I have an application that needs to use Redis with the following requirements:
A producer storing tens of millions of string records up to 128 bytes each
Indexing the records as each worker needs to access records from its own determined range X to Y in order for multiple workers to be able to process in parallel
Deleting the processed records and storing the results back in redis under a different index
Which redis data type is optimal for this?
I am considering ordered sets, where I would write original strings in one set and results in another, though I have read somewhere that they come with a 64 byte overhead and I'd like to save on memory as much as possible as that allows me to process more records. Another alternative is a simple SET key value where I would index let's say 0-100,000,000 as records to be processed and 100,000,000-200,000,000 as the corresponding result records.
Does anyone know how much memory overhead exists for each solution or can even propose a better one?
Related
I have oracle table contain 900 million records , this table partioned to 24 partion , and have indexes :
i try to using hint and i put fetch_buffer to 100000:
select /+ 8 parallel +/
* from table
it take 30 minutes to get 100 million records
my question is :
is there are any way more faster to get the 900 million (all data in the table ) ? should i use partions and did 24 sequential queries ? or should i use indexes and split my query to 10 queries for example
The network is almost certainly the bottleneck here. Oracle parallelism only impacts the way the database retrieves the data, but data is still sent to the client with a single thread.
Assuming a single thread doesn't already saturate your network, you'll probably want to build a concurrent retrieval solution. It helps that the table is already partitioned, then you can read large chunks of data without re-reading anything.
I'm not sure how to do this in Scala, but you want to run multiple queries like this at the same time, to use all the client and network resources possible:
select * from table partition (p1);
select * from table partition (p2);
...
Not really an answer but too long for a comment.
A few too many variables can impact this to give informed advice, so the following are just some general hints.
Is this over a network or local on the server? If the database is remote server then you are paying a heavy network price. I would suggest (if possible) running the extract on the server using the BEQUEATH protocol to avoid using the network. Once the file(s) complete, is will be quicker to compress and transfer to destination than transferring the data direct from database to local file via JDBC row processing.
With JDBC remember to set the cursor fetch size to reduce round tripping - setFetchSize. The default value is tiny (10 I think), try something like 1000 to see how that helps.
As for the query, you are writing to a file so even though Oracle might process the query in parallel, your write to file process probably doesn't so it's a bottleneck.
My approach would be to write the Java program to operate off a range of values as command line parameters, and experiment to find which range size and concurrent instances of the Java give optimal performance. The range will likely fall within discrete partitions so you will benefit from partition pruning (assuming the range value is an a indexed column ideally the partition key).
Roughly speaking I would start with range of 5m, and run concurrent instances that match the number of CPU cores - 2; this is not a scientifically derive number just one that I tend to use as my first stab and see what happens.
I have a program that receives a constant stream of data.
From this stream of data I populate a hashtable. Every piece of data I receive
is translated in, either:
a key update ;
or a key insertion if it doesn't already exist.
I store the incoming raw data in a queue before it is being processed.
The number of keys in the hashtable is very small. 99% of the data I receive
corresponds to key updates.
The problem is that I have so many key updates that the queue becomes
too big for my consumers.
Obviously, from the thousands of key updates, many of them concern the same
key, so only the last one has a real value while all the others are useless.
What is the best way for me to handle this case? Which data structure should I
be using?
What can you tell us about your keys? How many are there? Are they numeric (and if so, what range of values might they take?), textual? Any limit on the number of bytes per key? What kind of hash table are you inserting to (e.g. closed hashing, open hashing)? What contention/locking is there on the hash table? How many updates per second? What programming language are you using?
How many keys
A few hundreds or maybe a few thousands. Not a lot!
Numeric keys
The keys themselves are alphanumeric, they are not very long, around 30 characters at most. The values, however, are all numbers (integers).
Limit on the number of bytes per key
My keys are 30 characters long, at most.
Kind of hash table
I'm simply using Python's defaultdict
Contention/locking
Python's dictionaries are considered thread-safe
Number of updates per second
It can go from 1 every 3 seconds to more than a 100 per second
Programming language
I'm using python
Instead of using a simple queue you can use another hashtable - each incoming message could be stored in the appropriate stack based on key. You then take each element from each stack (which will be the most recent item) - you can optionally clear each stack when you pull an item out.
ConcurrentDictionary should fit the bill nicely.
But what you need here is an (maybe adaptive) throttling mechanism, that detects when the queue is too slow and starts collapsing the data.
I'm trying to convert data which is on a Sql DB to Redis. In order to gain much higher throughput because it's a very high throughput. I'm aware of the downsides of persistence, storage costs etc...
So, I have a table called "Users" with few columns. Let's assume: ID, Name, Phone, Gender
Around 90% of the requests are Writes. to update a single row.
Around 10% of the requests are Reads. to get 20 rows in each request.
I'm trying to get my head around the right modeling of this in order to get the max out of it.
If there were only updates - I would use Hashes.
But because of the 10% of Reads I'm afraid it won't be efficient.
Any suggestions?
Actually, the real question is whether you need to support partial updates.
Supposing partial update is not required, you can store your record in a blob associated to a key (i.e. string datatype). All write operations can be done in one roundtrip, since the record is always written at once. Several read operations can be done in one rountrip as well using the MGET command.
Now, supposing partial update is required, you can store your record in a dictionary associated to a key (i.e. hash datatype). All write operations can be done in one roundtrip (even if they are partial). Several read operations can also be done in one roundtrip provided HGETALL commands are pipelined.
Pipelining several HGETALL commands is a bit more CPU consuming than using MGET, but not that much. In term of latency, it should not be significantly different, except if you execute hundreds of thousands of them per second on the Redis instance.
I'm currently migrating some data to Redis and I'm considering using a sorted set to store approximately 1.4e6 items (with associated scores/counts). Is this number of items in a set likely to exceed a practical limit, making it too painful to use the set? I plan on running 64 bit redis, so available memory for the data should not be a problem. Does anyone have experience with a sorted set this size? If so, how are your insertion and query times for the set?
It depends what you want to do with the set. The simple operations are mostly O(log n) which means that they take only twice as long for a million item set as they do for a thousand item set. Unless you have something seriously broken in your config like a memory limit smaller than the set, performance shouldn't be a problem.
Where you need to be careful is with operations on multiple sets, particularly union - that will take a thousand times longer for the million item set. In practical terms this isn't necessarily a problem though - either it will be fast enough for your purposes anyway (redis has commands documented as too slow for production use that are still best measured in milliseconds) or you can adjust the order of operations to avoid running union on really large sets.
Our site has a sorted set with about 2 milions items (email addresses) with integer scores and it took up about 320MB in memory size.
How would you tackle the following storage and retrieval problem?
Roughly 2.000.000 rows will be added each day (365 days/year) with the following information per row:
id (unique row identifier)
entity_id (takes on values between 1 and 2.000.000 inclusive)
date_id (incremented with one each day - will take on values between 1 and 3.650 (ten years: 1*365*10))
value_1 (takes on values between 1 and 1.000.000 inclusive)
value_2 (takes on values between 1 and 1.000.000 inclusive)
entity_id combined with date_id is unique. Hence, at most one row per entity and date can be added to the table. The database must be able to hold 10 years worth of daily data (7.300.000.000 rows (3.650*2.000.000)).
What is described above is the write patterns. The read pattern is simple: all queries will be made on a specific entity_id. I.e. retrieve all rows describing entity_id = 12345.
Transactional support is not needed, but the storage solution must be open-sourced. Ideally I'd like to use MySQL, but I'm open for suggestions.
Now - how would you tackle the described problem?
Update: I was asked to elaborate regarding the read and write patterns. Writes to the table will be done in one batch per day where the new 2M entries will be added in one go. Reads will be done continuously with one read every second.
"Now - how would you tackle the described problem?"
With simple flat files.
Here's why
"all queries will be made on a
specific entity_id. I.e. retrieve all
rows describing entity_id = 12345."
You have 2.000.000 entities. Partition based on entity number:
level1= entity/10000
level2= (entity/100)%100
level3= entity%100
The each file of data is level1/level2/level3/batch_of_data
You can then read all of the files in a given part of the directory to return samples for processing.
If someone wants a relational database, then load files for a given entity_id into a database for their use.
Edit On day numbers.
The date_id/entity_id uniqueness rule is not something that has to be handled. It's (a) trivially imposed on the file names and (b) irrelevant for querying.
The date_id "rollover" doesn't mean anything -- there's no query, so there's no need to rename anything. The date_id should simply grow without bound from the epoch date. If you want to purge old data, then delete the old files.
Since no query relies on date_id, nothing ever needs to be done with it. It can be the file name for all that it matters.
To include the date_id in the result set, write it in the file with the other four attributes that are in each row of the file.
Edit on open/close
For writing, you have to leave the file(s) open. You do periodic flushes (or close/reopen) to assure that stuff really is going to disk.
You have two choices for the architecture of your writer.
Have a single "writer" process that consolidates the data from the various source(s). This is helpful if queries are relatively frequent. You pay for merging the data at write time.
Have several files open concurrently for writing. When querying, merge these files into a single result. This is helpful is queries are relatively rare. You pay for merging the data at query time.
Use partitioning. With your read pattern you'd want to partition by entity_id hash.
You might want to look at these questions:
Large primary key: 1+ billion rows MySQL + InnoDB?
Large MySQL tables
Personally, I'd also think about calculating your row width to give you an idea of how big your table will be (as per the partitioning note in the first link).
HTH.,
S
Your application appears to have the same characteristics as mine. I wrote a MySQL custom storage engine to efficiently solve the problem. It is described here
Imagine your data is laid out on disk as an array of 2M fixed length entries (one per entity) each containing 3650 rows (one per day) of 20 bytes (the row for one entity per day).
Your read pattern reads one entity. It is contiguous on disk so it takes 1 seek (about 8mllisecs) and read 3650x20 = about 80K at maybe 100MB/sec ... so it is done in a fraction of a second, easily meeting your 1-query-per-second read pattern.
The update has to write 20 bytes in 2M different places on disk. IN simplest case this would take 2M seeks each of which takes about 8millisecs, so it would take 2M*8ms = 4.5 hours. If you spread the data across 4 “raid0” disks it could take 1.125 hours.
However the places are only 80K apart. In the which means there are 200 such places within a 16MB block (typical disk cache size) so it could operate at anything up to 200 times faster. (1 minute) Reality is somewhere between the two.
My storage engine operates on that kind of philosophy, although it is a little more general purpose than a fixed length array.
You could code exactly what I have described. Putting the code into a MySQL pluggable storage engine means that you can use MySQL to query the data with various report generators etc.
By the way, you could eliminate the date and entity id from the stored row (because they are the array indexes) and may be the unique id – if you don't really need it since (entity id, date) is unique, and store the 2 values as 3-byte int. Then your stored row is 6 bytes, and you have 700 updates per 16M and therefore a faster inserts and a smaller file.
Edit Compare to Flat Files
I notice that comments general favor flat files. Don't forget that directories are just indexes implemented by the file system and they are generally optimized for relatively small numbers of relatively large items. Access to files is generally optimized so that it expects a relatively small number of files to be open, and has a relatively high overhead for open and close, and for each file that is open. All of those "relatively" are relative to the typical use of a database.
Using file system names as an index for a entity-Id which I take to be a non-sparse integer 1 to 2Million is counter-intuitive. In a programming you would use an array, not a hash-table, for example, and you are inevitably going to incur a great deal of overhead for an expensive access path that could simply be an array indeing operation.
Therefore if you use flat files, why not use just one flat file and index it?
Edit on performance
The performance of this application is going to be dominated by disk seek times. The calculations I did above determine the best you can do (although you can make INSERT quicker by slowing down SELECT - you can't make them both better). It doesn't matter whether you use a database, flat-files, or one flat-file, except that you can add more seeks that you don't really need and slow it down further. For example, indexing (whether its the file system index or a database index) causes extra I/Os compared to "an array look up", and these will slow you down.
Edit on benchmark measurements
I have a table that looks very much like yours (or almost exactly like one of your partitions). It was 64K entities not 2M (1/32 of yours), and 2788 'days'. The table was created in the same INSERT order that yours will be, and has the same index (entity_id,day). A SELECT on one entity takes 20.3 seconds to inspect the 2788 days, which is about 130 seeks per second as expected (on 8 millisec average seek time disks). The SELECT time is going to be proportional to the number of days, and not much dependent on the number of entities. (It will be faster on disks with faster seek times. I'm using a pair of SATA2s in RAID0 but that isn't making much difference).
If you re-order the table into entity order
ALTER TABLE x ORDER BY (ENTITY,DAY)
Then the same SELECT takes 198 millisecs (because it is reading the order entity in a single disk access).
However the ALTER TABLE operation took 13.98 DAYS to complete (for 182M rows).
There's a few other things the measurements tell you
1. Your index file is going to be as big as your data file. It is 3GB for this sample table. That means (on my system) all the index at disk speeds not memory speeds.
2.Your INSERT rate will decline logarithmically. The INSERT into the data file is linear but the insert of the key into the index is log. At 180M records I was getting 153 INSERTs per second, which is also very close to the seek rate. It shows that MySQL is updating a leaf index block for almost every INSERT (as you would expect because it is indexed on entity but inserted in day order.). So you are looking at 2M/153 secs= 3.6hrs to do your daily insert of 2M rows. (Divided by whatever effect you can get by partition across systems or disks).
I had similar problem (although with much bigger scale - about your yearly usage every day)
Using one big table got me screeching to a halt - you can pull a few months but I guess you'll eventually partition it.
Don't forget to index the table, or else you'll be messing with tiny trickle of data every query; oh, and if you want to do mass queries, use flat files
Your description of the read patterns is not sufficient. You'll need to describe what amounts of data will be retrieved, how often and how much deviation there will be in the queries.
This will allow you to consider doing compression on some of the columns.
Also consider archiving and partitioning.
If you want to handle huge data with millions of rows it can be considered similar to time series database which logs the time and saves the data to the database. Some of the ways to store the data is using InfluxDB and MongoDB.