Materialized View Fast Refresh Performance Tips
Oracle Tips by V.J. Jain
Materialized View Fast Refreshes are Slow
Jain, July 2007 (email@example.com)
Varun Jain, Inc. (an Oracle Partner)
A materialized view that is
verified to be fast refresh should update relatively fast. But what happens
when there are few changes to the master table, no network issues, no
aggregation in the snapshot query and the refresh still runs slow?
One of the most useful
replication and data warehousing features in Oracle is materialized views.
Materialized views, also known as snapshots, have been a feature of Oracle for
several years. A simple way to conceptualize this is to think of a view of a
master table that has actual data that can be refreshed. Since the introduction
in 8i, Oracle has consistently enhanced the technology for each subsequent
The data in a materialized
view is updated by either a complete or incremental refresh. An incremental or
fast refresh uses a log table to keep track of changes on the master table. A
materialized view log (snapshot log) is a schema object that records changes to
a master table's data so that a materialized view defined on that master table
can be refreshed incrementally. The frequency of this refresh can be configured
to run on-demand or at regular time intervals.
In practice, many Oracle
customers use materialized views outside of the data warehousing environment.
Some companies use fast refresh materialized views on remote databases in order
to improve performance and security when using distributed computing for online
transaction processing. The speed of a fast refresh will be determined by how
much data has changed since the last refresh. If the master table's data is
updated very often, then the log table will have more recorded changes to
process in order to update the materialized view.
However, the entire concept
of the fast refresh is that it should be a relatively quick operation. There is
a substantial volume of documentation regarding how to ensure that the refresh
is actually doing a fast refresh.
New features in 10g including DBMS_MVIEW.EXPLAIN_MVIEW and
DBMS_ADVISOR.TUNE_MVIEW provide insight and advice on materialized views.
While these features can help you to get an optimal materialized view, it cannot
help when the underlying problem is not the materialized view. In fact, the
underlying problem might not even be on the consuming site.
A recent experience with a
client exposed such a situation. The client complained that a user process was
running slow. After a quick analysis, the culprit was determined to be a
materialized view refresh run on-demand from a trigger in the process.
The master table of the
materialized view was a remote table in the same data center. The user process
inserted a row into the master table and then refreshed the materialized view.
Testing revealed that even when there were only a few changes on the master
table, the refresh would still take 10-20 seconds.
In this situation I would
generally consider the following possibilities: complete versus fast refresh,
network bound, many changes on master table, and complex aggregation on MV
query. The most likely solution was that a complete refresh was happening.
However, the materialized view refresh was confirmed to be a fast refresh by
SELECT mview_name, refresh_mode, refresh_method,
At the master site, it
was verified that the snapshot log existed.
SELECT log_owner, master,
log_table FROM dba_mview_logs;
So, the two basic
requirements for a fast refresh were confirmed. Next, I tested the network
bound by running copying 30,000 rows from all_objects from the master to the
consumer site in 1-2 seconds. Then, I checked the query of the materialized
view and confirmed that it was a simple select from the master table without any
aggregation or sorting. To be prudent, DBMS_MVIEW.explain_mview was run
on the materialized view. MV_CAPABILITIES_TABLE did not reveal any problems.
Furthermore, the master table
had approximately 10-30 changes per minute while the refresh was happening 1-2
times per minute. There was no doubt that a fast refresh was occurring, there
were no aggregations in the query, there was a small number of changes to the
master table, and network issues were not the problem. So what was causing this
fast refresh to go so slow?
After determining that the
problem was definitely not on the consumer side, the focus of the analysis
shifted to the master site. We had already confirmed that the snapshot logs
were present so the next step was to see what was contained in those logs. Much
to our surprise, there were over 13 million rows in the snapshot log dating back
several months. This was unexpected since the user process was refreshing the
materialized view a few times every minute.
After the refresh, why were
the records in that table not being deleted? One possibility was that there was
another snapshot using that log. Multiple simple snapshots can use the same
snapshot log, meaning that records already used to refresh one snapshot might
still be needed to refresh another snapshot. Therefore, Oracle does not delete
rows from the log until all snapshots have used them. If the snapshot log has
grown very large, then the time to complete a fast refresh will increase as well
since more records must be scanned by the consuming site before determining
which records to use for the refresh. This explained why a fast refresh with
almost no changes on the master table would still take 10-20 seconds to
While the client insisted
that no other snapshots existed for this table, the evidence showed that to be
the most likely cause. A query of
dba_registered_snapshots seemed to support the client's position since no
other snapshots appeared to be using this log.
TO_CHAR(current_snapshots,'mm/dd/yyyy hh24:mi') current_snapshots
However, the one risk with
using materialized views over remote databases is that sometimes a network or
site failure can prevent a master of becoming aware that a snapshot has been
dropped. Oracle keeps track of snapshots that are using entries in SYS.SLOG$ at
the master site.
In fact, when deciding
whether to purge snapshot log records, Oracle compares SYS.SLOG$.SNAPTIME for
the table with MLOG$_.SNAPTIME$$. The rows with a MLOG$_.SNAPTIME$$ equal to or
older than the oldest SYS.SLOG$.SNAPTIME for the table are purged from the log.
If an orphan entry exists in SYS.SLOG$ at the master site for a deleted
snapshot, the SNAPTIME in SLOG$ will not be updated. Consequently, any records
in the snapshot log will never be purged during a refresh.
The following query can be
useful in identifying situations where a snapshot entry exists in SLOG$ but is
not registered and has not been updated in a long time.
NVL(r.snapshot_site, 'not registered')
mowner LIKE UPPER('&owner')
MASTER LIKE UPPER('&table_name');
After verifying the existing
snapshots on the consumer site by querying SYS.SNAP$, it was easy to determine
which entries in SYS.SLOG$ at the master site were no longer being used. After
using DBMS_SNAPSHOT.PURGE_SNAPSHOT_FROM_LOG to remove the orphaned
entries, the old records from the snapshot log were finally purged upon the next
refresh. In order to realize this improvement, the high watermark of the
materialized view log needed to be reset by using ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW LOG
'&snapshot_log' SHRINK SPACE. It was later found that these orphaned
snapshots were the result of obsolete development instances having materialized
views on this production table.
Upon realizing the root
cause, it was apparent that the impact of this issue was likely to be broader
than a slow user process. If the database were scanning 13 million rows about 2
times per minute, then this should have caught the attention of the DBAs who
were monitoring the database activity. A recent Statspack report on the master
site showed that the MLOG$ table was among the top I/O consumers. The Active
Workload Repository (AWR) segment statistics revealed that the logical and
physical reads on the MLOG$ table had consistently increased since the earliest
measurement. The moment that an MLOG$ table shows up on a Statspack report, it
is prudent to determine if there is a problem. In this case, the problem could
have been identified much earlier.
Oracle?s materialized views
are a great tool for replication and each subsequent release has proven to add
new features and enhancements. As with any technology, you must be certain that
you are using the features correctly and have implemented a clearly defined and
strictly enforced change management policy. While these new technologies will
always introduce new possibilities for problems, the old standards of a strict
operating procedure can mitigate these risks.