Since V8.2 does not require a C compiler to build SQL stored
procedures, I am just wonderring how they are now implemented internaly
as opposed to C embedded SQL before V8.2, so, basicaly, what happens by
CREATE PROCEDURE LANGUAGE SQL statement (I noticed no C files get
generated in $INSTHOME/sqllib/function/routine/sqlproc/database/schema
directory as it was before)?
Thanks,
-Eugene 16 2079
<ef******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... Since V8.2 does not require a C compiler to build SQL stored procedures, I am just wonderring how they are now implemented internaly as opposed to C embedded SQL before V8.2, so, basicaly, what happens by CREATE PROCEDURE LANGUAGE SQL statement (I noticed no C files get generated in $INSTHOME/sqllib/function/routine/sqlproc/database/schema directory as it was before)?
Thanks, -Eugene
Comes with a built-in C compiler.
Mark A wrote: <ef******@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Since V8.2 does not require a C compiler to build SQL stored procedures, I am just wonderring how they are now implemented internaly as opposed to C embedded SQL before V8.2, so, basicaly, what happens by CREATE PROCEDURE LANGUAGE SQL statement (I noticed no C files get generated in $INSTHOME/sqllib/function/routine/sqlproc/database/schema directory as it was before)?
Thanks, -Eugene
Comes with a built-in C compiler.
We thought about it, but having to support a C-compiler on non IBM, non
Linux platforms did not sound like a good idea.
When you execute your first SQL Procedure after db2start you will find a
new process called: db2pvm
This is the "PSM Virtual Machine". When a CREATE PROCEDURE gets parsed
the procedural logic gets separated from the core SQL Statements.
The procedural part gets turned into bytecode while the SQL statements
get bound into a package and stored in SYSCAT.PACKAGES.
The bytecode gets stored in the internal description in SYSCAT.ROUTINES.
The result is fairly close to what you would get with SQLJ: a VM driving
statically compiled SQL.
There are two advantages to this:
* No more worries about OS, compiler specific PMRs
* CREATE PROCEDURE takes a fraction of the time is used to in V8.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
> > Comes with a built-in C compiler. We thought about it, but having to support a C-compiler on non IBM, non Linux platforms did not sound like a good idea.
When you execute your first SQL Procedure after db2start you will find a new process called: db2pvm This is the "PSM Virtual Machine". When a CREATE PROCEDURE gets parsed the procedural logic gets separated from the core SQL Statements. The procedural part gets turned into bytecode while the SQL statements get bound into a package and stored in SYSCAT.PACKAGES. The bytecode gets stored in the internal description in SYSCAT.ROUTINES. The result is fairly close to what you would get with SQLJ: a VM driving statically compiled SQL. There are two advantages to this: * No more worries about OS, compiler specific PMRs * CREATE PROCEDURE takes a fraction of the time is used to in V8.
Cheers Serge
What about execution time?
Mark A wrote: The result is fairly close to what you would get with SQLJ: a VM driving statically compiled SQL. There are two advantages to this: * No more worries about OS, compiler specific PMRs * CREATE PROCEDURE takes a fraction of the time is used to in V8. What about execution time?
I knew you'd ask that. :-) The goal of Stinger was to get rid of the
C-Compiler and not regress performance.
It's hard to give hard numbers, but anecdotal evidence points to a low
double digit improvement on average.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: Mark A wrote:The result is fairly close to what you would get with SQLJ: a VM driving statically compiled SQL. There are two advantages to this: * No more worries about OS, compiler specific PMRs * CREATE PROCEDURE takes a fraction of the time is used to in V8. What about execution time?
I knew you'd ask that. :-) The goal of Stinger was to get rid of the C-Compiler and not regress performance. It's hard to give hard numbers, but anecdotal evidence points to a low double digit improvement on average.
Here is some other evidence: One of our procedures went from an execution
time of 36 hours down to 15 hours just by switching from V8.1 to V8.2. ;-)
Of course, you can't simply take those numbers and apply it to everything
else.
--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration
IBM Germany / University of Jena
BTW, Oracle9i introduced so called "Native PL/SQL" where you have an
option to compile your PL/SQL stored procs, which are an interpreted
code AFAIK, into server side C libraries to improve performance. Would
we expect the same kind of DB2 SQL sroted procs compilation option
available in new DB2 releases going forward?
Another "real-life" issue: what's happens to the existing V8.1 SQL
stored procs during the instance upgrade to V8.2, are they automaticaly
converted to the internal modules from C?
Thanks,
-Eugene ef******@gmail.com wrote: BTW, Oracle9i introduced so called "Native PL/SQL" where you have an option to compile your PL/SQL stored procs, which are an interpreted code AFAIK, into server side C libraries to improve performance. Would we expect the same kind of DB2 SQL sroted procs compilation option available in new DB2 releases going forward?
DB2 has gone the exact opposite direction. Ironically we call the
intrepreted version "native" ;-)
FWIW the code has been removed.. there is no secret switch to cross
compile to C.
I'm sure Oracle had its reason to go one way, IBM had it's to go the other.
Another "real-life" issue: what's happens to the existing V8.1 SQL stored procs during the instance upgrade to V8.2, are they automaticaly converted to the internal modules from C?
No. To DB2 a V8.1 SQL PRocedure is an unfenced C procedure.
Even a rebind will not change that. When you drop and recreate the proc
it will become "native" Thanks, -Eugene
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
> When you execute your first SQL Procedure after db2start you will
find a new process called: db2pvm
Not true. No new processes are created for native SQL procedures. All
the user will see will be the typical db2agent EDU associated with the
database.
Serge can probably answer this better than I can, but:
1) We actually went the other way to get improved performance. Prior to
V82, SQL procedures WERE compiled into libraries on the server. As
Knut's previous update states, though, he's getting better performance
with the NEW method than with the old.
2) They'll still remain in library format, and will still run just fine.
They are flagged slightly differently internally, so an SQL SP
compiled prior to V82 will go through a slightly different codepath than
a V82+ SQL procedure. ef******@gmail.com wrote: BTW, Oracle9i introduced so called "Native PL/SQL" where you have an option to compile your PL/SQL stored procs, which are an interpreted code AFAIK, into server side C libraries to improve performance. Would we expect the same kind of DB2 SQL sroted procs compilation option available in new DB2 releases going forward?
Another "real-life" issue: what's happens to the existing V8.1 SQL stored procs during the instance upgrade to V8.2, are they automaticaly converted to the internal modules from C?
Thanks, -Eugene
Similarly, a v7 sql stored procedure is still run as a fenced c stored
procedure (we didn't have engine recursion, or threadsafe psm code in
v7) so if you have a lot of sps that were created in that timeline you
probably want to consider dropping and recreating them...
Serge Rielau wrote: ef******@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, Oracle9i introduced so called "Native PL/SQL" where you have an option to compile your PL/SQL stored procs, which are an interpreted code AFAIK, into server side C libraries to improve performance. Would we expect the same kind of DB2 SQL sroted procs compilation option available in new DB2 releases going forward?
DB2 has gone the exact opposite direction. Ironically we call the intrepreted version "native" ;-) FWIW the code has been removed.. there is no secret switch to cross compile to C. I'm sure Oracle had its reason to go one way, IBM had it's to go the other.
Another "real-life" issue: what's happens to the existing V8.1 SQL stored procs during the instance upgrade to V8.2, are they automaticaly converted to the internal modules from C?
No. To DB2 a V8.1 SQL PRocedure is an unfenced C procedure. Even a rebind will not change that. When you drop and recreate the proc it will become "native"
Thanks, -Eugene
This thread started me thinking (rarely a good idea):
Does this new "internal compilation" model imply in any way that C
stored procs are undesirable for the long haul? We're starting to build
a library of them - mostly related to utility API interfaces like LOAD,
REORG/RUNSTATS, etc that have no other interfaces. Will these become
obsolete or unsupported over time?
I've noticed that IBM is beginning to surface things in table functions
(like SNAPSHOT, etc) that used to be available only through C APIs.
peteh wrote: This thread started me thinking (rarely a good idea):
Does this new "internal compilation" model imply in any way that C stored procs are undesirable for the long haul? We're starting to build a library of them - mostly related to utility API interfaces like LOAD, REORG/RUNSTATS, etc that have no other interfaces. Will these become obsolete or unsupported over time?
Absolutely not. Note that some other vendors are just getting into
external procedures. There is nothing short of assembler to beat the
performance of C code.
Also it's a standard language to write all sorts of wrappers for APIs
(not only DB2 APIs).
It is probably fair to say that your standard SMB customer does not have
the skills to write C Procedures.
So you may, over time, see Java or SQL Procedures for the app side and C
Procedures for the interfaces. I've noticed that IBM is beginning to surface things in table functions (like SNAPSHOT, etc) that used to be available only through C APIs.
Yes, thought is that customers shouldn't keep repeating the same work.
The advantage of SQL interfaces is that any client interface talking to
DB2 knows SQL.
Cheers
Serge
PS: Don't let this discourage you from publishing your C procs :-)
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Oh cool!... as far as the upgrade from V8.1 to V8.2 does not touch the
old/existing V8.1 SQL stored, i.e. implemented as external C ones,
procs in the database being upgraded, it seems possible to create the
same stored procs, i.e.of exactly the same SQL code, but just with
different names in V8.2 right after the upgrade complete and then
compare the performance from the same code run as C vs. the internal
implementation. If someone has done that it would be very interesting
to hear the results of that testing (I would love to do that on my own
but unfortunately dont have a relevant environment).
Regards,
-Eugene
Thanks Serge;
As usual, I appreciate your insights.
peteh
p.s. Knut has been a huge help in supplementing the sample library in
this arena, so I owe him a "thank you" as well. ef******@gmail.com wrote: Oh cool!... as far as the upgrade from V8.1 to V8.2 does not touch the old/existing V8.1 SQL stored, i.e. implemented as external C ones, procs in the database being upgraded, it seems possible to create the same stored procs, i.e.of exactly the same SQL code, but just with different names in V8.2 right after the upgrade complete and then compare the performance from the same code run as C vs. the internal implementation. If someone has done that it would be very interesting to hear the results of that testing (I would love to do that on my own but unfortunately dont have a relevant environment).
Yes, you could do that. Would be a nice apples to apples test.
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: peteh wrote: This thread started me thinking (rarely a good idea):
Does this new "internal compilation" model imply in any way that C stored procs are undesirable for the long haul? We're starting to build a library of them - mostly related to utility API interfaces like LOAD, REORG/RUNSTATS, etc that have no other interfaces. Will these become obsolete or unsupported over time?
Absolutely not. Note that some other vendors are just getting into external procedures. There is nothing short of assembler to beat the performance of C code.
Right. Whether to choose SQL/PL or C code really depends on what you want
to do in the procedure (and how important performance is). If you have
lots and lots of communication with the database engine, then SQL/PL might
be a better choice that embedded SQL or CLI in C code. If you do a bunch
of stuff that doesn't really touch the database so much, C is probably a
better choice.
--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration
IBM Germany / University of Jena This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: FET |
last post by:
Hello,
I am in a bit of a conflict here. I would like to know if the stored
procedures that I write in PL/PGSQL to run on PostgreSQL 7.4.2 are
ANSI compliant. The point of asking this question is...
|
by: Anthony Robinson |
last post by:
Have been encountering an odd issue. Every now and again, certain
packages of stored procedures just become invalid. I'm aware that
dropping or altering an underlying table would render a package...
|
by: Kent Lewandowski |
last post by:
hi all,
Recently I wrote some stored procedures using java jdbc code
(admittedly my first stab) and then tried to implement the same within
java packages (for code reuse). I encountered...
|
by: Tim Marshall |
last post by:
I was following the thread "Re: Access Treeview - Is it Safe Yet?" with
interest and on reading the post describing Lauren Quantrell's
SmartTree, I've run into something I don't understand: Stored...
|
by: JIM.H. |
last post by:
Hello,
Is there any difference to between SLQ string in the code and call execute
query and call a stored procedure and execute the query that way concerning
speed, effectiveness, reliability,...
|
by: John |
last post by:
Hi
When developing vb.bet winform apps bound to sql server datasource, is it
preferable to use SELECTs or stored procedure to read and write data from/to
SQL Server? Why?
Thanks
Regards
|
by: mooreit |
last post by:
The purpose for my questions is accessing these technologies from
applications. I develop both applications and databases. Working with
Microsoft C#.NET and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Production and...
|
by: Bruce A. Julseth |
last post by:
I'm new to having to write stored procedures and would appreciate some good
books I can use to learn. I searched Amazon and really wasn't happy with
what I found, but maybe I really didn't know...
|
by: peter |
last post by:
I am trying to get a SQL stored procedure to use user maintained MQT
implicitly which raises questions on when they are used or not used.
In theory you would expect the stored procedure to pick up...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |