AT&T Grandfathers Unlimited Data Plans with iPhone 5 [CONFIRMED]

Following the much anticipated announcement of Apple’s iPhone 5 today, a single unanswered question has been weighing on my mind. Will AT&T customers with existing unlimited data plans still be grandfathered in if they choose to purchase a new iPhone 5 at the subsidized prices ($199 for 16GB, $299 for 32GB, $399 for 64GB)? The answer is here, and it is a resounding “yes”!

CONFIRMED [9/12/2012]: According to today’s AT&T press release, users with unlimited plans will definitely be able to keep them:

“We are thrilled to offer iPhone 5 on the nation’s largest 4G network. We’ve worked with Apple since the original in 2007 and this is hands-down their best phone yet,” said Ralph de la Vega, president & CEO, AT&T Mobility. “We offer customers the flexibility to keep the iPhone data plans they already have or choose any of our individual or new Mobile Share plans. We’re proud that more customers choose AT&T for iPhone than any other U.S. carrier and look forward to making iPhone 5 the newest addition to our lineup.”

Verizon’s Poor Customer Service Decision

Avid Apple enthusiasts may recall that Verizon nixed unlimited plans for subsidized upgrades back in May 2012, a poor customer service move indeed. While Verizon still allows users to keep the plans by purchasing the unsubsidized iPhone, it does not make a lot of sense to spend hundreds of extra dollars on what may amount to $5-$20 per month (or nothing at all) in savings on the tiered plans.

Two AT&T Representatives Confirm Grandfather Rule

I called AT&T (1-888-333-6651) and spoke with a woman named Patricia, who assured me that as long as I upgraded my phone to an iPhone 5 through an AT&T representative, I would be able to keep my plan. She did caution me against upgrading at the Apple Store, not because it was not allowed, but that because last year some less-educated customers accidentally signed up for a new data plan at the Apple Store, and as AT&T will tell you, “Once the unlimited data plan has been removed, it cannot be added again”.

I also used Live Chat support on AT&T’s website and spoke to a person name Andre who confirmed that information; the transcript is posted below:

You are now chatting with Andre S., an AT&T sales representative.

Andre S.: Welcome to AT&T online Sales support. How may I assist you with placing your order today?

Scott: Hi Andre S. I currently have an unlimited Data plan for my iPhone 4. Will I lose this unlimited data plan if I choose to upgrade to an iPhone 5 at the subsidized price?

Andre S.: Hi Scott!! I'll be happy to assist you today with your inquiry.
Andre S.: You will not lose your data plan if you upgrade to a new phone.

Scott: even the iPhone 5 with LTE?

Andre S.: No matter which phone you get.

Scott: does it matter if I order via the Apple Store or the AT&T store?

Andre S.: It would not matter you will still be keeping your old plan.

Scott: Thank you

Disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T and cannot guarantee that, even if AT&T has a company-wide policy of grandfathering plans, your particular representative will be able to upgrade your phone without accidentally losing your data plan. As always, buyer beware.

sql query optimization – why temp tables can help

Last month, I migrated the jforum.net forum data to a coderanch jforum forum.  I had a requirement/goal to update the links in our forum so they work rather than point to the jforum broken links.

First I created the mapping.  (lesson: store this data as you migrate so you don’t have to do it later.)  I wound up mapping on subject lines and dates.  Luckily the threads were migrated in numeric order so I could fill in the gaps.  But that wasn’t interesting enough to blog about.  What was interesting enough to blog about was the SQL queries to update the database.

My goal

I wanted to make the changes entirely through the database – no Java code.  I also wanted to avoid postgres stored procedures because I encountered some time sinks last time I wrote a postgres stored procedure.  I am happy to say I achieved my goal.

Step 1 – Analysis

Noted that I need to update 375 rows.  Too many to do by hand.  There are just under 5000 posts in the jforum forum.  Which means therea rea t most 5000 search/replace strings to check.  This doesn’t seem bad for a computer.  Once I know the SQL, I can write code to generate 5000 of them using my local mappings and then run the SQL script on the server.

select * from jforum_posts_text where post_text like '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/%'

Step 2 – Horrible performing but functional query

It’s got to work before you can tune it.  My first attempt was:

explain update jforum_posts_text set post_text=replace(post_text, 'http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page','http://www.coderanch.com/t/574339 ')  where post_text like '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%';

The query plan was:

Seq Scan on jforum_posts_text (cost=0.00..132971.82 rows=1 width=459) 
Filter: (post_text ~~ '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%'::text)

5000 of those is going to take over an hour of hitting the database hard. Not good. I could run it over the weekend when volumes are need be, but I can do better than that.

Step 3 – Trying to use an index

I know that most (95% maybe) of the updates are in the JForum forum.  We had a few “legacy” links to jforum.net in other forums, but not a lot.  I then tried adding a condition on forum id

explain update jforum_posts_text set post_text=replace(post_text, 'http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page','http://www.coderanch.com/t/574339 ')  where post_text like '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%' and post_id in (select post_id from jforum_posts where forum_id = 95);

The query plan was:

Nested Loop (cost=22133.48..97281.40 rows=1 width=459)
HashAggregate (cost=22133.48..22263.46 rows=12998 width=4)
Bitmap Heap Scan on jforum_posts (cost=245.18..22100.99 rows=12998 width=4)
Recheck Cond: (forum_id = 95)
Bitmap Index Scan on idx_posts_forum (cost=0.00..241.93 rows=12998 width=0)
Index Cond: (forum_id = 95)
Index Scan using jforum_posts_text_pkey on jforum_posts_text (cost=0.00..5.76 rows=1 width=459)
Index Cond: (jforum_posts_text.post_id = jforum_posts.post_id)
Filter: (jforum_posts_text.post_text ~~ '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%'::text)

Well, it is using the indexes now.  But it is only about a 30% drop in cost for the worst case. On an untuned complex query, I usually see at least an order of magnitude performance jump on my initial tuning.

Step 4 – time for a temp table

Most of the work is finding the 375 rows that need updating in a table with 1,793,111 rows.  And it has to happen for each of the 5000 times I run the query.

I decided to use a temporary table so I could run the expensive part once.

create table jeanne_test as select * from jforum_posts_text where post_text like '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/%';

explain update jforum_posts_text set post_text=replace(post_text, 'http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page','http://www.coderanch.com/t/574339 ')  where post_id in (select post_id from jeanne_test where post_text like '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%');

Now I’m doing the expensive part once.  It still takes a couple seconds to do the first part.  But the second part – the update I’m running 5000 times – drops the query plan to

Nested Loop (cost=13.50..21.99 rows=1 width=459)
HashAggregate (cost=13.50..13.51 rows=1 width=4)
Seq Scan on jeanne_test (cost=0.00..13.50 rows=1 width=4)
Filter: (post_text ~~ '%http://www.jforum.net/posts/list/5.page%'::text)
Index Scan using jforum_posts_text_pkey on jforum_posts_text (cost=0.00..8.46 rows=1 width=459)
Index Cond: (jforum_posts_text.post_id = jeanne_test.post_id

Nice.  Running the script with the 5000 update statements only took a few seconds.

Conclusion

Database tuning is fun.  Explain is your friend.  As are different approaches.  And for those who aren’t doing match, the performance jump was 3-4 orders of magnitude.