Database Links and PeopleSoft

I have seen Oracle database links used in conjuction with PeopleSoft at a number of customer sites over the years. I think some scenarios are examples where it is reasonable to use a database link, some are not.
In Oracle RDBMS, a database link (see also the Oracle Concepts Manual) specifies how a database server can create a session on another database in order to perform a remote operation. The remote database may be another Oracle database, or another type of database. The remote operation may be a query, or it may modify remote data (DML operation), in which case a two-phase commit mechanism ensures transaction integrity across the databases.

PeopleSoft does not use database links between databases because they are a database platform specific technology. Instead, the PeopleSoft methodology is to replicate data between databases with an application message. This works well with small data sets, and with larger data sets that change slowly. However, there are scenarios with very large data volumes where Application Messaging will struggle to keep up, and Oracle RDMBS specific replication technologies are an appropriate alternative.

Data can be replicated between databases with Materialised Views (formerly known as Snapshots). This is a SQL based technology. Materialised Views Logs on the source database track changes in the source table. An incremental or full refresh process is run on the target, usually as a scheduled job.

Oracle introduced an alternative replication technology in Oracle 9i called ‘Streams’. This uses supplementary redo logging on the source database which can then be applied to the target. Additional database server processes transmit, receive and apply this redo stream. This technology is aimed a large volume replication for data warehouses. I know of one site where several hundred database tables are replicated from PeopleSoft HR to a data warehouse.

I think the clearest way is to explain the good and bad use of links is by example.

At two different sites with HR and Finance, I have seen similar examples of both good and bad use of database links (one was on PeopleTools 7.0, before Application Messaging was available).

• GL data needs to be sent from Payroll in the HR database to GL in the Financials database. The PeopleSoft delivered mechanism was to use generate and reload an interface file. This customer changed replaced the interface table in HR with a view that referenced a table with the same name and structure on the Financial system via a link. The payroll GL extract process now inserted directly into the table on Financials. I think this is a perfectly reasonable use of a database link. It was simple. It performed better than the interface file, and would certainly have been faster than application messaging. 
  

• However, the same customer also used the employee expenses module in Financials. This required employee personal data. So they made the PS_PERSONAL_DATA table in Financials a view of the corresponding table in HR. The result was that every time somebody opened the expenses component in Financials, the application server process referenced the database link to HR. There is a limit on the maximum number of database links that a session can concurrently open (OPEN_LINKS) and that the whole database instance can concurrently open (OPEN_LINKS_PER_INSTANCE). They both default is 4, which gives an indication of how Oracle expect you to use this feature. This system ran out of database links. No Oracle errors were generated, instead sessions wait to be allowed to make the connection to the remote database. There are specific database link wait events that report the amount of time lost.  Eventually you reach the point where Tuxedo services timeout and then users receive errors. I think this is an example of the wrong way to use a database link. Instead I think that the data should have been replicated from HR to Financials. In a modern PeopleSoft system this should be done with an application message (on the 7.0 system a Materialised View could have been used). 

• Not only were database links used to provide data to components, but the same views, that referenced remote objects, were used in queries and reports resulting in complex distributed queries. When multiple remote objects are referenced in a single SQL, I have seen Oracle decide to copy the whole of one or more of these objects to the local temporary tablespace. This does not result in good performance. Remember also, that even query only operations via a database link create a transaction on the remains until a commit or rollback is issued.
  

• I worked on another site where Materialised Views were used to incrementally replicate data from CRM and HR to EPM databases. Processes in the EPM database then referenced the Materialised Views. In this system, there was never any question of EPM processes referencing objects via the links. The data volumes were such that Application Messaging would never have coped. In this case only the Materialised View refresh process references the database links, and so the DBA can manage the usage of links. This is a system where (after upgrade to Oracle 10g) Streams could also have been used to replicate the data.

Conclusion

My view is that database links should not be used to directly support functionality in either on-line components or reporting. When this is done in reports and queries it presents the problem of tuning distributed queries, and having to decide whether local or remote database should drive the query. Instead data should be replicated to the local database, preferably by PeopleSoft messaging, but if necessary by Oracle replication. However, I think that it can be reasonable to use a database link in an occasional batch process that moves data between systems.

Aggregating & Purging Batch Timings

Application Engine can collect timing information for the programs being execution. These 'batch timings' can be written to log file and/or tables in the database. I always recommend that this is enabled in all environments. The runtime overhead is very low, and this data is extremely valuable to determine the performance of a system over a period of time, and to identify the pieces of SQL or PeopleCode code that account for the most time. The timing data collected for individual processes can be viewed directly within the Process Monitor component.

The Process Scheduler purge process does not delete batch timings, so this data remains in the database indefinitely, although it can no longer be accessed via the Process Monitor. Over time, on a busy system, a large volume of data can accumulate. In some ways this is a good thing. There are good reasons to purge the Process Scheduler as aggressively as the business will permit.  The batch timings can still be analysed by direct SQL query. However, the sheer volume of data is likely to result in queries that can take quite a while to execute. After a while, you are less likely to be interested in the performance of individual processes, but are more likely to want to aggregate the data. So, it makes sense to hold the data at least partly aggregated.

I have produced a very simple Application Engine program (GFC_TIM_ARCH) to address this problem. This program is available for download from the Go-Faster website as a PeopleTools Application Designer Project. Please note that this process has been written using Oracle RDBMS specific SQL syntax.

• Application Engine stores batch timing data in three table PS_BAT_TIMINGS_LOG, PS_BAT_TIMINGS_FN and PS_BAT_TIMINGS_DTL.
• I have created three new tables PS_GFC_TIMINGS_LOG, PS_GFC_TIMINGS_FN and PS_GFC_TIMINGS_DTL.
• GFC_TIM_ARCH aggregates the data in each of these tables by the day on which the process begin, by the process name, and (where applicable) by the 'detail_id' column. The aggregated data is put into the GFC_TIMINGS% tables, the original data is removed from the BAT_TIMINGS% tables.
• It finds the earliest three days for which timing data exists that is older than the longest Process Scheduler retention limit. The idea is that the process should be run daily (the delivered 'Daily Purge' recurrence is suitable), but if it doesn't run for some reason it will catch up the next day.
• Only one instance of WMS_TIM_ARCH is permitted to run concurrently.

On one system, where I tested this process, BAT_TIMINGS_DTL was growing by over 1 million rows per day. This became around 5000 rows per day in GFC_TIMINGS_DTL.

If you have been running with batch timings for a while, then when you first introduce this process you will probably have a large backlog of data to be aggregated and purged. The easiest option is to run this process repeatedly until the data has been processed (possibly using the recurrence that causes a program to run every minute). After the backlog has been cleared the BAT_TIMINGS% tables should be rebuilt or shrunk in order to release the space left in the tables by the deleted rows. This will help queries that scan the BAT_TIMINGS_DTL record, otherwise these scans still need to include the empty rows because they are below the tables High Water Mark.

Once the backlog has been cleared, the GFC_TIM_ARCH process can run daily and, not withstanding variations in the load on the system, the rolling volume of data retained in the BAT_TIMINGS% tables should be fairly constant, and it should not be necessary to rebuild them frequently. Space freed by the daily delete should be used by new rows that are inserted into the table as AE processes run.

Identifying Application Engine Source Code

One of the recurring challenges of performance tuning PeopleSoft systems is that having identified a problem SQL statement with the aid of a database utility, such as Oracle Enterprise Manager or session trace, you often need to identify the source so that you can implement a change.

Stored Outlines and SQL Profiles do not work well with PeopleSoft. Bind variables in Application Engines often become literals before the SQL statement is submitted to the database, unless the ReUse Statement feature has been enabled, which it is not by default.

I wrote about this in PeopleSoft for the Oracle DBA, it contains a script called stmtid.sql (listing 11-23, page 280) that adds an identifying comment to each of the stored statements used by PeopleSoft COBOL programs.

Now, I have produced a similar script for Application Engine programs. The script aeid.sql adds identification comments containing the name of object. It directly modifies the PeopleTools tables for Application Engine steps and PeopleSoft SQL objects. These comments will be seen in database tools and traces. So now when your database tools find a problem statement, it is easy to find the source.

Below, is part of a screen shot from Oracle Enterprise Manager. You can see the identifying comment in the SQL, which was added by this script


The comment identifies the name of the Application Engine program, section, step and step type. In this example, the SQL is from an Application Engine ID GPGB_EDI_PRC, in section called EDI_PRC, in a SQL type step called Step01.

For example, if you need adjust this SQL statement, perhaps add a hint to it, you don't have to spend time working out where it came from. It is not uncommon to find many similar SQL statements in a program. Also, where dynamic code is used to generate the SQL statement, it can be very tricky to find the exact source.

Using aeid.sql

• You will need to edit the script each time, to specify which Application Engine programs and SQL objects are to be commented. The script is not perfect. It does not handle some very long statements, so you cannot simply instrument the entire system in one go.
  
• The script is designed to run in SQL*Plus.
• It produces a report of statements that it has altered.
• The script does not commit. You should either commit or rollback the update depending upon whether you are satisfied with the output.
• I suggest that the script only be run in pre-production environments. The comments will of course be migrated along with any other changes.
  

