I've what's very likely going to be a stupid question for the hardware junkies lurking about
Would there be any potential performance gain to taking a single 2TB drive, splitting it to 2 partitions and then striping those partitions?
I would imagine not - or, at best, a negligable gain as while yes the head would have '2' potential opportunities to drop the newly created data on the disk, it's still on the same LUN.
Also, I would additionally think that given that you're creating a partition in itself would slow down the drive r/w access a bit too. (I hate windows for doing this by default now btw)
Related
i am having recently came to know that sql server if i delete one column or modify it acquires space at backend so i need to reindex and shrink the database and i have done it and my datbase size reduced to
2.82 to 1.62
so its good like wise so now i am in a confusion
so in my mind many questions regarding this subject occurs pls help me about this one
1. So it is necessary to recreate indexes(refresh ) after particular interval
It is necessary to shrink database after particular time so performance will be up to date?
If above yes then what particular time should i refresh (Shrink) my database?
i am having no idea what should be done for disk spacing problem i am having 77000 records it takes 2.82gb dataspace which is not acceptable i am having two tables of that one only with one table nvarchar(max) so there should be minimum spaces to database can anyone help me on this one Thanks in advance
I am going to simplify things a little for you so you might want to read up about the things I talk about in my answer.
Two concepts you must understand. Allocated space vs free space. A database might be 2GB in size but it is only using 1GB so it has allocated 2GB with 1GB free space. When you shrink a database it removes the free space so free space should be about 0. Dont think smaller file size is faster. As you database grows it has to allocate space again. When you shrink the file and then it grows every so often it cannot allocate space in a contiguous fashion. This will create fragmentation of the files which slows you down even more.
With data files(.mdb) files this is not so bad but with the transaction log shrinking the log can lead to virtual log file fragmentation issues which can slow you down. So in a nutshell there is very little reason to shrink your database on a schedule. Go read about Virtual Log Files in SQL Server there are a lot of articles about it. This is a good article about shrink log files and why it is bad. Use it as a starting point.
Secondly indexes get fragmented over time. This will lead to bad performance of SELECT queries mainly but will also affect other queries. Thus you need to perform some index maintenance on the database. See this answer on how to defragment your indexes.
Update:
Well the time you rebuild indexes is not clear cut. Index rebuilds lock the index during the rebuild. Essentially they are offline for the duration. In your case it would be fast 77 000 rows is nothing for SQL server. So rebuilding the indexes will consume server resources. IF you have enterprise edition you can do online index rebuilding which will NOT lock the indexes but will consume more space.
So what you need to do is find a maintenance window. For example if your system is used from 8:00 till 17:00 you can schedule maintenance rebuilds after hours. Schedule this with SQL server agent. The script in the link can be automated to run.
Your database is not big. I have seen SQL server handle tables of 750GB without taking strain if the IO is split over several disks. The slowest part of any database server is not the CPU or the RAM but the IO pathways to the disks. This is a huge topic though. Back to your point you are storing data in NVARCHAR(MAX) fields. I assume this is large text. So after you shrink the database you see the size at 1,62GB which means that each row in your database is about 1,62/77 000 big or roughly 22Kb big. This seems reasonable. Export the table to a text file and check the size you will be suprised it will probably be larger than 1,62GB.
Feel free to ask more detail if required.
Me got 15 x 100 million 32-byte records. Only sequential access and appends needed. The key is a Long. The value is a tuple - (Date, Double, Double). Is there something in this universe which can do this? I am willing to have 15 seperate databases (sql/nosql) or files for each of those 100 million records. I only have a i7 core and 8 GB RAM and 2 TB hard disk.
I have tried PostgreSQL, MySQL, Kyoto Cabinet (with fine tuning) with Protostuff encoding.
SQL DBs (with indices) take forever to do the silliest query.
Kyoto Cabinet's B-Tree can handle upto 15-18 million records beyond which appends take forever.
I am fed up so much that I am thinking of falling back on awk + CSV which I remember used to work for this type of data.
If you scenario means always going through all records in sequence then it may be an overkill to use a database. If you start to need random lookups, replacing/deleting records or checking if a new record is not a duplicate of an older one, a database engine would make more sense.
For the sequential access, a couple of text files or hand-crafted binary files will be easier to handle. You sound like a developer - I would probably go for an own binary format and access it with help of memory-mapped files to improve the sequential read/append speed. No caching, just a sliding window to read the data. I think that it would perform better and even on usual hardware than any DB would; I did such data analysis once. It would also be faster than awking CSV files; however, I am not sure how much and if it satisfied the effort to develop the binary storage, first of all.
As soon as the database becomes interesting, you can have a look at MongoDB and CouchDB. They are used for storing and serving very large amounts of data. (There is a flattering evaluation that compares one of them to traditional DBs.). Databases usually need a reasonable hardware power to perform better; maybe you could check out how those two would do with your data.
--- Ferda
Ferdinand Prantl's answer is very good. Two points:
By your requirements I recommend that you create a very tight binary format. This will be easy to do because your records are fixed size.
If you understand your data well you might be able to compress it. For example, if your key is an increasing log value you don't need to store it entirely. Instead, store the difference to the previous value (which is almost always going to be one). Then, use a standard compression algorithm/library to save on data size big time.
For sequential reads and writes, leveldb will handle your dataset pretty well.
I think that's about 48 gigs of data in one table.
When you get into large databases, you have to look at things a little differently. With an ordinary database (say, tables less than a couple million rows), you can do just about anything as a proof of concept. Even if you're stone ignorant about SQL databases, server tuning, and hardware tuning, the answer you come up with will probably be right. (Although sometimes you might be right for the wrong reason.)
That's not usually the case for large databases.
Unfortunately, you can't just throw 1.5 billion rows straight at an untuned PostgreSQL server, run a couple of queries, and say, "PostgreSQL can't handle this." Most SQL dbms have ways of dealing with lots of data, and most people don't know that much about them.
Here are some of the things that I have to think about when I have to process a lot of data over the long term. (Short-term or one-off processing, it's usually not worth caring a lot about speed. A lot of companies won't invest in more RAM or a dozen high-speed disks--or even a couple of SSDs--for even a long-term solution, let alone a one-time job.)
Server CPU.
Server RAM.
Server disks.
RAID configuration. (RAID 3 might be worth looking at for you.)
Choice of operating system. (64-bit vs 32-bit, BSD v. AT&T derivatives)
Choice of DBMS. (Oracle will usually outperform PostgreSQL, but it costs.)
DBMS tuning. (Shared buffers, sort memory, cache size, etc.)
Choice of index and clustering. (Lots of different kinds nowadays.)
Normalization. (You'd be surprised how often 5NF outperforms lower NFs. Ditto for natural keys.)
Tablespaces. (Maybe putting an index on its own SSD.)
Partitioning.
I'm sure there are others, but I haven't had coffee yet.
But the point is that you can't determine whether, say, PostgreSQL can handle a 48 gig table unless you've accounted for the effect of all those optimizations. With large databases, you come to rely on the cumulative effect of small improvements. You have to do a lot of testing before you can defensibly conclude that a given dbms can't handle a 48 gig table.
Now, whether you can implement those optimizations is a different question--most companies won't invest in a new 64-bit server running Oracle and a dozen of the newest "I'm the fastest hard disk" hard drives to solve your problem.
But someone is going to pay either for optimal hardware and software, for dba tuning expertise, or for programmer time and waiting on suboptimal hardware. I've seen problems like this take months to solve. If it's going to take months, money on hardware is probably a wise investment.
I am switching to PostgreSQL from SQLite for a typical Rails application.
The problem is that running specs became slow with PG.
On SQLite it took ~34 seconds, on PG it's ~76 seconds which is more than 2x slower.
So now I want to apply some techniques to bring the performance of the specs on par with SQLite with no code modifications (ideally just by setting the connection options, which is probably not possible).
Couple of obvious things from top of my head are:
RAM Disk (good setup with RSpec on OSX would be good to see)
Unlogged tables (can it be applied on the whole database so I don't have change all the scripts?)
As you may have understood I don't care about reliability and the rest (the DB is just a throwaway thingy here).
I need to get the most out of the PG and make it as fast as it can possibly be.
Best answer would ideally describe the tricks for doing just that, setup and the drawbacks of those tricks.
UPDATE: fsync = off + full_page_writes = off only decreased time to ~65 seconds (~-16 secs). Good start, but far from the target of 34.
UPDATE 2: I tried to use RAM disk but the performance gain was within an error margin. So doesn't seem to be worth it.
UPDATE 3:*
I found the biggest bottleneck and now my specs run as fast as the SQLite ones.
The issue was the database cleanup that did the truncation. Apparently SQLite is way too fast there.
To "fix" it I open a transaction before each test and roll it back at the end.
Some numbers for ~700 tests.
Truncation: SQLite - 34s, PG - 76s.
Transaction: SQLite - 17s, PG - 18s.
2x speed increase for SQLite.
4x speed increase for PG.
First, always use the latest version of PostgreSQL. Performance improvements are always coming, so you're probably wasting your time if you're tuning an old version. For example, PostgreSQL 9.2 significantly improves the speed of TRUNCATE and of course adds index-only scans. Even minor releases should always be followed; see the version policy.
Don'ts
Do NOT put a tablespace on a RAMdisk or other non-durable storage.
If you lose a tablespace the whole database may be damaged and hard to use without significant work. There's very little advantage to this compared to just using UNLOGGED tables and having lots of RAM for cache anyway.
If you truly want a ramdisk based system, initdb a whole new cluster on the ramdisk by initdbing a new PostgreSQL instance on the ramdisk, so you have a completely disposable PostgreSQL instance.
PostgreSQL server configuration
When testing, you can configure your server for non-durable but faster operation.
This is one of the only acceptable uses for the fsync=off setting in PostgreSQL. This setting pretty much tells PostgreSQL not to bother with ordered writes or any of that other nasty data-integrity-protection and crash-safety stuff, giving it permission to totally trash your data if you lose power or have an OS crash.
Needless to say, you should never enable fsync=off in production unless you're using Pg as a temporary database for data you can re-generate from elsewhere. If and only if you're doing to turn fsync off can also turn full_page_writes off, as it no longer does any good then. Beware that fsync=off and full_page_writes apply at the cluster level, so they affect all databases in your PostgreSQL instance.
For production use you can possibly use synchronous_commit=off and set a commit_delay, as you'll get many of the same benefits as fsync=off without the giant data corruption risk. You do have a small window of loss of recent data if you enable async commit - but that's it.
If you have the option of slightly altering the DDL, you can also use UNLOGGED tables in Pg 9.1+ to completely avoid WAL logging and gain a real speed boost at the cost of the tables getting erased if the server crashes. There is no configuration option to make all tables unlogged, it must be set during CREATE TABLE. In addition to being good for testing this is handy if you have tables full of generated or unimportant data in a database that otherwise contains stuff you need to be safe.
Check your logs and see if you're getting warnings about too many checkpoints. If you are, you should increase your checkpoint_segments. You may also want to tune your checkpoint_completion_target to smooth writes out.
Tune shared_buffers to fit your workload. This is OS-dependent, depends on what else is going on with your machine, and requires some trial and error. The defaults are extremely conservative. You may need to increase the OS's maximum shared memory limit if you increase shared_buffers on PostgreSQL 9.2 and below; 9.3 and above changed how they use shared memory to avoid that.
If you're using a just a couple of connections that do lots of work, increase work_mem to give them more RAM to play with for sorts etc. Beware that too high a work_mem setting can cause out-of-memory problems because it's per-sort not per-connection so one query can have many nested sorts. You only really have to increase work_mem if you can see sorts spilling to disk in EXPLAIN or logged with the log_temp_files setting (recommended), but a higher value may also let Pg pick smarter plans.
As said by another poster here it's wise to put the xlog and the main tables/indexes on separate HDDs if possible. Separate partitions is pretty pointless, you really want separate drives. This separation has much less benefit if you're running with fsync=off and almost none if you're using UNLOGGED tables.
Finally, tune your queries. Make sure that your random_page_cost and seq_page_cost reflect your system's performance, ensure your effective_cache_size is correct, etc. Use EXPLAIN (BUFFERS, ANALYZE) to examine individual query plans, and turn the auto_explain module on to report all slow queries. You can often improve query performance dramatically just by creating an appropriate index or tweaking the cost parameters.
AFAIK there's no way to set an entire database or cluster as UNLOGGED. It'd be interesting to be able to do so. Consider asking on the PostgreSQL mailing list.
Host OS tuning
There's some tuning you can do at the operating system level, too. The main thing you might want to do is convince the operating system not to flush writes to disk aggressively, since you really don't care when/if they make it to disk.
In Linux you can control this with the virtual memory subsystem's dirty_* settings, like dirty_writeback_centisecs.
The only issue with tuning writeback settings to be too slack is that a flush by some other program may cause all PostgreSQL's accumulated buffers to be flushed too, causing big stalls while everything blocks on writes. You may be able to alleviate this by running PostgreSQL on a different file system, but some flushes may be device-level or whole-host-level not filesystem-level, so you can't rely on that.
This tuning really requires playing around with the settings to see what works best for your workload.
On newer kernels, you may wish to ensure that vm.zone_reclaim_mode is set to zero, as it can cause severe performance issues with NUMA systems (most systems these days) due to interactions with how PostgreSQL manages shared_buffers.
Query and workload tuning
These are things that DO require code changes; they may not suit you. Some are things you might be able to apply.
If you're not batching work into larger transactions, start. Lots of small transactions are expensive, so you should batch stuff whenever it's possible and practical to do so. If you're using async commit this is less important, but still highly recommended.
Whenever possible use temporary tables. They don't generate WAL traffic, so they're lots faster for inserts and updates. Sometimes it's worth slurping a bunch of data into a temp table, manipulating it however you need to, then doing an INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... to copy it to the final table. Note that temporary tables are per-session; if your session ends or you lose your connection then the temp table goes away, and no other connection can see the contents of a session's temp table(s).
If you're using PostgreSQL 9.1 or newer you can use UNLOGGED tables for data you can afford to lose, like session state. These are visible across different sessions and preserved between connections. They get truncated if the server shuts down uncleanly so they can't be used for anything you can't re-create, but they're great for caches, materialized views, state tables, etc.
In general, don't DELETE FROM blah;. Use TRUNCATE TABLE blah; instead; it's a lot quicker when you're dumping all rows in a table. Truncate many tables in one TRUNCATE call if you can. There's a caveat if you're doing lots of TRUNCATES of small tables over and over again, though; see: Postgresql Truncation speed
If you don't have indexes on foreign keys, DELETEs involving the primary keys referenced by those foreign keys will be horribly slow. Make sure to create such indexes if you ever expect to DELETE from the referenced table(s). Indexes are not required for TRUNCATE.
Don't create indexes you don't need. Each index has a maintenance cost. Try to use a minimal set of indexes and let bitmap index scans combine them rather than maintaining too many huge, expensive multi-column indexes. Where indexes are required, try to populate the table first, then create indexes at the end.
Hardware
Having enough RAM to hold the entire database is a huge win if you can manage it.
If you don't have enough RAM, the faster storage you can get the better. Even a cheap SSD makes a massive difference over spinning rust. Don't trust cheap SSDs for production though, they're often not crashsafe and might eat your data.
Learning
Greg Smith's book, PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance remains relevant despite referring to a somewhat older version. It should be a useful reference.
Join the PostgreSQL general mailing list and follow it.
Reading:
Tuning your PostgreSQL server - PostgreSQL wiki
Number of database connections - PostgreSQL wiki
Use different disk layout:
different disk for $PGDATA
different disk for $PGDATA/pg_xlog
different disk for tem files (per database $PGDATA/base//pgsql_tmp) (see note about work_mem)
postgresql.conf tweaks:
shared_memory: 30% of available RAM but not more than 6 to 8GB. It seems to be better to have less shared memory (2GB - 4GB) for write intensive workloads
work_mem: mostly for select queries with sorts/aggregations. This is per connection setting and query can allocate that value multiple times. If data can't fit then disk is used (pgsql_tmp). Check "explain analyze" to see how much memory do you need
fsync and synchronous_commit: Default values are safe but If you can tolerate data lost then you can turn then off
random_page_cost: if you have SSD or fast RAID array you can lower this to 2.0 (RAID) or even lower (1.1) for SSD
checkpoint_segments: you can go higher 32 or 64 and change checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9. Lower value allows faster after-crash recovery
suppose I have a table that stores 100 million records of strings of varying sizes up to 20 characters in a column field. I need to index this column, I only have a 2GB-Ram machine, is this sufficient to perform such task? Is mysql recommended db engine for storage?
Databases are generally designed in a way that allows them to work with more data then you have available RAM. Giving it more working memory will speed things up, but it should be able to build the index and perform searches on it just fine.
If you have 2 GB of main memory, then yes, you should be able to build the index without any problems; virtual memory is a wonderful thing, and the DBMS may well arrange to spill data to disk as it goes.
If you only have 2 GB of disk space, you don't have enough space for the data and the index.
To no-one's surprise, it is 2 GB of main memory, not 2 GB of disk (that comment was mainly in jest - but these days, if someone says 256 GB, it is not clear whether they're referring to disk space or main memory; it could be either).
Yes, if the DBMS cannot create the index within that constraint, it is not worthy of being termed a DBMS.
MySQL probably can do the job. It isn't what I'd recommend, but I'm very biassed in this area as a result of being one of the developers of an alternative (commercial) DBMS. We don't have enough information about your budget etc to be able to advise reliably.
I have a problem with a large database I am working with which resides on a single drive - this Database contains around a dozen tables with the two main ones are around 1GB each which cannot be made smaller. My problem is the disk queue for the database drive is around 96% to 100% even when the website that uses the DB is idle. What optimisation could be done or what is the source of the problem the DB on Disk is 16GB in total and almost all the data is required - transactions data, customer information and stock details.
What are the reasons why the disk queue is always high no matter the website traffic?
What can be done to help improve performance on a database this size?
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
The database is an MS SQL 2000 Database running on Windows Server 2003 and as stated 16GB in size (Data File on Disk size).
Thanks
Well, how much memory do you have on the machine? If you can't store the pages in memory, SQL Server is going to have to go to the disk to get it's information. If your memory is low, you might want to consider upgrading it.
Since the database is so big, you might want to consider adding two separate physical drives and then putting the transaction log on one drive and partitioning some of the other tables onto the other drive (you have to do some analysis to see what the best split between tables is).
In doing this, you are allowing IO accesses to occur in parallel, instead of in serial, which should give you some more performance from your DB.
Before buying more disks and shifting things around, you might also update statistics and check your queries - if you are doing lots of table scans and so forth you will be creating unnecessary work for the hardware.
Your database isn't that big after all - I'd first look at tuning your queries. Have you profiled what sort of queries are hitting the database?
If you disk activity is that high while your site is idle, I would look for other processes that might be running that could be affecting it. For example, are you sure there aren't any scheduled backups running? Especially with a large db, these could be running for a long time.
As Mike W pointed out, there is usually a lot you can do with query optimization with existing hardware. Isolate your slow-running queries and find ways to optimize them first. In one of our applications, we spent literally 2 months doing this and managed to improve the performance of the application, and the hardware utilization, dramatically.