We have two tables which receive 1 million+ insertions per minute. This table is heavily indexed, which also can’t be removed to support business requirements. Due to such high volume of insertions, we are seeing PAGELATCH_EX and PAGELATCH_SH. These locks further slowdown insertions.
A commonly accepted solution is to change the identity column to GUID so that insertions are written on random page every time. We can do this but changing IDs will trigger a need for the development cycle of migration scripts so that existing production data can be changed.
I tried another approach which seems to be working well in our load tests. Instead of changing to GUID, We are now generating IDs in a randomized pattern using following logic
SELECT @ModValue = (DATEPART(NANOSECOND, GETDATE()) % 14);
INSERT xxx(id)
SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR Sequence * (@ModValue + IIF(@ModValue IN (0,1,2,3,4,5,6), 100000000000,-100000000000))It has eliminated PAGELATCH_EX and PAGELATCH_SH locks and our insertions are quite fast now. I also think GUID as PK of such a critical table is less efficient then a bigint ID column.
However, some of team members are sceptical on this as IDs with negative values that too generated on random basis is not a common solution. Also, there is argument that support team may struggle due to large negative IDs. A common habit of writing select * from table order by 1 will need to be changed.
I am wondering what the community’s take on this solution. If you could please point any disadvantage of approach suggested, that will be highly appreciated.
1条答案
按热度按时间twh00eeo1#
However, some of team members are skeptical on this as IDs with negative values that too generated on random basis is not a common solution
You have an uncommon problem, and so uncommon solutions might need to be entertained.
Also, there is argument that support team may struggle due to large negative IDs. A common habit of writing select * from table order by 1 will need to be changed.
Sure. The system as it exists now has a high (but not perfect) correlation between IDs and time. That is, in general a higher ID for a row means that it was created after one with a lower ID. So it's convenient to order by IDs as a stand-in for ordering by time. If that's something that they need to do (i.e. order the data by time), give them a way to do that in the new proposal. Conversely, play out the hypothetical scenario where you're explaining to your CTO why you didn't fix performance on this table for your end users. Would "so that our support personnel don't have to change the way they do things" be an acceptable answer? I know that it wouldn't be for me but maybe the needs of support outweigh the needs of end users in your system. Only you (and your CTO) can answer that question.