I have an application using an AWS Aurora SQL postgres 10 DB that expects +5M records per day on a table. The application will be running on a kubernetes environment with ~5 pods.
One of the applications requirements is to export a method to build an object with all the possible values of 5 columns of the table. ie: all distinct values of the name column.
We expect ~100 different values per column. A distinct/group by takes more than 1s per column, making the process not meeting the non functional requirements (process time).
The solution I found was to create a table/view with the distinct of each column, that table/view will be refreshed with a cron like task.
Is this the more effective approach to meet the non functional/process time requirement using only postgres tools?
One possible solution is a materialized view that you regularly refresh. Between these refreshes, the data will become slightly stale.
Alternatively, you can maintain a separate table with just the distinct values and use triggers to keep the information up to date whenever rows are modified. This will require a combined index on all the affected columns to be fast.
DISTINCT is always a performance problem if it affects many rows.
Related
My primary datasource get 50M records per day. I need view record max delay about 5 minutes.
How I have best way to transfer data from primary SQL Server datasource to report SQL Server datasource.
At this time, I user merge join every 30seconds. But it seems effect to primary datasource performance.
The most common approach to minimize the load on your source server is to do periodic extracts using a timestamp, i.e. a simple SELECT ... WHERE timestamp > previous-max-timestamp-extracted.
The source table(s) need to provide a column that allows you to filter on un-extracted records. If that's completely impossible, you might extract e.g. the last hour's data into staging tables, and deduplicate with previously extracted records.
Yes, you could use CDC, but that's often more involved, and usually adds some restrictions.
Cheers, Kristian
I have a large table whose rows get updated/inserted/merged periodically from a few different queries. I need a scheduled process to run (via API) to periodically check for which rows in that table were updated since the last check. So here are my issues...
When I run the merge query, I don't see a way for it to return which records were updated... otherwise, I could be copying those updated rows to a special updated_records table.
There are no triggers so I can't keep track of mutations that way.
I could add a last_updated timestamp column to keep track that way, but then repeatedly querying the entire table all day for that would be a huge amount of data billed (expensive).
I'm wondering if I'm overlooking something obvious or if maybe there's some kind of special BQ metadata that could help?
The reason I'm attempting this is that I'm wanting to extract and synchronize a smaller subset of this table into my PostgreSQL instance because the latency for querying BQ is just too much for smaller queries.
Any ideas? Thanks!
One way is to periodically save intermediate state of the table using the time travel feature. Or store only the diffs. I just want to leave this option here:
FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF references the historical versions of the table definition and rows that were current at timestamp_expression.
The value of timestamp_expression has to be within last 7 days.
The following query returns a historical version of the table from one hour ago.
SELECT * FROM table
FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF TIMESTAMP_SUB(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP(), INTERVAL 1 HOUR);
The following query returns a historical version of the table at an absolute point in time.
SELECT * FROM table
FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF '2017-01-01 10:00:00-07:00';
An approach would be to have 3 tables:
one basetable in "append only" mode, only inserts are added, and updates as full row, in this table would be every record like a versioning system.
a table to hold deletes (or this can be incorporated as a soft delete if there is a special column kept in the first table)
a livetable where you hold the current data (in this table you would do your MERGE statements most probably from the first base table.
If you choose partitioning and clustering, you could end up leverage a lot for long time storage discounted price and scan less data by using partitioning and clustering.
If the table is large but the amount of data updated per day is modest then you can partition and/or cluster the table on the last_updated_date column. There are some edge cases, like the first today's check should filter for last_updated_date being either today or yesterday.
Depending of how modest this amount of data updated throughout a day is, even repeatedly querying the entire table all day could be affordable because BQ engine will scan one daily partition only.
P.S.
Detailed explanation
I could add a last_updated timestamp column to keep track that way
I inferred from that the last_updated column is not there yet (so the check-for-updates statement cannot currently distinguish between updated rows and non-updated ones) but you can modify the table UPDATE statements so that this column will be added to the newly modified rows.
Therefore I assumed you can modify the updates further to set the additional last_updated_date column which will contain the date portion of the timestamp stored in the last_updated column.
but then repeatedly querying the entire table all day
From here I inferred there are multiple checks throughout the day.
but the data being updated can be for any time frame
Sure, but as soon as a row is updated, no matter how old this row is, it will acquire two new columns last_updated and last_updated_date - unless both columns have already been added by the previous update in which cases the two columns will be updated rather than added. If there are several updates to the same row between the update checks, then the latest update will still make the row to be discoverable by the checks that use the logic described below.
The check-for-update statement will (conceptually, not literally):
filter rows to ensure last_updated_date=today AND last_updated>last_checked. The datetime of the previous update check will be stored in last_checked and where this piece of data is held (table, durable config) is implementation dependent.
discover if the current check is the first today's check. If so then additionally search for last_updated_date=yesterday AND last_updated>last_checked.
Note 1If the table is partitioned and/or clustered on the last_updated_date column, then the above update checks will not cause table scan. And subject to ‘modest’ assumption made at the very beginning of my answer, the checks will satisfy your 3rd bullet point.
Note 2The downside of this approach is that the checks for updates will not find rows that had been updated before the table UPDATE statements were modified to include the two extra columns. (Such rows will be in the__NULL__ partition with rows that never were updated.) But I assume until the changes to the UPDATE statements are made it will be impossible to distinguish between updated rows and non-updated ones anyway.
Note 3 This is an explanatory concept. In the real implementation you might need one extra column instead of two. And you will need to check which approach works better: partitioning or clustering (with partitioning on a fake column) or both.
The detailed explanation of the initial (e.g. above P.S.) answer ends here.
Note 4
clustering only helps performance
From the point of view of table scan avoidance and achieving a reduction in the data usage/costs, clustering alone (with fake partitioning) could be as potent as partitioning.
Note 5
In the comment you mentioned there is already some partitioning in place. I’d suggest to examine if the existing partitioning is indispensable, can it be replaced with clustering.
Some good ideas posted here. Thanks to those who responded. Essentially, there are multiple approaches to tackling this.
But anyway, here's how I solved my particular problem...
Suppose the data needs to ultimately end up in a table called MyData. I created two additional tables, MyDataStaging and MyDataUpdate. These two tables have an identical structure to MyData with the exception of MyDataStaging has an additional Timestamp field, "batch_timestamp". This timestamp allows me to determine which rows are the latest versions in case I end up with multiple versions before the table is processed.
DatFlow pushes data directly to MyDataStaging, along with a Timestamp ("batch_timestamp") value indicating when the process ran.
A scheduled process then upserts/merges MyDataStaging to MyDataUpdate (MyDataUpdate will now always contain only a unique list of rows/values that have been changed). Then the process upserts/merges from MyDataUpdate into MyData as well as being exported & downloaded to be loaded into PostgreSQL. Then staging/update tables are emptied appropriately.
Now I'm not constantly querying the massive table to check for changes.
NOTE: When merging to the main big table, I filter the update on unique dates from within the source table to limit the bytes processed.
In my application, users can create custom tables with three column types, Text, Numeric and Date. They can have up to 20 columns. I create a SQL table based on their schema using nvarchar(430) for text, decimal(38,6) for numeric and datetime, along with an Identity Id column.
There is the potential for many of these tables to be created by different users, and the data might be updated frequently by users uploading new CSV files. To get the best performance during the upload of the user data, we truncate the table to get rid of existing data, and then do batches of BULK INSERT.
The user can make a selection based on a filter they build up, which can include any number of columns. My issue is that some tables with a lot of rows will have poor performance during this selection. To combat this I thought about adding indexes, but as we don't know what columns will be included in the WHERE condition we would have to index every column.
For example, on a local SQL server one table with just over a million rows and a WHERE condition on 6 of its columns will take around 8 seconds the first time it runs, then under one second for subsequent runs. With indexes on every column it will run in under one second the first time the query is ran. This performance issue is amplified when we test on an SQL Azure database, where the same query will take over a minute the first time its run, and does not improve on subsequent runs, but with the indexes it takes 1 second.
So, would it be a suitable solution to add a index on every column when a user creates a column, or is there a better solution?
Yes, it's a good idea given your model. There will, of course, be more overhead maintaining the indexes on the insert, but if there is no predictable standard set of columns in the queries, you don't have a lot of choices.
Suppose by 'updated frequently,' you mean data is added frequently via uploads rather than existing records being modified. In that case, you might consider one of the various non-SQL databases (like Apache Lucene or variants) which allow efficient querying on any combination of data. For reading massive 'flat' data sets, they are astonishingly fast.
We are experimenting with BigQuery to analyze user data generated by our software application.
Our working table consists hundreds of millions of rows, each representing a unique user "session". Each containing a timestamp, UUID, and other fields describing the user's interaction with our product during that session. We currently generate about 2GB of data (~10M rows) per day.
Every so often we may run queries against the entire dataset (about 2 months worth right now, and growing), However typical queries will span just a single day, week, or month. We're finding out that as our table grows, our single-day query becomes more and more expensive (as we would expect given BigQuery architecture)
What isthe best way to query subsets of of our data more efficiently? One approach I can think of is to "partition" the data into separate tables by day (or week, month, etc.) then query them together in a union:
SELECT foo from
mytable_2012-09-01,
mytable_2012-09-02,
mytable_2012-09-03;
Is there a better way than this???
BigQuery now supports table partitions by date:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/03/google-bigquery-cuts-historical-data-storage-cost-in-half-and-accelerates-many-queries-by-10x
Hi David: The best way to handle this is to shard your data across many tables and run queries as you suggest in your example.
To be more clear, BigQuery does not have a concept of indexes (by design), so sharding data into separate tables is a useful strategy for keeping queries as economically efficient as possible.
On the flip side, another useful feature for people worried about having too many tables is to set an expirationTime for tables, after which tables will be deleted and their storage reclaimed - otherwise they will persist indefinitely.
Assume a table named 'log', there are huge records in it.
The application usually retrieves data by simple SQL:
SELECT *
FROM log
WHERE logLevel=2 AND (creationData BETWEEN ? AND ?)
logLevel and creationData have indexes, but the number of records makes it take longer to retrieve data.
How do we fix this?
Look at your execution plan / "EXPLAIN PLAN" result - if you are retrieving large amounts of data then there is very little that you can do to improve performance - you could try changing your SELECT statement to only include columns you are interested in, however it won't change the number of logical reads that you are doing and so I suspect it will only have a neglible effect on performance.
If you are only retrieving small numbers of records then an index of LogLevel and an index on CreationDate should do the trick.
UPDATE: SQL server is mostly geared around querying small subsets of massive databases (e.g. returning a single customer record out of a database of millions). Its not really geared up for returning truly large data sets. If the amount of data that you are returning is genuinely large then there is only a certain amount that you will be able to do and so I'd have to ask:
What is it that you are actually trying to achieve?
If you are displaying log messages to a user, then they are only going to be interested in a small subset at a time, and so you might also want to look into efficient methods of paging SQL data - if you are only returning even say 500 or so records at a time it should still be very fast.
If you are trying to do some sort of statistical analysis then you might want to replicate your data into a data store more suited to statistical analysis. (Not sure what however, that isn't my area of expertise)
1: Never use Select *
2: make sure your indexes are correct, and your statistics are up-to-date
3: (Optional) If you find you're not looking at log data past a certain time (in my experience, if it happened more than a week ago, I'm probably not going to need the log for it) set up a job to archive that to some back-up, and then remove unused records. That will keep the table size down reducing the amount of time it takes search the table.
Depending on what kinda of SQL database you're using, you might look into Horizaontal Partitioning. Oftentimes, this can be done entirely on the database side of things so you won't need to change your code.
Do you need all columns? First step should be to select only those you actually need to retrieve.
Another aspect is what you do with the data after it arrives to your application (populate a data set/read it sequentially/?).
There can be some potential for improvement on the side of the processing application.
You should answer yourself these questions:
Do you need to hold all the returned data in memory at once? How much memory do you allocate per row on the retrieving side? How much memory do you need at once? Can you reuse some memory?
A couple of things
do you need all the columns, people usually do SELECT * because they are too lazy to list 5 columns of the 15 that the table has.
Get more RAM, themore RAM you have the more data can live in cache which is 1000 times faster than reading from disk
For me there are two things that you can do,
Partition the table horizontally based on the date column
Use the concept of pre-aggregation.
Pre-aggregation:
In preagg you would have a "logs" table, "logs_temp" table, a "logs_summary" table and a "logs_archive" table. The structure of logs and logs_temp table is identical. The flow of application would be in this way, all logs are logged in the logs table, then every hour a cron job runs that does the following things:
a. Copy the data from the logs table to "logs_temp" table and empty the logs table. This can be done using the Shadow Table trick.
b. Aggregate the logs for that particular hour from the logs_temp table
c. Save the aggregated results in the summary table
d. Copy the records from the logs_temp table to the logs_archive table and then empty the logs_temp table.
This way results are pre-aggregated in the summary table.
Whenever you wish to select the result, you would select it from the summary table.
This way the selects are very fast, because the number of records are far less as the data has been pre-aggregated per hour. You could even increase the threshold from an hour to a day. It all depends on your needs.
Now the inserts would be fast too, because the amount of data is not much in the logs table as it holds the data only for the last hour, so index regeneration on inserts would take very less time as compared to very large data-set hence making the inserts fast.
You can read more about Shadow Table trick here
I employed the pre-aggregation method in a news website built on wordpress. I had to develop a plugin for the news website that would show recently popular (popular during the last 3 days) news items, and there are like 100K hits per day, and this pre-aggregation thing has really helped us a lot. The query time came down from more than 2 secs to under a second. I intend on making the plugin publically available soon.
As per other answers, do not use 'select *' unless you really need all the fields.
logLevel and creationData have indexes
You need a single index with both values, what order you put them in will affect performance, but assuming you have a small number of possible loglevel values (and the data is not skewed) you'll get better performance putting creationData first.
Note that optimally an index will reduce the cost of a query to log(N) i.e. it will still get slower as the number of records increases.
C.
I really hope that by creationData you mean creationDate.
First of all, it is not enough to have indexes on logLevel and creationData. If you have 2 separate indexes, Oracle will only be able to use 1.
What you need is a single index on both fields:
CREATE INDEX i_log_1 ON log (creationData, logLevel);
Note that I put creationData first. This way, if you only put that field in the WHERE clause, it will still be able to use the index. (Filtering on just date seems more likely scenario that on just log level).
Then, make sure the table is populated with data (as much data as you will use in production) and refresh the statistics on the table.
If the table is large (at least few hundred thousand rows), use the following code to refresh the statistics:
DECLARE
l_ownname VARCHAR2(255) := 'owner'; -- Owner (schema) of table to analyze
l_tabname VARCHAR2(255) := 'log'; -- Table to analyze
l_estimate_percent NUMBER(3) := 5; -- Percentage of rows to estimate (NULL means compute)
BEGIN
dbms_stats.gather_table_stats (
ownname => l_ownname ,
tabname => l_tabname,
estimate_percent => l_estimate_percent,
method_opt => 'FOR ALL INDEXED COLUMNS',
cascade => TRUE
);
END;
Otherwise, if the table is small, use
ANALYZE TABLE log COMPUTE STATISTICS FOR ALL INDEXED COLUMNS;
Additionally, if the table grows large, you shoud consider to partition it by range on creationDate column. See these links for the details:
Oracle Documentation: Range Partitioning
OraFAQ: Range partitions
How to Create and Manage Partition Tables in Oracle