Oracle Scratchpad

June 16, 2009

Clean it up

Filed under: Infrastructure — Jonathan Lewis @ 7:08 pm UTC Jun 16,2009

There is some confusion about the expression “clean” in Oracle circles, so I thought I’d write a short note to explain the different ways in which the word may be applied to Oracle blocks. There are five terms to consider:

  1. clean
  2. commit cleanout
  3. block cleanout
  4. delayed block cleanout
  5. delayed logging block cleanout

Clean:

A block (or, to be strictly accurate, a buffered copy of a block) is “clean” if and only if the copy in memory is the same as the version on disc. Conversly, if the copy in memory and the version on disc differ (presumably because something has modified the in-memory copy) then the buffer copy is “dirty”.

You have to be  a little careful when checking for dirty blocks, though. The buffer header structure (x$bh) includes a column called flag which uses a bit string to tell us about the state of the buffer. Bit zero in this flag is the “buffer_dirty” bit so we can easily check which buffers are considered dirty. There’s a little trap, though. Oracle only needs to write dirty buffers that are also “current” versions (CUR) and you will find that it doesn’t reset the “buffer_dirty” flag when it makes a read-consistent (CR) copy of the block – or in various other circumstances.  So if you’re trying to count the number of dirty buffers in x$bh, don’t forget to restrict your count to those where the “state” column is set to 1 or 2 (XCUR and SCUR)

There is a common misunderstanding about what happens when DBWR (the database writer) writes a block to disc. I have often seen people say that the copy of the block is “flushed” from the cache when the write takes place (i.e. implying that the block disappears from the cache). Most of the time this is not true – the dbwr has two main reasons for writing and only one of them is followed by a call to free the buffer that’s just been written.

One reason for writing is simply to keep the data files reasonably up to date; in this case the buffered copy of the block changes from dirty to clean but is not flushed from memory. The other reason is when a session has been searching for a free buffer, fails to find one soon enough, and calls DBWR to make some free space in the buffer cache – and that’s the case when DBWR flushes blocks from memory (or, to be accurate, marks the buffer as free) after copying them to disc. (There are a couple of other special cases, e.g. truncating tables, putting tablespaces offline, etc.).

Commit Cleanout:

When you modify some data you will make some buffered blocks “dirty”. It is quite possible that the database writer will copy those blocks to disc (marking the buffers “clean”) before you issue your commit. When you issue the commit, your session will update its transaction table slot (which is in an undo segment header block), generating a little redo to describe this action, and then call the log writer (lgwr) to write.

Optionally, your session may also revisit a few of the blocks it has modified (nominally up to 10% of the buffer cache) and mark the associated ITL (interested transaction list) entry in those blocks with the “commit SCN”. It is this activity that is called a commit cleanout. The commit cleanout does not do a complete tidy up on the block (it leaves lock bytes in place, for example), it simply ensures that the next process to see the block knows that your transaction has committed and when it committed. This feature was introduced some around Oracle version 7.3 to reduce block pinging in OPS  (Oracle Parallel Server, the precursor to RAC).

Note that any of the blocks that had previously been written by dbwr will have been made “dirty” again if your sessions does applies a commit cleanout to them, so dbwr will have to write them to disc again eventually. Although a commit cleanout changes blocks it does not create any redo to describe those changes – and it doesn’t report db block gets for the block vists that do the changes.

Block Cleanout / Delayed Block Cleanout:

It’s possible that some of the blocks changed by your transaction were written to disc by dbwr and were even flushed from the buffer cache before you issued the commit. Your session will not re-read these blocks in order to do a commit cleanout on them. In fact, if your transaction was quite large and modified a lot of blocks, it’s quite possible that your session will not even do a commit cleanout on all of the blocks that are still in memory – Oracle doesn’t want to make the user wait for a commit to complete,  so it’s a bit lazy about commit cleanout.

At some later point in time another session may read one of those blocks and discover that the ITL includes a transaction that has committed but not been cleaned out. (It can work this out by cross-checking the ITL entry with the relevant transaction table slot in the undo segment header block).

 This session will read the commit SCN from the transaction table slot, tidy up the block’s ITL entry, and clear all the related lock bytes.  (And it will do this for all committed transactions it finds on the block).  This process is known as block cleanout, and because this full cleanout mechanism never takes place on the commit it is more commonly known as delayed block cleanout.

The delayed block cleanout operation changes the block so it generates redo – which is why you may see redo being generated on a select statement, especially after a very big update. (Interestingly, Oracle will report db block changes as this happens – but doesn’t record the block visits as db block gets.)

Delayed Logging Block Cleanout

Finally, let’s go back to a block that was subject to commit cleanout. If you query this block you can see the effects of the committed transaction, but since the commit cleanout wrote the commit SCN into its ITL slot you know when the transaction committed and generally don’t need to do anything to tidy the block up as you read it. However if you want to update the block you’re made responsible for finishing the cleanout of the block – in fact you may even want to re-use that ITL entry and update some of the rows which are still showing a lock byte. So, at this point, you complete the block cleanout, and generate redo that describes not only the changed you are now making but also the earlier commit cleanout.  This process is known as ‘delayed logging’ block cleanout – because the redo log for the commit cleanout has been delayed until this moment.

There are lots more tiny bits of information, odd behaviour in special cases, and peculiarities of statistics reporting that I could go into – but I’ve probably confused enough people already, so I’ll stop there.

26 Comments »

  1. Nice post Jonathan.

    Every time I see anything about dirty blocks I am reminded of an old entry in the appendix (or was it the index – well one of those lists in the back of the book). Anyway, it was in one of the DBA manuals (version 5 or something). I had run across something about Dirty Reads and I was looking it up. The entry said “Dirty Reads – Done Dirt Cheap”. I almost busted a gut laughing. (Actually I’m still chuckling) I always figured it was an AC/DC fan in the documentation group that was able to sneak one by the proof readers.

    Kerry

    Comment by Kerry Osborne — June 17, 2009 @ 3:55 am UTC Jun 17,2009 | Reply

  2. My goodness, Kerry! That made my day! Now I’ll be singing AC/DC all day!

    And Jonathan, this is a great post to add to some training I will be doing in house! Thanks so much!

    Carol

    Comment by Carol D — June 19, 2009 @ 2:32 pm UTC Jun 19,2009 | Reply

  3. Thank you for the great links Jonathan. Everything is clear now as day :) .

    BTW. I did make another comment before (it was not published?), but you can disregard it now after posting these links.

    Domagoj

    Comment by Domagoj — June 20, 2009 @ 7:57 pm UTC Jun 20,2009 | Reply

  4. We have a fairly large collection of Oracle manuals in our “Miracle Lex de Haan Memorial Oracle Museum” (or whatever we called it when we founded it a few years ago :) ), including database docs that go back to version 3, so I’ll see if I can find an entry with dirty reads done dirt cheap somewhere.

    Greetings from Mogens (who will be present at the AC/DC concert on Friday at Wembley…)

    Comment by Mogens Nørgaard — June 21, 2009 @ 4:19 am UTC Jun 21,2009 | Reply

  5. Mogens,

    Greetings. I checked the V5 DBA guide and it didn’t have it. (that’s the same doc set as the one I donated to the afore mentioned Museum). One of my co-workers said they thought it was in a newer version than that and he remembered it being in an Architecture manual. Good luck on the search. And have fun at the show. Although I don’t think the bands been quite the same since Bon Scott’s passing (oops, I’m dating myself)

    Kerry

    Comment by Kerry Osborne — June 22, 2009 @ 12:32 am UTC Jun 22,2009 | Reply

  6. [...] Jonathan Lewis-Clean it up [...]

    Pingback by Blogroll Report 12/06/09 – 19/06/09 « Coskan’s Approach to Oracle — June 23, 2009 @ 11:24 am UTC Jun 23,2009 | Reply

  7. [...] cleanout: See this generic note on various uses of the term “clean” in [...]

    Pingback by Glossary « Oracle Scratchpad — June 26, 2009 @ 7:12 pm UTC Jun 26,2009 | Reply

  8. [...]  Chris Dunscombe from SIG committee  did a small presentation about the problem they had with Delayed Cleanout and ORA-1555 problem.  End of his presentation there was a perfect discussion between Joel Goodman [...]

    Pingback by UKOUG DBMS SIG July 2009 « Coskan’s Approach to Oracle — July 2, 2009 @ 12:06 pm UTC Jul 2,2009 | Reply

  9. Jonathan, regarding to your article “Read only tablespaces”. I didnt check 10g, but it seems things has changed in 11g.

    When i change row in that tablespace in one session, and trying to execute alter tablespace readonly in second session it it waites for “unbound tx”. BUT, there is no need to wait “outstanding transactions that started before the call to make the tablespace read only”. If that transactions doesnt change data in that tablespace, conversion to read only happens immediately. Somehow oracle tracks these things now?

    Comment by Alexey — July 6, 2009 @ 8:20 am UTC Jul 6,2009 | Reply

    • Alexey,
      I don’t see this on 11.1.0.6:
      session 1: update table in tablespace test_8k.
      session 2: alter tablespace test_8k read only; — hangs showing TX mode 4 in v$lock, waiting on the transaction from session 1, and continutes only after session 1 commits.

      Similarly
      session 1: update table in tablespace test_8k;
      session 2: alter tablespace users read only; — hangs in the same way.

      Tested in 10g and 11g.

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — July 9, 2009 @ 6:36 pm UTC Jul 9,2009 | Reply

      • Jonathan, i double checked that again in 11.1.0.7. It is works the same way as i said earlier.
        If it is possible, check that again on 11.1.0.7, please.

        Comment by Alexey — July 10, 2009 @ 5:35 am UTC Jul 10,2009 | Reply

      • Jonathan, i was told by support that It is bug 2227223.
        Filed 14-FEB-2002 in 8.1.7.2.

        Fixed in 11.1.0.7.
        It took 7 years to fix :)

        Comment by Alexey — July 10, 2009 @ 7:29 am UTC Jul 10,2009 | Reply

      • Jonathan, regarding to read only tablespaces. We have found than oracle uses ktutsn_find function to find out the list of tablespaces in wich transaction has made any changes.

        Comment by Alexey — August 14, 2009 @ 10:58 am UTC Aug 14,2009 | Reply

  10. ” This session will read the commit SCN from the transaction table slot, tidy up the block’s ITL entry, and clear all the related lock bytes. (And it will do this for all committed transactions it finds on the block). This process is known as block cleanout, and because this full cleanout mechanism never takes place on the commit it is more commonly known as delayed block cleanout.”

    Is it mean that in delayed block cleanout DBWR doesn’t write all dirty blocks to datafile but writes on datafile header so that it should look like commited?

    Regards,
    Avi

    Comment by Avi — July 31, 2009 @ 1:49 pm UTC Jul 31,2009 | Reply

    • Avi,
      Your question doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the paragraph you have quoted.
      I think you have to read the notes again, but remembering the following:

      DBWR has nothing to do with commits, or block cleanout – it simply writes buffers to disk, and a block is clean if the in-memory copy is identical to the on-disk copy.

      A transaction is committed if and only if its transaction table entry, which will be in the header block of an undo segment, says that it has been committed.

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — August 6, 2009 @ 4:15 pm UTC Aug 6,2009 | Reply

  11. Respected Sir;

    You mentioned that:

    “Note that any of the blocks that had previously been written by dbwr will have been made “dirty” again and dbwr will have to write them to disc again eventually.”

    Assume I generated some dirty blocks and checkpoint occured(before the commit) and these dirty blocks are written to datafiles and become clean.

    When I issue commit, Do these block become dirty again? I have some doubts

    Comment by Scofield — August 4, 2009 @ 8:57 am UTC Aug 4,2009 | Reply

  12. Sir,
    Does commit generate redo? I have some doubts during readong commit cleanout topic.

    “When you issue the commit, your session will update its transaction table slot (which is in an undo segment header block), generating a little redo to describe this action.”
    “Although a commit cleanout changes blocks it does not create any redo to describe those changes – and it doesn’t report db block gets for the block vists that do the changes.”

    Comment by Scofield — August 8, 2009 @ 7:38 am UTC Aug 8,2009 | Reply

    • Scofield:

      If you’re not prepared to voice your doubts I won’t be able to address them. Quoting a couple of sentences that I’ve written doesn’t tell me anything about the way you’re thinking.

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — August 10, 2009 @ 10:16 pm UTC Aug 10,2009 | Reply

      • I think he was meaning to say, “It looks like you said a Commit leads to a little redo generation, but you also say a Commit does not lead to redo generation”.

        But I think he’s confusing redo associated with the transaction slot following a Commit, and non-redo associated with a commit cleanout.

        Comment by Nigel — November 9, 2009 @ 1:00 pm UTC Nov 9,2009 | Reply

        • Nigel,

          Possible, but we may never know.

          But it’s possible that by asking him to state the source of his doubt I encouraged him to read the text more carefully and note that he was confusing the actions of the “commit” with the actions of the “commit cleanout” and answer his own question.

          Comment by Jonathan Lewis — November 9, 2009 @ 6:29 pm UTC Nov 9,2009

  13. The “Dirty Reads (Done Dirt Cheap)” was certainly present in the Oracle 7 manual set back in 1996. I can’t remember if it was in the Concepts or DBA Guide now, but I was so impressed with it that I “archived” a copy of that manual from my place of work at the time, so I can go and check :)

    Oracle seem to have lost their sense of humour in the interim!

    Simon

    Comment by Simon Holt — November 6, 2009 @ 3:13 pm UTC Nov 6,2009 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.