Automatic Segment Space -v- Freelist Management for PeopleSoft Temporary Records

Earlier this year, I wrote about some research into the effects of concurrent TRUNCATE TABLE operations in concurrent PeopleSoft Application Engine process. Since then I have been prompted to look at the effect of Automatic Segment Space -v- Freelist (or Manual) Management.

ASSM was introduced in Oracle 9i for Locally Managed Tablespaces, and from Oracle 10g it is default option, It was designed for high concurrency systems, and avoids some of the problems, such as contention on header blocks, that can occur with Freelist Management. It uses tracking blocks to indicate utilisation of data blocks. The ASSM structure is similar to a B-tree index (see Tanel Poder's presentation: Freelists -v- ASSM in Oracle 9i).

Normally, using ASSM is preferable in multi-user OLTP systems. The reduction in contention on the freelists should outweigh the additional I/O for the tracking blocks.

However, non-shared instances of PeopleSoft Temporary Records are only used by a single Application Engine process at any one time. Therefore, there would be no contention on freelists for these objects, and so DML operations on these objects will not derive much benefit from ASSM. In fact, the contrary could easily be true. The additional tracking blocks are also maintained during DML and are cleared out by local writes during a truncate operation. Truncate operations are serialised in Oracle on the RO enqueue. If you run multiple concurrent Application Engine programs you can get contention between the truncate operations. The additional I/O on the ASSM tracking blocks causes the truncate to take longer and in extreme cases can aggravate truncate contention.

The local write operations that occur during truncate operations cannot be deferred. Significant truncate contention can be a symptom of disk contention. However, switching back to Freelist Management saves the I/O to the tracking blocks, and so improves the performance of truncate.

I ran a test where I truncated a table with 5000 rows. I examined an Oracle trace with waits of the truncate. I tested it in an ASSM tablespace, and Freelist Managed tablespace. I tested truncating just the table on its own, and sometimes with an index.

Number of Wait Events	Table only, without any indexes			With a single primary key index
Tablespace Type	db file sequential read	enq: RO - fast object reuse	local writes	db file sequential read	enq: RO - fast object reuse	local writes
Automatic Segment Space Management	8	1	4	16	2	9
Freelist Management	3	1	1	6	2	3

You can see from this table that the truncates in the ASSM tablespace required more single block reads (db_file_sequential_read) and more local writes.

Recommendation

In addition to my previous recommendation to move the all (non-shared instances) of temporary working storage tables, and their indexes, to tablespaces with a larger block size, I also recommend that those tablespaces should be specified with MANUAL segment space management.

PeopleSoft and the Oracle Recycle Bin

If you are running PeopleSoft on Oracle 10g, what do you do about the Recycle Bin? It is a new feature in Oracle 10g, and it is enabled by default. So you are using it, unless you have taken a decision to the contrary.

It works just like the Windows recycle bin. You can drop a table and then flash it back (they didn't call it UNDROP because Oracle marketing now calls everything Flashback). So when you drop a table, Oracle marks it as dropped, and renames it with a system generated name beginning with BIN$. You can look at the contents of the Recycle Bin through a catalogue view.

>create table t (a number);
>drop table t;
>select * from user_recyclebin

OBJECT_NAME                    ORIGINAL_NAME                    OPERATION TYPE
------------------------------ -------------------------------- --------- -------------------------
TS_NAME                        CREATETIME          DROPTIME               DROPSCN
------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ----------
PARTITION_NAME                   CAN CAN    RELATED BASE_OBJECT PURGE_OBJECT      SPACE
-------------------------------- --- --- ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------
BIN$ZCLja8iAA9LgRAAOf+3h5A==$0 T                                DROP      TABLE
PSDEFAULT                      2009-03-02:13:35:12 2009-03-02:13:35:14 9.7561E+12
                          YES YES     776642      776642       776642          4

If you don't want a table to go into the recycle bin when you drop it, you can code DROP TABLE ... PURGE - but PeopleSoft doesn't do this.

PeopleSoft alter scripts usually drop and recreate tables. In a production system this is often the best option, otherwise you run the risk of causing rows to migrate to other blocks when you add new columns. In one system, I found 17000 objects in the recycle bin, occupying 1.3Gb.

My Opinion

Personally, I would disable the recycle bin by setting the initialisation parameter RECYCLEBIN = OFF in all PeopleSoft environments, with the possible exception of the development environment.

The RECYCLEBIN parameter can also be set dynamically at session or system level. You could perhaps turn it on prior to upgrade/data migration procedures, and then when satisfied turn it off again and manually purge the recycle bin.

I think Oracle features should be used knowingly. It doesn't matter whether you decide to use a feature or not. It is important that in making that decision you have thought about how to deal with the implications, rather than be surprised later.