Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Database & SysAdmin
  3. Database
  4. Best way to batchprocess a large update

Best way to batchprocess a large update

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Database
htmlcomhelptutorialquestion
18 Posts 4 Posters 22 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

    When you use the TOP clause with the UPDATE statement, there's no guarantee that the rows to update will be picked in any particular order. Using the MAX(id) option, you could end up missing rows. I notice you've replaced the temporary table with a table variable. Was there a reason for that? IIRC, execution plans for table variables tend to assume they contain a very low number of rows, which might explain the poor performance.


    "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

    J Offline
    J Offline
    Jorgen Andersson
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    Done some testing now. And as I suspected, there is no difference in either performance or plan as long as the temp table has one column with unique values. Until the query goes parallel that is. Then the difference is quickly getting huge. But as long as I'm batching the query it stays the same until the batch is big enough to go parallel (which happens between 10000 and 20000 rows in this case). But then I will also get a table lock. And oddly enough, it also goes much slower when parallel until reaching 100000 rows per batch. I will do some more testing on this.

    Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • J Jorgen Andersson

      So I need to regularly update a table with data from another table. The problem is that if I update the normal way I get a table lock on the target table for half an hour, which is frowned upon by the users. So I need to run the update in batches. The other problem is that the ID sequence is having gaps in it. Larger gaps than the batch size. At the moment I have this solution:

      DECLARE
      @LastID int = 0,
      @NextID int,
      @RC int = 1;

      WHILE (@RC > 0)
      BEGIN
      SELECT TOP 5000
      @NextID = s.id
      FROM Source s
      WHERE s.id> @LastID
      ORDER BY s.id
      ;
      UPDATE t
      SET ------
      FROM Source s
      JOIN Target t ON t.id = s.id
      WHERE s.id > @LastID
      AND s.id <= @NextID
      ;
      SET @RC = @@ROWCOUNT;
      SET @LastID = @NextID ;
      END

      Which works just fine, but using two selects is getting under my skin. Any better suggestions for how to do it?

      Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

      realJSOPR Offline
      realJSOPR Offline
      realJSOP
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      Add WITH(NOLOCK) to your selects and joins:

      DECLARE
      @LastID int = 0,
      @NextID int,
      @RC int = 1;

      WHILE (@RC > 0)
      BEGIN
      SELECT TOP 5000
      @NextID = s.id
      FROM Source s WITH(NOLOCK)
      WHERE s.id> @LastID
      ORDER BY s.id
      ;
      UPDATE t
      SET ------
      FROM Source s
      JOIN Target t WITH(NOLOCK) ON t.id = s.id
      WHERE s.id > @LastID
      AND s.id <= @NextID
      ;
      SET @RC = @@ROWCOUNT;
      SET @LastID = @NextID ;
      END

      ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
      -----
      You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
      -----
      When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

      Richard DeemingR 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • realJSOPR realJSOP

        Add WITH(NOLOCK) to your selects and joins:

        DECLARE
        @LastID int = 0,
        @NextID int,
        @RC int = 1;

        WHILE (@RC > 0)
        BEGIN
        SELECT TOP 5000
        @NextID = s.id
        FROM Source s WITH(NOLOCK)
        WHERE s.id> @LastID
        ORDER BY s.id
        ;
        UPDATE t
        SET ------
        FROM Source s
        JOIN Target t WITH(NOLOCK) ON t.id = s.id
        WHERE s.id > @LastID
        AND s.id <= @NextID
        ;
        SET @RC = @@ROWCOUNT;
        SET @LastID = @NextID ;
        END

        ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
        -----
        You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
        -----
        When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

        Richard DeemingR Offline
        Richard DeemingR Offline
        Richard Deeming
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        But only if you understand the risks first. :) Using NOLOCK? Here's How You'll Get the Wrong Query Results. - Brent Ozar Unlimited®[^] Bad habits : Putting NOLOCK everywhere - SQL Sentry[^] Also, it won't work on the target table: Avoid using NOLOCK on SQL Server UPDATE and DELETE statements[^]


        "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

        "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

        realJSOPR 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

          But only if you understand the risks first. :) Using NOLOCK? Here's How You'll Get the Wrong Query Results. - Brent Ozar Unlimited®[^] Bad habits : Putting NOLOCK everywhere - SQL Sentry[^] Also, it won't work on the target table: Avoid using NOLOCK on SQL Server UPDATE and DELETE statements[^]


          "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

          realJSOPR Offline
          realJSOPR Offline
          realJSOP
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          I didn't put nolock on the update statement - I put it on the join. You could just create a job that does the monster update at night.

          ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
          -----
          You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
          -----
          When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

          Richard DeemingR 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • realJSOPR realJSOP

            I didn't put nolock on the update statement - I put it on the join. You could just create a job that does the monster update at night.

            ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
            -----
            You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
            -----
            When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard Deeming
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            Quote:

            UPDATE t
            ...
            FROM Source s
            JOIN Target t WITH(NOLOCK) ON t.id = s.id
            ...

            That NOLOCK hint is on the target table. It's exactly the same as the first example from the article I linked to:

            Avoid using NOLOCK on SQL Server UPDATE and DELETE statements[^]:

            UPDATE t1
            SET t1.x = something
            FROM dbo.t1 WITH (NOLOCK)
            INNER JOIN ...;


            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

            realJSOPR 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Jorgen Andersson

              So I need to regularly update a table with data from another table. The problem is that if I update the normal way I get a table lock on the target table for half an hour, which is frowned upon by the users. So I need to run the update in batches. The other problem is that the ID sequence is having gaps in it. Larger gaps than the batch size. At the moment I have this solution:

              DECLARE
              @LastID int = 0,
              @NextID int,
              @RC int = 1;

              WHILE (@RC > 0)
              BEGIN
              SELECT TOP 5000
              @NextID = s.id
              FROM Source s
              WHERE s.id> @LastID
              ORDER BY s.id
              ;
              UPDATE t
              SET ------
              FROM Source s
              JOIN Target t ON t.id = s.id
              WHERE s.id > @LastID
              AND s.id <= @NextID
              ;
              SET @RC = @@ROWCOUNT;
              SET @LastID = @NextID ;
              END

              Which works just fine, but using two selects is getting under my skin. Any better suggestions for how to do it?

              Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

              realJSOPR Offline
              realJSOPR Offline
              realJSOP
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              Have you tried using a MERGE statement?

              ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
              -----
              You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
              -----
              When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

              J 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                Quote:

                UPDATE t
                ...
                FROM Source s
                JOIN Target t WITH(NOLOCK) ON t.id = s.id
                ...

                That NOLOCK hint is on the target table. It's exactly the same as the first example from the article I linked to:

                Avoid using NOLOCK on SQL Server UPDATE and DELETE statements[^]:

                UPDATE t1
                SET t1.x = something
                FROM dbo.t1 WITH (NOLOCK)
                INNER JOIN ...;


                "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                realJSOPR Offline
                realJSOPR Offline
                realJSOP
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                We use WITH(NOLOCK) prolifically. Of course, we have indexes on all of our tables, and don't generally do massive updates in the middle of the work day. We have no issues.

                ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
                -----
                You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
                -----
                When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

                J 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • realJSOPR realJSOP

                  We use WITH(NOLOCK) prolifically. Of course, we have indexes on all of our tables, and don't generally do massive updates in the middle of the work day. We have no issues.

                  ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
                  -----
                  You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
                  -----
                  When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  Jorgen Andersson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  NOLOCK can cause nonclustered index corruption, and it's also deprecated[^].

                  Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

                  realJSOPR 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • realJSOPR realJSOP

                    Have you tried using a MERGE statement?

                    ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
                    -----
                    You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
                    -----
                    When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

                    J Offline
                    J Offline
                    Jorgen Andersson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    Yes. The update in my OP is greatly simplified. The actual update is a merge with more than 4000 rows.

                    Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J Jorgen Andersson

                      NOLOCK can cause nonclustered index corruption, and it's also deprecated[^].

                      Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

                      realJSOPR Offline
                      realJSOPR Offline
                      realJSOP
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      That's something for our DBAs to worry about. :)

                      ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
                      -----
                      You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
                      -----
                      When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups