Venzi's Tech-Blog

28 November 2007

Prepared statement in batch mode vs. FORALL in PL/SQL

Filed under: Code,Java,Oracle,Performance,PL/SQL,Work — Venzi @ 12:55

A few days ago I had a nice discussion with one of our developers here in the office. The subject: What’s faster? Prepared statements with batch mode or calling a PL/SQL function which is using FORALL.

So I made a simple test: Insert 1 million rows with two columns (a number and a string column) into a table. The first part builds the values in java give it to the batch array and executes the insert in batch mode (This feature of JDBC stores the values in the memory until you execute the batch. Then JDBC executes the DML and loads the array at ones, very similar to FORALL.) The second part builds the values also in java creates two collections and call a procedure with the collections. The procedure itself just performs a FORALL over the insert.

So the first part of the java code looks like this:

long l = System.currentTimeMillis();
PreparedStatement pstmt = conn1.prepareStatement(“INSERT INTO TEST VALUES(?,?)”);
System.out.println(“PrepareStatement took: “+(System.currentTimeMillis() – l));
long l1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0;i<1000000;++i)
{
pstmt.setInt(1, i);
pstmt.setString(2, “testvalue”+i);
pstmt.addBatch();
if(i%16961 == 0)
pstmt.executeBatch();
}

pstmt.executeBatch();
System.out.println(“ExecuteBatch took: “+ (System.currentTimeMillis() – l1));

Don’t worry about the if with the modulo function. It turned out that JDBC has a bug with addBatch. It can just execute around 16000 rows at ones. If you add more rows it just ignores them! So I had to call the executeBatch more often. But we will see, if this slows down the test.

The second part of the java code looks like this:

l = System.currentTimeMillis();

ArrayDescriptor integer = ArrayDescriptor.createDescriptor(“INTARRAY”, conn1);
ArrayDescriptor varchar = ArrayDescriptor.createDescriptor(“VARARRAY”, conn1);

ARRAY pliArray = new ARRAY(integer,conn1, iArray);
ARRAY plsArray = new ARRAY(varchar,conn1, sString);
System.out.println(“Creating the Array took: “+(System.currentTimeMillis() – l));

l = System.currentTimeMillis();
CallableStatement callStatement = (CallableStatement)conn1.prepareCall(“{call insertvalues(?,?)}”);
System.out.println(“Preparing Call took: “+(System.currentTimeMillis() – l));

callStatement.setArray(1, pliArray);
callStatement.setArray(2, plsArray);

l1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
callStatement.execute();
System.out.println(“Executing PL/SQL took: “+(System.currentTimeMillis() – l1));

The PL/SQL code:

CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE TEST.intArray IS VARRAY(1000000) OF NUMBER;
show errors;
CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE TEST.varArray IS VARRAY(1000000) OF VARCHAR2(18);
show errors;

create or replace procedure insertvalues (nValue1 IN intArray, sValue2 IN varArray) is
begin
forall nvalue in nValue1.first..nValue1.last
insert into test values (nValue1(nvalue), sValue2(nvalue));
end;
show errors;

Well the result surprised me a little bit. Java was much faster. Look at the trace alone (trimmed!):

INSERT INTO TEST
VALUES
(:1,:2)

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
——- —— ——– ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 60 1.38 2.08 0 7646 34579 1000000
Fetch 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
——- —— ——– ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
total 61 1.38 2.08 0 7646 34579 1000000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Misses in library cache during execute: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 1159

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
—————————————- Waited ———- ————
SQL*Net message to client 60 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 60 0.09 1.64
SQL*Net more data from client 10726 0.00 0.72
********************************************************************************

BEGIN insertvalues(:1,:2); END;

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
——- —— ——– ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
Parse 1 0.01 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 7.77 9.01 0 9277 34886 1
Fetch 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
——- —— ——– ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
total 2 7.78 9.01 0 9277 34886 1

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Misses in library cache during execute: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 1159

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
—————————————- Waited ———- ————
SQL*Net more data from client 10399 0.00 1.17
SQL*Net message to client 1 0.00 0.00
log file sync 1 0.21 0.21
SQL*Net message from client 1 0.00 0.00
********************************************************************************
As you can see, the count of the procedure execution is just 1, from JDBC it is 60 (because of the bug with the 16000 rows). The elapsed time with prepared statement just took 2.08 seconds but with FORALL it took 9.01 seconds. And the CPU time is also of course lower than in PL/SQL. To be fair: That 9.01 seconds also include the call of the procedure plus the load of the collections. As it showed, just creating the collection in java took around 2 seconds!

In summary: You can see that prepared statement is much faster than FORALL. But to be fair: FORALL was developed to have some kind of bulking in PL/SQL within cursors to decrease the calls between SQL and PL/SQL engine. But if you using Java and JDBC anyway, work with prepared statements and with batch mode if possible. Don’t mind about the SQL*Net waiting events, these are idle events what means that your application isn’t waiting for it!

BTW: That JDBC bug is fixed in 11g and 10.2.0.3!

2 Comments »

  1. […] Prepared statement in batch mode vs. FORALL in PL/SQL November 2007 Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)#1 Page and Top 3 Posts In 2009RebootAdam’s Blog on Helath Care Issue Leave a Comment LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

    Pingback by 2010 in review « Venzi's Weblog — 2 January 2011 @ 18:56 | Reply

  2. Thank you for sharing your result

    Comment by OP — 20 July 2011 @ 03:16 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: