Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Hey. I am going to be setting up a a database which could get really really huge.
I've been using standard mysql for most of my stuff but this particular problem will get up to the TBs and I will want to be able to do hundreds of queries a second.
So aside from designing my database schema such that its not going to chug, and fast harddrive speeds what is my biggest bottleneck and what sort of solution is recommended for this.
Does it make sense to spread the database over multiple computers on my intranet so it can scale with CPU/Ram etc and if so is there software for this or database solutions for this?
Thanks for any help!
I did a search for questions to related to this and couldn't find anything so sorry if it has already been asked.
Database scalability is a VERY complicated issue; there are a LOT of issues that come into the whole process.
First, consider the lowest-hanging fruit; do you have individual tables (or columns) that are going to be containing the bulk of your data? Columns which will contain BLOBs which are > 4MB each? Those can be extracted from the database and stored on a flat-file storage system, and merely referred to from the database; right there, that can take many unwieldy solutions down to a manageable level.
If not, do you have deeply different usage patterns for different subgroupings of tables? If so, there's an opportunity right there for segmenting your database into different functional databases which can be partitioned onto different servers. A good example of this is read-mostly data, such as on webservers, which gets generated rarely (think user-specific home page data), but read frequently; that type of data can get segregated into a database (or, again, flatfile with references) that's separate from the rest of the user data).
Consider the transactional requirements of your database; can you isolate your transaction boundaries cleanly, or will there be deeply mingled transactions going on all through your database? If you can isolate your transaction boundaries, there's another potential useful boundary.
This is just touching on some of the issues involved with this sort of thing. One thing worth considering is whether or not you really need to have a database that is actually going to be huge, or if you're just trying to use the database as a persistence layer. If you're using the database just as a persistence layer, you might reconsider whether you actually need the relational nature of a database at all, or if you can get away with a smaller relational overlay on top of a simpler persistence layer. (I say this because a large quantity of solutions seem like they could get away with a thin relational layer over a large persistence layer; it's worth considering.)
Ok, first I need to point you to here. I don't think MySQL is going to perform like you want. I have a bad feeling that when I say you need to look into an Oracle instalation, you're going to say, "We don't have the cash for that." But, when I say get the latest/greatest SQL-Server, you're going to say, "We don't have the hardware it'll take to implement that." I'm afraid that terabytes is just flat out going to crush your MySQL instalation.
A new breed of NewSQL databases are being built to solve exactly the problem of distributing resources over multiple servers. The Clustrix database (which was built from the ground up to be a MySQL replacement) is one example that provides near-linear scale -- as you run out of CPU/Memory, you can simple add nodes.
Database scalability is a tough problem and you should consider solutions that can address it for you. I believe that MySQL can be used as the foundation for a solution to your problem.
Horizontal scalability; the ability to scale a database horizontally (aka scale-out) is a good technique to address the problem of very large tables and databases.
I am designing an app that would involve users 'following' each other's activity, in the twitter sense, but I am not very experienced with database/query design/efficiency. Are there best practices for managing this, pitfalls to avoid, etc.? I gather this can create a very large load on the db if not done properly (or maybe even then?).
If it makes a difference it is likely that people will 'follow' only a relatively small number of people (but a person may have many followers). However this is not certain, and I wouldn't want to count on it.
Any advice gratefully received. Thanks.
Pretty simple and easy to do with full normalisation. If you have a table of users, each with a unique ID, you would have a TABLE_FOLLOWERS table with the columns, USERID and FOLLOWERID which would describe all the followers for each user as a one to one to many relationship.
Even with millions of assosciations on a half decent database server this will perform well and fast as long as you are using a good database (IE, not MS-Access).
The model is fairly simple. The problem is in the size of the Subscription table; if there are 1 million users, and each subscribes to 1000, then the Subscription table has 1 billion rows.
That depends on how many users you expect to need to support; how many followers you expect users to have; and what sort of funding/development-effort you expect to have access to should your answers to the previous questions prove optimistic.
For a small scale project I would likely ignore the database, design the application as a simple object model with User objects that maintain a List[followers]. Keep it all in RAM for normal operation and use an ORM to persist to a database periodically (probably postgresql or mysql).
For a larger project I would not be using a relational database at all; but exactly what I would use would depend on the specific details of the project.
If you are only trying to spike the concept, go with the ORM approach; but, keep in mind it won't scale.
You probably should read http://highscalability.com/ and it's articles on how this is managed by the big sites.
Our software currently runs on MySQL. The data of all tenants is stored in the same schema. Since we are using Ruby on Rails we can easily determine which data belongs to which tenant. However there are some companies of course who fear that their data might be compromised, so we are evaluating other solutions.
So far I have seen three options:
Multi-Database (each tenant gets its own - nearly the same as 1 server per customer)
Multi-Schema (not available in MySQL, each tenant gets its own schema in a shared database)
Shared Schema (our current approach, maybe with additional identifying record on each column)
Multi-Schema is my favourite (considering costs). However creating a new account and doing migrations seems to be quite painful, because I would have to iterate over all schemas and change their tables/columns/definitions.
Q: Multi-Schema seems to be designed to have slightly different tables for each tenant - I don't want this. Is there any RDBMS which allows me to use a multi-schema multi-tenant solution, where the table structure is shared between all tenants?
P.S. By multi I mean something like ultra-multi (10.000+ tenants).
However there are some companies of
course who fear that their data might
be compromised, so we are evaluating
other solutions.
This is unfortunate, as customers sometimes suffer from a misconception that only physical isolation can offer enough security.
There is an interesting MSDN article, titled Multi-Tenant Data Architecture, which you may want to check. This is how the authors addressed the misconception towards the shared approach:
A common misconception holds that
only physical isolation can provide an
appropriate level of security. In
fact, data stored using a shared
approach can also provide strong data
safety, but requires the use of more
sophisticated design patterns.
As for technical and business considerations, the article makes a brief analysis on where a certain approach might be more appropriate than another:
The number, nature, and needs of the
tenants you expect to serve all affect
your data architecture decision in
different ways. Some of the following
questions may bias you toward a more
isolated approach, while others may
bias you toward a more shared
approach.
How many prospective tenants do you expect to target? You may be nowhere
near being able to estimate
prospective use with authority, but
think in terms of orders of magnitude:
are you building an application for
hundreds of tenants? Thousands? Tens
of thousands? More? The larger you
expect your tenant base to be, the
more likely you will want to consider
a more shared approach.
How much storage space do you expect the average tenant's data to occupy?
If you expect some or all tenants to
store very large amounts of data, the
separate-database approach is probably
best. (Indeed, data storage
requirements may force you to adopt a
separate-database model anyway. If so,
it will be much easier to design the
application that way from the
beginning than to move to a
separate-database approach later on.)
How many concurrent end users do you expect the average tenant to support?
The larger the number, the more
appropriate a more isolated approach
will be to meet end-user requirements.
Do you expect to offer any per-tenant value-added services, such
as per-tenant backup and restore
capability? Such services are easier
to offer through a more isolated
approach.
UPDATE: Further to update about the expected number of tenants.
That expected number of tenants (10k) should exclude the multi-database approach, for most, if not all scenarios. I don't think you'll fancy the idea of maintaining 10,000 database instances, and having to create hundreds of new ones every day.
From that parameter alone, it looks like the shared-database, single-schema approach is the most suitable. The fact that you'll be storing just about 50Mb per tenant, and that there will be no per-tenant add-ons, makes this approach even more appropriate.
The MSDN article cited above mentions three security patterns that tackle security considerations for the shared-database approach:
Trusted Database Connections
Tenant View Filter
Tenant Data Encryption
When you are confident with your application's data safety measures, you would be able to offer your clients a Service Level Agrement that provides strong data safety guarantees. In your SLA, apart from the guarantees, you could also describe the measures that you would be taking to ensure that data is not compromised.
UPDATE 2: Apparently the Microsoft guys moved / made a new article regarding this subject, the original link is gone and this is the new one: Multi-tenant SaaS database tenancy patterns (kudos to Shai Kerer)
Below is a link to a white-paper on Salesforce.com about how they implement multi-tenancy:
http://www.developerforce.com/media/ForcedotcomBookLibrary/Force.com_Multitenancy_WP_101508.pdf
They have 1 huge table w/ 500 string columns (Value0, Value1, ... Value500). Dates and Numbers are stored as strings in a format such that they can be converted to their native types at the database level. There are meta data tables that define the shape of the data model which can be unique per tenant. There are additional tables for indexing, relationships, unique values etc.
Why the hassle?
Each tenant can customize their own data schema at run-time without having to make changes at the database level (alter table etc). This is definitely the hard way to do something like this but is very flexible.
My experience (albeit SQL Server) is that multi-database is the way to go, where each client has their own database. So although I have no mySQL or Ruby On Rails experience, I'm hoping my input might add some value.
The reasons why include :
data security/disaster recovery. Each companies data is stored entirely separately from others giving reduced risk of data being compromised (thinking things like if you introduce a code bug that means something mistakenly looks at other client data when it shouldn't), minimizes potential loss to one client if one particular database gets corrupted etc. The perceived security benefits to the client are even greater (added bonus side effect!)
scalability. Essentially you'd be partitioning your data out to enable greater scalability - e.g. databases can be put on to different disks, you could bring multiple database servers online and move databases around easier to spread the load.
performance tuning. Suppose you have one very large client and one very small. Usage patterns, data volumes etc. can vary wildly. You can tune/optimise easier for each client should you need to.
I hope this does offer some useful input! There are more reasons, but my mind went blank. If it kicks back in, I'll update :)
EDIT:
Since I posted this answer, it's now clear that we're talking 10,000+ tenants. My experience is in hundreds of large scale databases - I don't think 10,000 separate databases is going to be too manageable for your scenario, so I'm now not favouring the multi-db approach for your scenario. Especially as it's now clear you're talking small data volumes for each tenant!
Keeping my answer here as anyway as it may have some use for other people in a similar boat (with fewer tenants)
As you mention the one database per tenant is an option and does have some larger trade-offs with it. It can work well at smaller scale such as a single digit or low 10's of tenants, but beyond that it becomes harder to manage. Both just the migrations but also just in keeping the databases up and running.
The per schema model isn't only useful for unique schemas for each, though still running migrations across all tenants becomes difficult and at 1000's of schemas Postgres can start to have troubles.
A more scalable approach is absolutely having tenants randomly distributed, stored in the same database, but across different logical shards (or tables). Depending on your language there are a number of libraries that can help with this. If you're using Rails there is a library to enfore the tenancy acts_as_tenant, it helps ensure your tenant queries only pull back that data. There's also a gem apartment - though it uses the schema model it does help with the migrations across all schemas. If you're using Django there's a number but one of the more popular ones seems to be across schemas. All of these help more at the application level. If you're looking for something more at the database level directly, Citus focuses on making this type of sharding for multi-tenancy work more out of the box with Postgres.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Apart from the google/bigtable scenario, when shouldn't you use a relational database? Why not, and what should you use? (did you learn 'the hard way'?)
In my experience, you shouldn't use a relational database when any one of these criteria are true:
your data is structured as a hierarchy or a graph (network) of arbitrary depth,
the typical access pattern emphasizes reading over writing, or
there’s no requirement for ad-hoc queries.
Deep hierarchies and graphs do not translate well to relational tables. Even with the assistance of proprietary extensions like Oracle's CONNECT BY, chasing down trees is a mighty pain using SQL.
Relational databases add a lot of overhead for simple read access. Transactional and referential integrity are powerful, but overkill for some applications. So for read-mostly applications, a file metaphor is good enough.
Finally, you simply don’t need a relational database with its full-blown query language if there are no unexpected queries anticipated. If there are no suits asking questions like "how many 5%-discounted blue widgets did we sell in on the east coast grouped by salesperson?", and there never will be, then you, sir, can live free of DB.
The relational database paradigm makes some assumptions about usage of data.
A relation consists of an unordered set of rows.
All rows in a relation have the same set of columns.
Each column has a fixed name and data type and semantic meaning on all rows.
Rows in a relation are identified by unique values in primary key column(s).
etc.
These assumptions support simplicity and structure, at the cost of some flexibility. Not all data management tasks fit into this kind of structure. Entities with complex attributes or variable attributes do not, for instance. If you need flexibility in areas where a relational database solution doesn't support it, you need to use a different kind of solution.
There are other solutions for managing data with different requirements. Semantic Web technology, for example, allows each entity to define its own attributes and to be self-describing, by treating metadata as attributes just like data. This is more flexible than the structure imposed by a relational database, but that flexibility comes with a cost of its own.
Overall, you should use the right tool for each job.
See also my other answer to "The Next-gen databases."
There are three main data models (C.J.Date, E.F.Codd) and I am adding a flat file to this:
flat file(s) (structure varies - from 'stupid' flat text to files conforming to grammars which coupled with clever tools do very clever things, think compilers and what they can do, narrow application in modelling new things)
hierarchical (trees, nested sets - examples: xml and other markup languages, registry, organizational charts, etc; anything can be modelled, but integrity rules are not easy to express and retrieval is hard to optimize automatically, some retrieval is fast and some is very slow )
network (networks, graphs - examples: navigational databases, hyperlinks, semantic web, again almost anything can be modelled but automatic optimizing of retrieval is a problem)
relational (first order predicate logic - example: relational databases, automatic optimization of retrieval)
Both hierarchical and network can be represented in relational and relational can be expressed in the other two.
The reason that relational is considered 'better' is the declarative nature and standardization on not only the data retrieval language but also on the data definition language, including the strong declarative data integrity, backed up with stable, scalable, multi-user management system.
Benefits come at a cost, which most projects find to be a good ratio for systems (multi application) that store long term data in a from that will be usable in foreseeable future.
If you are not building a system, but a single application, perhaps for a single user, and you are fairly certain that you will not want multiple applications using your data, nor multiple users, any time soon then you'll probably find faster approaches.
Also if you don't know what kind of data you want to store and how to model it then relational model strengths are wasted on it.
Or if you simply don't care about integrity of your data that much (which can be fine).
All data structures are optimized for a certain kind of use, only relational if properly modelled tries to represent the 'reality' in semantically unbiased way. People who had bad experience with relational databases usually don't realize that their experience would have been much worse with other types of data models. Horrible implementations are possible, and especially with relational databases, where it is relatively easy to build complex models, you could end up with quite a monster on your hands. Still I always feel better when I try to imagine the same monster in xml.
One example of how good relational model is, IMO, is ratio of complexity vs shortness of the questions that you will find that involve SQL.
I suggest you visit the High Scalability blog, which discusses this topic almost on a daily basis and has many articles about projects that chose distributed hashes, etc. over RDMBS.
The quick (but very incomplete answer) is that not all data translates well to tables in efficient ways. For example, if your data is essentially one big dictionary, there are probably much faster alternatives that plain old RDBMS. Having said that, it mostly a matter of performance, and if performance isn't a huge concern in a project, and stability, consistency and reliability, for example, are, then I don't see much point in delving into these technologies when RDBMS is a much more mature and well developed scheme, with support in all languages and platforms and a huge set of solutions to choose from.
Fifteen years ago I was working on a credit risk system (basically a big tree walking system). We were using Sybase on HPUX & solaris and performnce was killing us. We hired in consultants direct from Sybase who said it couldn't be done. Then we switched to an OO database (Object store in this case) and got a about a 100x performance increase (and the code was about 100x easier to write too)
But such situations are quite rare - a relational database is a good first choice.
When you schema varies a lot you will have a hard time with relational databases. This is where XML databases or key-value pair databases work best. or you could use IBM DB2 and have both relational data and XML data managed by a single database engine.
About 7-8 years ago I worked on a web site that grew in popularity beyond our initial expectations and it got us in trouble performance-wise. Since we were all relatively inexperienced in web based projects it posed a significant strain on us about what to do beyond usual database separation onto separate server, load balancing etc.
One day I've thought of something pretty simple. Since site was based on users, their profiles were stored in a database table the usual way someone would do it - user id, lots of info variables and stuff like that - which would show up as a users profile page which other users could look up. I've flushed all that data into a simple html file, already prepared as a users profile page and got a significant boost - basically a cache. I even made a system that when user edited their profile info, it would parse original html file, put it up for edit, and then flush out html back to the file system - got even more boost.
I made something simillar with messages users sent to each other. Basically wherever I could make a system bypass a database altogether, avoiding a INSERT or UPDATE, I got a significant boost. It may sound like a common sense, but it was an enlightening moment. It is not an avoidance of relational setup per se, but it is an avoidance of the database altogether - KISS.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I once worked with an architect who banned the use of SQL views. His main reason was that views made it too easy for a thoughtless coder to needlessly involve joined tables which, if that coder tried harder, could be avoided altogether. Implicitly he was encouraging code reuse via copy-and-paste instead of encapsulation in views.
The database had nearly 600 tables and was highly normalised, so most of the useful SQL was necessarily verbose.
Several years later I can see at least one bad outcome from the ban - we have many hundreds of dense, lengthy stored procs that verge on unmaintainable.
In hindsight I would say it was a bad decision, but what are your experiences with SQL views? Have you found them bad for performance? Any other thoughts on when they are or are not appropriate?
There are some very good uses for views; I have used them a lot for tuning and for exposing less normalized sets of information, or for UNION-ing results from multiple selects into a single result set.
Obviously any programming tool can be used incorrectly, but I can't think of any times in my experience where a poorly tuned view has caused any kind of drawbacks from a performance standpoint, and the value they can provide by providing explicitly tuned selects and avoiding duplication of complex SQL code can be significant.
Incidentally, I have never been a fan of architectural "rules" that are based on keeping developers from hurting themselves. These rules often have unintended side-effects -- the last place I worked didn't allow using NULLs in the database, because developers might forget to check for null. This ended up forcing us to work around "1/1/1900" dates and integers defaulted to "0" in all the software built against the databases, and introducing a litany of bugs caused by devs working around places where NULL was the appropriate value.
You've answered your own question:
he was encouraging code reuse via copy-and-paste
Reuse the code by creating a view. If the view performs poorly, it will be much easier to track down than if you have the same poorly performing code in several places.
Not a big fan of views (Can't remember the last time I wrote one) but wouldn't ban them entirely either. If your database allows you to put indexes on the views and not just on the table, you can often improve performance a good bit which makes them better. If you are using views, make sure to look into indexing them.
I really only see the need for views for partitioning data and for extremely complex joins that are really critical to the application (thinking of financial reports here where starting from the same dataset for everything might be critical). I do know some reporting tools seem to prefer views over stored procs.
I am a big proponent of never returning more records or fields than you need in a specific instance and the overuse of views tends to make people return more fields (and in way too many cases, too many joins) than they need which wastes system resources.
I also tend to see that people who rely on views (not the developer of the view - the people who only use them) often don't understand the database very well (so they would get the joins wrong if not using the view) and that to me is critical to writing good code against the database. I want people to understand what they are asking the db to do, not rely on some magic black box of a view. That is all personal opinion of course, your mileage may vary.
Like BlaM I personally haven't found them easier to maintain than stored procs.
Edited in Oct 2010 to add:
Since I orginally wrote this, I have had occasion to work with a couple of databases designed by people who were addicted to using views. Even worse they used views that called views that called views (to the point where eventually we hit the limit of the number of tables that can be called). This was a performance nightmare. It took 8 minutes to get a simple count(*) of the records in one view and much longer to get data. If you use views, be very wary of using views that call other views. You will be building a system that will very probably not work under the normal performance load on production. In SQL Server you can only index views that do not call other views, so what ends up happening when you use views in a chain, is that the entire record set has to be built for each view and it is not until you get to the last one that the where clause criteria are applied. You may need to generate millions of records just to see three. You may join to the same table 6 times when you really only need to join to it once, you may return many many more columns than you need in the final results set.
My current database was completely awash with countless small tables of no more than 5 rows each. Well, I could count them but it was cluttered. These tables simply held constant type values (think enum) and could very easily be combined into one table. I then made views that simulated each of the tables I deleted to ensure backward compactability. Worked great.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is use of views to provide a logical picture of the data to end users for ad hoc reporting or similar.
This has two merits:
To allow the user to single "tables" containing the data they expect rather requiring relatively non technical users to work out potentially complex joins (because the database is normalised)
It provides a means to allow some degree of ah hoc access without exposing the data or the structure to the end users.
Even with non ad-hoc reporting its sometimes signicantly easier to provide a view to the reporting system that contains the relveant data, neatly separating production of data from presentation of same.
Like all power, views have its own dark side. However, you cannot blame views for somebody writing bad performing code. Moreover views can limit the exposure of some columns and provide extra security.
Views are good for ad-hoc queries, the kind that a DBA does behind the scenes when he/she needs quick access to data to see what's going on with the system.
But they can be bad for production code. Part of the reason is that it's sort of unpredictable what indexes you will need with a view, since the where clause can be different, and therefore hard to tune. Also, you are generally returning a lot more data than is actually necesary for the individual queries that are using the view. Each of these queries could be tightened up and tuned individually.
There are specific uses of views in cases of data partitioning that can be extremely useful, so I'm not saying they should avoided altogether. I'm just saying that if a view can be replaced by a few stored procedures, you will be better off without the view.
We use views for all of our simple data exports to csv files. This simplifies the process of writing a package and embedding the sql within the package which becomes cumbersome and hard to debug against.
Using views, we can execute a view and see exactly what was exported, no cruft or unknowns. It greatly helps in troubleshooting problems with improper data exports and hides any complex joins behind the view. Granted, we use a very old legacy system from a TERMS based system that exports to sql, so the joins are a little more complex than usual.
Some time ago I've tried to maintain code that used views built from views built from views... That was a pain in the a**, so I got a little allergic to views :)
I usually prefer working with tables directly, especially for web applications where speed is a main concern. When accessing tables directly you have the chance to tweak your SQL-Queries to achieve the best performance. "Precompiled"/cached working plans might be one advantage of views, but in many cases just-in-time compilation with all given parameters and where clauses in consideration will result in faster processing over all.
However that does not rule out views totally, if used adequately. For example you can use a view with the "users" table joined with the "users_status" table to get an textual explanation for each status - if you need it. However if you don't need the explanation: use the "users" table, not the view. As always: Use your brain!
Views have been helpful to us in their role for use by public web based applications that dip from a production database. Simplified security is the primary advantage we see since the table design in the database may combine sensitive and non-sensitive data within the same table. A stored procedure shares much of this advantage, but the view is read-only, has potential interop advantages, and is a less complex thing for junior people to implement.
This security abstraction advantage also applies when views are used for end-user ad-hoc queries; this would be less of an advantage if we had a proper, flattened, data warehouse representation of our data.
From an application stand point which uses an ORM, it's a lot harder to execute a custom query than doing a select on a discretely mapped type (eg, the view).
For example, if you need just 5 fields of a table that has many (say 30 or 40) an ORM framework will create an entity to represent the table.
That means that even though you only need a few properties of the entity, the select query generated by the ORM framework will bring the entire entity in its full glory. A view on the other hand, although also mapped to an entity with the ORM framework, will only bring the data you need.
Second, since ORM frameworks map entities to tables, relationships between entities are generated (and hydrated) on the client side, meaning that the query has to execute and return to the app before linking of those entities can happen at runtime within the app.
Some frameworks bypass that by returning the data from multiple linked entities in a giant select (with multiple joins), bringing in the columns of all related tables in one call. Internally the framework disassembles the giant result set and structures the logical presentation of the linked entities before returning those entities to the caller app.
Point being is that views are a life saver for apps using ORM. The alternative is to manually make db calls, and manually passing the resulting recordsets into usable entities/models.
While this approach is good and definitely produces a result, it has lots of negative facets. Manual code... is manual; hard to maintain, cumbersome in implementation, and causes devs to worry more about the specifics of the DB provider API vs the logical domain model. Not to mention that it increases time to production (its a lot more labourious) costs for development, maintenance, surface area of bugs, etc.
So for anyone saying views are bad, please consider the other side of things; The stuff the high and mighty DBA's most often have no clue about.
Let's see if I can come up with a lame analogy ...
"I don't need a phillips screwdriver. I carry a flat head and a grinder!"
Dismissing views out of hand will cause pain long term. For one, it's easier to debug and modify a single view definition than it is to ship modified code.
Views can also reduce the size of complex queries (in the same way stored procs can).
This can reduce network bandwith for very busy databases.