memory-optimized temporal tables. And removing large amounts of data from the archival tables can easily be done with partitioning. But adding large amounts of data to the archival tables cannot be done seamlessly, because as mentioned earlier, partitioning is not supported for memory-optimized tables.

Down the road

With the current limitations on triggers, foreign keys, and partitioning for memory-optimized tables, enforcing referential integrity with a mix of hot and cold schemas/tables remains a challenge.