Obiee and database performance tuning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Obiee and database performance tuning

on

  • 1,109 views

About us ...

About us
BISP is an IT Training and Consulting Company. We are Subject Matter Experts for DHW and BI technologies. We provide Live virtual Online global IT support and services like online software training, live virtual online lab services, virtual online job support with highly intellectual professional trainers and skilled resources , predominantly In Oracle BI, Oracle Data Integrator, Hyperion Product stack, Oracle Middleware solution, Oracle SoA, AIA Informatica, IBM Datastage and IBM Cognos .
BISP has footprints virtually across USA, CANADA, UK, SINGAPORE, SAUDI ARABIA, AUSTRALIA and more by providing live virtual support services from India for fresh graduates, opt students, working professionals etc. Being a live virtual online training the support , training and service methodology is just click away considerably reducing your TIME,INFRASTRUCTURE and Cost effective.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,109
Views on SlideShare
1,109
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
58
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Obiee and database performance tuning Presentation Transcript

  • 1. © Peak Indicators Limited OBIEE and Database Performance Tuning Antony Heljula Technical Architect
  • 2. © Peak Indicators Limited 2 Agenda  Aim of Presentation  Test Scenario  Performance Tests  Summary & Conclusion  And Finally….
  • 3. © Peak Indicators Limited 3  Aim of Presentation
  • 4. © Peak Indicators Limited 4 OBIEE Performance Issues  When reports take a long time to return results, end users tend to say “OBIEE does not perform well”  The truth is that most (99%?) of the processing typically takes place on the underlying data sources  If another BI tool was used to deliver the same reports, the queries would probably still run just as slowly  It would therefore be more accurate to say that it is the databases that are not performing well! WebLogic BI Server BI Presentation Services “Analytics” BI Plug-In
  • 5. © Peak Indicators Limited 5 Aim of Presentation  We are going to investigate how a set of OBIEE Dashboard queries can be tuned to deliver satisfactory performance  We’ll begin testing with a set of dashboards that perform very poorly  We’ll then implement a number of tuning features one-by-one to see how things improve….hopefully by the end of it we’ll have decent performance!  The aim will be to get all reports to return in less than 10 seconds  The performance test results will be captured and reported on using Usage Tracking
  • 6. © Peak Indicators Limited 6 Aim of Presentation  We are going to assume that the database has an optimum and balanced configuration, so that any performance issues are “software” related and not “hardware”
  • 7. © Peak Indicators Limited 7 Aim of Presentation  On an Oracle database, there are many known ways to improve query performance. For example:  Gather statistics  Remove snow-flakes  Star Transformation  Partitioning  Bitmap Indexes  We will attempt to answer the following questions:  Do they actually work?  What performance gains do they actually deliver?  In what situations are they most effective?  Bitmap Join Indexes  Compression  Parallel Query  Aggregation  Denormalization
  • 8. © Peak Indicators Limited 8 Aim of Presentation  The aim is to deliver satisfactory performance using standard relational database features  The customer won’t be happy if they are told mid-way through UAT that they need to purchase additional software licenses e.g. Oracle OLAP / Essbase  We will however be looking at “Partitioning”, although this option does require additional license cost it is generally purchased by most/all customers who have large data volumes  We are going to avoid the use of “hints”  Hints effectively hard-code the optimization rules for database queries  Hints are “old” technology dating back to the Rule Base Optimizer (RBO), they do not take into account the size and complexity of the query in the way that the Cost Based Optimizer (CBO) does  Hints should always be the last resort (in my view) Notes
  • 9. © Peak Indicators Limited 9  Test Scenario
  • 10. © Peak Indicators Limited 10 Test Scenario  Dell Latitude E6400:  Windows 7 64-bit  2.54Ghz dual-core CPU  8GB RAM  250GB SATA internal hard disk (7,200 RPM)  Software:  Oracle Database Enterprise Edition 11g R2  Oracle BI Enterprise Edition 11.1.1.3 Hardware
  • 11. © Peak Indicators Limited 11 Test Scenario  To conduct the investigation, a database data-model was built entirely from scratch: Data-Model Fact (Daily Summary)Time Dimension Product Dimension Customer Dimension Organization Dimension
  • 12. © Peak Indicators Limited 12 Test Scenario  The tables were then populated with a completely fabricated set of data  Number of records in each table is show in red  Approximately 10GB total volume Data Volumes 30 Million11,000 5,000 500 500,000 1,000 5,000 10,000 9,000
  • 13. © Peak Indicators Limited 13 Test Scenario  Examples of the fabricated data that was generated: Fabricated Data
  • 14. © Peak Indicators Limited 14 Test Scenario  An RPD was developed using all the modern best-practices for a star- schema data-model: RPD
  • 15. © Peak Indicators Limited 15 Test Scenario  A “Sales Orders” dashboard was created containing 6 pages with only 1 analysis per page  4 pages contained a “summary” analysis (month level or above)  2 pages contained a “detail” analysis (day/week level) Dashboards
  • 16. © Peak Indicators Limited 16 Test Scenario  Each performance test was conducted manually but in a strict sequence: 1. Log on 2. Go to each dashboard page one-by-one (in the same order every time) 3. Only move to the next page once the current page has returned results 4. Log off  To ensure every performance test was fair, the following steps were taken before each test was conducted:  Restart database (to purge all database cache)  Purge BI Server cache  Purge BI Presentation Services cache Test Rules
  • 17. © Peak Indicators Limited 17 Test Scenario  Before starting the tests, we had no indication as to what the results would be – there was no certainty any firm conclusions could be made afterwards  No attempt was made to “prepare” the data-model or the performance tests so that the final results would look good or bad  When each feature was tested, no effort was made to tune the particular feature – we simply used the default settings to see if it would work straight “out of the box”  If we ran the exact same test twice, the timings could vary by about 5-10 seconds or 10%. We will therefore assume that timings have to be different by 10% or >10 seconds in order to conclude that any tuning feature has made a difference Final Notes
  • 18. © Peak Indicators Limited 18  Performance Tests
  • 19. © Peak Indicators Limited 19 1. Starting Point  To begin with, the data-model had the following features / issues:  Plenty of snow-flaking  No statistics generated (RBO is therefore in use)  B-Tree indexes used throughout  Star Transformation disabled Overview
  • 20. © Peak Indicators Limited 20 1. Starting Point  446 seconds in total to run all 6 dashboard pages in sequence  The 4 “summary” reports all perform poorly  The 2 “detail” reports are returning in less than 10 seconds Result
  • 21. © Peak Indicators Limited 21 2. Gather Stats 30%  If you have a performance issue with a database query, one of the first questions you will get asked is “have you analysed your tables and indexes?”  The Oracle Database comes with a “Cost Based Optimizer” (CBO) which determines the most appropriate way to process your query based on the size and contents of the required tables and their indexes  But you need to analyze your tables (or “gather statistics”) in order for the CBO to be used, otherwise the “Rule Based Optimizer” (RBO) is used  With large data warehouses, it is sometimes not possible to analyze all the data and indexes as the process will take too long, so this first test will see if gathering statistics using only a 30% sample of data is sufficient to make the CBO work efficiently EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS (ownname => 'PEAKTEST', tabname => 'WH_CUSTOMER', estimate_percent => 30); Overview
  • 22. © Peak Indicators Limited 22 2. Gather Stats 30% Result
  • 23. © Peak Indicators Limited 23 2. Gather Stats 30%  Surprisingly, performance got worse overall by 52%!  “Summary” Reports  2 reports had significant improvements >65%  2 reports did not change more than 10%  “Detail” Reports  Both detail reports suffered worse performance, one of them actually took 125 times longer than before!  The over-use of “hash joins” is causing the issue Summary
  • 24. © Peak Indicators Limited 24 3. Gather Stats 100%  If you have performance issues after gathering statistics using a 30% sample of data, it is quite likely that Oracle Support or a DBA will recommend that you try gathering statistics using a greater sample of data  So this next test will provide an indication as to whether gathering statistics using a “full” 100% sample will make a significant difference… EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS (ownname => 'PEAKTEST', tabname => 'WH_CUSTOMER', estimate_percent => 100); Overview
  • 25. © Peak Indicators Limited 25 2. Gather Stats 30% Result
  • 26. © Peak Indicators Limited 26 3. Gather Stats 100%  Performance improved overall by 9%  “Summary” Reports  Performance was essentially the same as with a 30% statistics sample  Performance levels are still far from acceptable  “Detail” Reports  Performance did improve overall by 14%  Performance levels are still far from acceptable Summary
  • 27. © Peak Indicators Limited 27 4. Star Transformation (No Bitmaps)  The Oracle database has a special tuning feature designed for optimising “star schemas” queries, it is enabled by setting the following parameter:  STAR_TRANSFORMATION_ENABLED = TRUE  It is however often overlooked that the documentation recommends that, for this feature to work properly, all the foreign key columns on your fact tables should have “bitmap indexes” created and not just “b-tree indexes”:  This test will see what the effect is if you don’t have bitmap indexes on your foreign key columns… Overview
  • 28. © Peak Indicators Limited 28 4. Star Transformation (No Bitmaps) Result
  • 29. © Peak Indicators Limited 29 4. Star Transformation (No Bitmaps)  Performance overall got slightly worse, but not by much  “Summary” Reports  Enabling Star Transformation without bitmap indexes had no real effect  “Detail” Reports  1 report improved by 50% (11 seconds) but overall there was no significant difference Summary
  • 30. © Peak Indicators Limited 30 5. Star Transformation (Bitmaps)  This test will see what the impact is when Star Transformation is enabled with bitmap indexes created for the foreign keys on the fact table (as recommended by Oracle) CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK_1 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK (CUSTOMER_KEY); CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK_2 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK (PRODUCT_KEY); CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK_3 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK (ORG_KEY); CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK_4 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_XFK (TIME_DAY_KEY); Overview
  • 31. © Peak Indicators Limited 31 5. Star Transformation (Bitmaps) Result
  • 32. © Peak Indicators Limited 32 5. Star Transformation (Bitmaps)  Performance improved overall by 50%!  Finally things are starting to get under control, but we still need to do better  “Summary” Reports  15% overall improvement  2 of the reports had significant improvements  “Detail” Reports  A 78% improvement overall, although one of the reports increased from 8 to 60 seconds Summary
  • 33. © Peak Indicators Limited 33 6. Remove Snow-Flakes (Dim Cols.)  Snow-flaking occurs when you have a chain of Dimension tables joined together  The Oracle Data-Warehousing states that performance can be improved (especially with “Star Transformation”) if you data-model does not consist of snow-flakes  So this test will show what happens when we eliminate snow-flaking by combining the snow-flaked tables into the main dimension table (forming a pure star-schema): Overview
  • 34. © Peak Indicators Limited 34 6. Remove Snow-Flakes (Dim Cols.) Result
  • 35. © Peak Indicators Limited 35 6. Remove Snow-Flakes (Dim Cols.)  Surprisingly, it made things slightly worse, no reports showed improvement!  “Summary” Reports  Moving snow-flaked dimension columns into the main dimension table had no real effect, just a few seconds worse overall  “Detail” Reports  Moving snow-flaked dimension columns into the main dimension table had no real effect, just a few seconds worse overall Summary
  • 36. © Peak Indicators Limited 36 7. Remove Snow-Flakes (Add FKs)  As the previous method of eliminating snow-flakes did not work, this time we will try a slightly different approach  In this test we will eliminate snow-flakes by adding extra foreign keys to the central fact table which join directly to the snow-flaked dimension tables (with “bitmap indexes” created)  Will this more perfect “star-schema” improve performance significantly? Overview
  • 37. © Peak Indicators Limited 37 7. Remove Snow-Flakes (Add FKs) Result * Test 6 was backed out
  • 38. © Peak Indicators Limited 38 7. Remove Snow-Flakes (Add FKs)  It made things much worse….response times more than doubled!  Adding more FKs made the fact table much larger, making it longer to scan?  More FKs more complexity?  “Summary” Reports  136% worse overall  “Detail” Reports  90% worse overall Summary
  • 39. © Peak Indicators Limited 39 8. Bitmap Join Indexes  Oracle promote “bitmap join indexes” as a way of increasing performance by “orders of magnitude”  A bitmap join index is a bitmap index which stores the actual results of a join between two or more tables. For example, here is a bitmap join index that stores the result of the joins from the fact table to four columns in the “Day” dimension table: CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_BMJ_8 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY (PER_NAME_YEAR, PER_NAME_QTR, PER_NAME_MONTH,PER_NAME_WEEK) FROM WH_SALES_FACT_DAY F, WH_TIME_DAY TD WHERE F.TIME_DAY_KEY = TD.TIME_DAY_KEY;  For this test 8 bitmap join indexes were created to store the join results of all the joins made between the fact and dimension tables across the 6 dashboard pages Overview
  • 40. © Peak Indicators Limited 40 8. Bitmap Join Indexes Result * Tests 6 and 7 were backed out
  • 41. © Peak Indicators Limited 41 8. Bitmap Join Indexes  Bitmap join indexes improved performance overall by 55 seconds (18%)  However only 1 “detail” report actually used a bitmap join index  It seems the Oracle database will only use a bitmap join index if it deems the query is at a low enough granularity to make it worthwhile  “Summary” Reports  No changes in performance  Bitmap join indexes did not get used for any of the summary reports!  “Detail” Reports  One report reduced from 60 down to only 3 seconds. A massive improvement!  The other detail report did not change, bitmap join indexes did not get used Summary
  • 42. © Peak Indicators Limited 42 8. Bitmap Join Indexes  Bitmap Join indexes do have some restrictions: Overview
  • 43. © Peak Indicators Limited 43 9. Partition by Month  Table “partitioning” is a very common recommendation when dealing with very large tables. On a data warehouse the most obvious thing to do is partition your large fact tables by Day / Week / Month  It is essential to make sure that your partition strategy will result in effect “partition pruning”. This means that, when OBIEE runs a query, the database will know it only needs to scan a sub-set of the table partitions, rather than scanning the whole table  In our case, we test out partitioning tables by “Month” based on the existing “TIME_DAY_KEY” foreign key column on the fact table, it is in YYYYMMDD format  When OBIEE queries for a specific time period, the database will lookup the TIME_DAY_KEY values in the “Time” dimension table and know exactly which fact table partitions to scan: Overview TIME_DAY_KEY TIME_DAY_KEY
  • 44. © Peak Indicators Limited 44 9. Partition by Month  Here is the SQL statement used to build our partitioned fact table which has a partition for each of the 24 months of data that exist: Overview
  • 45. © Peak Indicators Limited 45 9. Partition by Month  Note that when you partition a table, you need to create “LOCAL” bitmap indexes on the foreign key columns  “LOCAL” means that the bitmap index will also be broken down into partitions, potentially improving performance even further as the smaller index partitions will not take so long to process: CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_1 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY (CUSTOMER_KEY) LOCAL; CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_2 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY (PRODUCT_KEY) LOCAL; CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_3 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY (ORG_KEY) LOCAL; CREATE BITMAP INDEX WH_SALES_FACT_DAY_4 ON WH_SALES_FACT_DAY (TIME_DAY_KEY) LOCAL;  Remember to analyze / gather statistics afterwards! Overview
  • 46. © Peak Indicators Limited 46 9. Partition by Month Result * Tests 6 and 7 were backed out
  • 47. © Peak Indicators Limited 47 9. Partition by Month  Overall performance improved by 57 seconds (23%)  “Summary” Reports  3 out of the 4 summary reports had excellent improvement >50%  1 summary report took 30 seconds (33%) longer. This report contains two “Year Ago” and “Year-to-Date” calculations which meant that most/all the table partitions had to be scanned (scanning lots of small partitions may therefore be less efficient than scanning a smaller number of larger partitions)  “Detail” Reports  A good overall improvement of 6 seconds (35%) Summary
  • 48. © Peak Indicators Limited 48 10. Parallel Query (Auto)  The Oracle database offers parallel query capability, the idea being that one sequential task can be broken down in the multiple tasks running in parallel  Parallel query is a good contender once you have implemented table partitioning, is the Oracle database can easily process each partition in parallel  On our test environment we have 1 CPU and 1 disk – not the most appropriate environment for testing parallel query  For this test, we are enabling parallel query simply by enabling the “auto tuning” parallel query feature for the Oracle Database 11g R2  This feature ignores any “parallel” degree settings you may have manually set for your tables: alter system set PARALLEL_DEGREE_POLICY=AUTO; Overview
  • 49. © Peak Indicators Limited 49 10. Parallel Query (Auto) Result * Tests 6 and 7 were backed out
  • 50. © Peak Indicators Limited 50  A slight performance improvement overall to the “Summary” reports, the “Detail” reports were unaffected  NOTE:  Even with no parallelism enabled, our single disk was already operating at >80% capacity  So by enabling parallelism there was not much for improvement as our disk was already near to bottlenecking  It would be better to run this test on a system with >1 CPU and >1 disk  “Summary” Reports  The longest running report showed the best improvement of 30 seconds (25%)  “Detail” Reports  The detail reports had no change, the explain plans showed that the Oracle Database did not attempt to use parallel query for the granular queries (an excellent feature) 10. Parallel Query (Auto) Summary
  • 51. © Peak Indicators Limited 51 10. Parallel Query (Auto) Explain Plans with PARALLEL_DEGREE_POLICY=AUTO “Summary” report has parallel query “Detail” report has no parallel query
  • 52. © Peak Indicators Limited 52 11. Compression  The Oracle database allows you to store data in a compressed (zipped) format, with three possible benefits:  Reduced overall storage requirements  Performance improvement due to less disk reads (each record uses less space)  Improved memory efficiency (data is stored in memory in compressed format)  The potential drawback is with higher CPU activity since all data blocks have to be uncompressed at run-time in order to be processed  Compression may be a good option in our test environment, since the CPU usage is small compared to the disk usage (20-40% versus 80-100%)  Compressing our fact table reduced the data volume from 1.46GB down to 1.09GB, a reduction of about 25%  Database was given a default 8K block size, increasing to 32/64K could increase the compression ratio significantly  NOTE: bitmap indexes always store data in compressed format Overview
  • 53. © Peak Indicators Limited 53 11. Compression  Here is the SQL statement used to build our compressed and partitioned fact table: Overview NOTE: There are limitations! e.g. insert records with the hint: INSERT /*+ APPEND */
  • 54. © Peak Indicators Limited 54 11. Compression Result * Tests 6 and 7 were backed out
  • 55. © Peak Indicators Limited 55 11. Compression  With a 25% compression ratio, performance improved by about 15% across the board, although it had more effect on the “Summary” reports where more data was being extracted from disk  NOTE: Oracle also has an “Advanced Compression” feature which is designed to provide even greater compression ratios  “Summary” Reports  Approximately 15% improvement  “Detail” Reports  No real change Summary
  • 56. © Peak Indicators Limited 56  Many customers can find themselves in this situation: we have already implemented several different tuning mechanisms but our “Summary” dashboards are still taking far too long…..an average of 41 seconds each (with only 1 user!)  Apart from adding more hardware (CPUs/memory/disks), what is the next option?  Sometimes there is no alternative to summarising the data in order to reduce the amount of data being processed 12. Aggregation (MVs) Overview
  • 57. © Peak Indicators Limited 57 12. Aggregation (MVs)  Implementing an aggregate strategy is often a balancing act:  You want to keep the number of aggregates to an absolute minimum  You want to summarise the data as much as possible BUT  You want aggregates that can serve multiple reports/dashboards (plus ad hoc)  You want aggregates to support multiple drill-down levels across many hierarchies  Sometimes you have no choice other than to create an aggregate for each dashboard (in which case you may need to consider cube engines, more hardware etc): Overview
  • 58. © Peak Indicators Limited 58 12. Aggregation (MVs)  In our test environment, we have managed to build a single aggregate which can:  Reduce the number of records from 31M down to 8M  Support all 4 “Summary” dashboards  Provide at least 2 levels of drill-down across all the hierarchies Overview
  • 59. © Peak Indicators Limited 59 12. Aggregation (MVs)  HINT: Use the “Number of Elements” in the RPD to help you determine how much more efficient an aggregate table could be Overview
  • 60. © Peak Indicators Limited 60 12. Aggregation (MVs)  Aggregate tables on an Oracle database can be either:  Standard physical tables (updated or rebuilt during ETL)  Materialized Views  In theory there is no difference between the two options as they both contain snapshots of the summarised data  Materialized Views are easier to maintain and quicker to develop  If you use Materialized Views, then please note:  Do not rely too heavily on the “Query Rewrite” feature as OBIEE can generate queries that are too complex for the database to rewrite  It is often better to model the MVs into the RPD as if they were normal physical aggregate tables (so you rely on OBIEE “aggregate navigation” rather than database “query rewrite”)  Remember to partition your MVs and create bitmap indexes on any foreign keys Overview
  • 61. © Peak Indicators Limited 61 12. Aggregation (MVs)  s Overview MV partitioned by month LOCAL bitmap indexes (don’t forget to analyze)
  • 62. © Peak Indicators Limited 62 12. Aggregation (MVs) Result * Tests 6 and 7 were backed out
  • 63. © Peak Indicators Limited 63 12. Aggregation (MVs)  Finally! All queries are now taken 10 seconds or less  “Summary” Reports  All reports improved, running over 7 times faster than before! (a total of 143 seconds down to 23)  “Detail” Reports  The aggregate MVs were designed for the summary reports, so the detail reports were unaffected and perform exactly the same as before Summary
  • 64. © Peak Indicators Limited 64  Summary & Conclusion
  • 65. © Peak Indicators Limited 65 Summary The biggest gains for “Detail” reports: • Star Transformation • Bitmap Join Indexes • Partitioning The biggest gains for “Summary” reports: • Gathering Stats 30% • Aggregation • Star Transformation • Partitioning
  • 66. © Peak Indicators Limited 66 Conclusion  The Oracle database provides a wide variety of tuning features, but you need to adopt a combination of tuning features  The various tuning mechanisms suit different types of reports  If you have performance issues with “Summary” reports then consider:  Gathering statistics 30/100%  Star Transformation  Partitioning  Parallel Query  Aggregation  Compression  If you have performance issues with “Detail” reports then consider:  Gathering statistics 100% (as opposed to 30%)  Star Transformation  Partitioning  Bitmap Join Indexes
  • 67. © Peak Indicators Limited 67 Conclusion  Always test thoroughly! Whilst the various tuning mechanisms can lead to an overall positive improvement, there can be surprises where specific reports suffer worse performance (sometimes significantly worse):
  • 68. © Peak Indicators Limited 68 And Finally….  What happens if none of the tuning mechanisms discussed give you the desired level of performance?  Buy bigger/better hardware (more CPUs+Disks+Memory)  Archive data to reduce volume  Oracle OLAP (now properly supported with OBIEE 11.1.1.5)  Oracle Essbase  Oracle Exadata
  • 69. © Peak Indicators Limited  Questions?
  • 70. © Peak Indicators Limited Helping Your Business Intelligence Journey