SUBSTR在CLOB上的性能 [英] Performance of SUBSTR on CLOB

查看：290
本文介绍了SUBSTR在CLOB上的性能的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！

问题描述

我有一个PL/SQL过程，它对VARCHAR2参数执行很多SUBSTR的操作.我想删除长度限制，因此尝试将其更改为CLOB.

工作正常，但性能受到影响，所以我做了一些测试(基于这些测试(来自2005年).

更新:我可以在具有不同Oracle版本和不同硬件的多个不同实例上重现此内容，dbms_lob.substr总是比substr(CLOB)慢得多，并且比SUBSTR(VARCHAR2)慢很多. /p>

鲍勃的结果和上面链接中的测试讲述了一个不同的故事.

任何人都可以解释这一点，或者至少重现鲍勃或我的结果吗?谢谢！

测试结果:

+000000000 00:00:00. 004000000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00. 298000000 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00. 356000000 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

测试代码: 

DECLARE
  l_text   VARCHAR2(30) := 'This is a test record';
  l_clob   CLOB := l_text;
  l_substr VARCHAR2(30);
  t TIMESTAMP;
BEGIN
  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := SUBSTR(l_text,1,14);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (VARCHAR2)');

  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := SUBSTR(l_clob,1,14);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (CLOB SUBSTR)');

  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR(l_clob,14,1);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)');
END;

解决方案

(说谎，该死的谎言和基准...)

我重新运行了10次测试，将字符串扩展为30个字符，并得到以下平均结果:

+000000000 00:00:00.011694200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.901000600 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.013169200 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

然后我将子字符串范围更改为5,14(对于DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR，该值为14,5)并得到:

+000000000 00:00:00.011731000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:01.010840000 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.011427000 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

然后我将范围更改为17,14(对于DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR，该范围为14,17)，并且得到了

+000000000 00:00:00.013578900 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.964527400 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.011416800 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

最后，我将范围更改为25,14(对于DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR，为14,25)，并且得到了

+000000000 00:00:00.011210200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.916439800 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.013781300 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

我的结论是，与CLOB配合使用时，最好使用DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR，因为与对正常" VARCHAR2使用SUBSTR相比，它实际上没有任何性能损失. SUBSTR对CLOB似乎遭受了重大的性能损失.记录-OS = HP/UX(Unix变体)，Oracle版本= 11.1，处理器= HP Itanium 2-plex. YMMV.

分享并享受.

因为如果值得这样做，那么值得这样做，因此将字符串扩展为32767个字符可获得更多结果.每组结果都给出了子字符串范围:

1, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.198466400 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.870958700 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.174490100 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

1000, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.253447900 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.491790500 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.193560100 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

10000, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.217812000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.268794800 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.222200200 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

同一天，同样的结论.

克苏鲁fhtagn.

(一旦再次违反，亲爱的朋友们，再一次...)

重新运行基准测试，将CLOB的大小更改为3276700，然后从中间的子字符串开始，从2475000开始，长度为25000，我得到:

+000000000 00:00:00.176883200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.069482600 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.175341500 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

(请注意，更改仅影响最后两个测试).

AND ...相同的结果，不同的日子.

YMMV.

I have a PL/SQL procedure that does a lot of SUBSTRs on a VARCHAR2 parameter. I would like to remove the length limit, so I tried to change it to CLOB.

Works fine, but performance suffers, so I did some tests (based on these tests from 2005).

UPDATE: I can reproduce this on several different instances with different Oracle versions and different hardware, dbms_lob.substr is always noticeable slower than substr(CLOB), and a lot slower than SUBSTR(VARCHAR2).

Bob's results and the tests in the link above tell a different story.

Can anyone explain this, or at least reproduce either Bob's or my results? Thanks!

Test results:

+000000000 00:00:00.004000000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.298000000 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.356000000 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

Test code:

DECLARE
  l_text   VARCHAR2(30) := 'This is a test record';
  l_clob   CLOB := l_text;
  l_substr VARCHAR2(30);
  t TIMESTAMP;
BEGIN
  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := SUBSTR(l_text,1,14);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (VARCHAR2)');

  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := SUBSTR(l_clob,1,14);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (CLOB SUBSTR)');

  t := SYSTIMESTAMP;
  FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
    l_substr := DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR(l_clob,14,1);
  END LOOP;
  dbms_output.put_line( SYSTIMESTAMP - t || ' (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)');
END;

解决方案

(Lies, damn lies, and benchmarks...)

I re-ran your test 10 times, expanding the string so it was a full 30 characters long, and got the following averaged results:

+000000000 00:00:00.011694200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.901000600 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.013169200 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

I then changed the substring range to 5,14 (14,5 for DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR) and got:

+000000000 00:00:00.011731000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:01.010840000 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.011427000 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

I then changed the range to 17,14 (14,17 for DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR) and got

+000000000 00:00:00.013578900 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.964527400 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.011416800 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

Finally, I changed the range to 25,14 (14,25 for DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR) and got

+000000000 00:00:00.011210200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:00.916439800 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.013781300 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

My conclusion is that when working against CLOB's it's best to use DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR as it appears to have effectively no performance penalty compared to using SUBSTR against a "normal" VARCHAR2. SUBSTR against a CLOB seems to suffer from a significant performance penalty. For the record - OS = HP/UX (Unix variant), Oracle version=11.1, processor=HP Itanium 2-plex. YMMV.

Share and enjoy.

And because if it's worth doing it's worth over-doing, here's some more results with the strings expanded to 32767 characters. Substring ranges given with each set of results:

1, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.198466400 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.870958700 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.174490100 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

1000, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.253447900 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.491790500 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.193560100 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

10000, 25000
+000000000 00:00:00.217812000 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.268794800 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.222200200 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

Same day, same conclusion.

Cthulhu fhtagn.

(Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...)

Re-ran the benchmarks, changing the size of the CLOB to 3276700, and taking the substring from the middle starting at 2475000 for length 25000 I get:

+000000000 00:00:00.176883200 (VARCHAR2)
+000000000 00:00:02.069482600 (CLOB SUBSTR)
+000000000 00:00:00.175341500 (DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR)

(Note that changes only affect the last two tests).

AND...same results, different day.

YMMV.

这篇关于SUBSTR在CLOB上的性能的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！

查看全文
相关文章
数据库最新文章
热门教程
热门工具
登录 关闭
扫码关注1秒登录
发送“验证码”获取 | 15天全站免登陆