Let's assume we have a ticketing system web page where are displayed tickets (tickets are distributed on multiple pages). Also, in the same page there is a search form which allows filtering.
Those tickets can be modified anytime (delete,update,insert).
So i'm a bit confused. How should the internal architecture look?I've been thinking for a while and I haven't found a clear path.
From my point of view there are 2 ways:
use something like an in-memory database and store all the data there. So it's very easy to filter content and to display the requested items. But this solution implies storing a lot of useless data in ram. Like tickets closed or resolved. And those tickets should be there because they can be requested.
use database for every search, page display, etc. So there will be a lot of queries. Every search, every page (per user) will result in a database query. Isn't this a bit too much ?
Which solution is better? Are there any better solutions ? Are my concerns futile?
You said "But this solution implies storing a lot of useless data in ram. Like tickets closed or resolved. And those tickets should be there because they can be requested."
If those tickets should be there because they can be requested, then it's not really useless data, is it?
It sounds like a good use case for a hybrid in-memory/persistent database. Keep the open/displayed tickets in in-memory tables. When closed, move them to persistent tables.
Related
I'm creating a RESTful web service (in Golang) which pulls a set of rows from the database and returns it to a client (smartphone app or web application). The service needs to be able to provide paging. The only problem is this data is sorted on a regularly changing "computed" column (for example, the number of "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" a piece of content on a website has), so rows can jump around page numbers in between a client's request.
I've looked at a few PostgreSQL features that I could potentially use to help me solve this problem, but nothing really seems to be a very good solution.
Materialized Views: to hold "stale" data which is only updated every once in a while. This doesn't really solve the problem, as the data would still jump around if the user happens to be paging through the data when the Materialized View is updated.
Cursors: created for each client session and held between requests. This seems like it would be a nightmare if there are a lot of concurrent sessions at once (which there will be).
Does anybody have any suggestions on how to handle this, either on the client side or database side? Is there anything I can really do, or is an issue such as this normally just remedied by the clients consuming the data?
Edit: I should mention that the smartphone app is allowing users to view more pieces of data through "infinite scrolling", so it keeps track of it's own list of data client-side.
This is a problem without a perfectly satisfactory solution because you're trying to combine essentially incompatible requirements:
Send only the required amount of data to the client on-demand, i.e. you can't download the whole dataset then paginate it client-side.
Minimise amount of per-client state that the server must keep track of, for scalability with large numbers of clients.
Maintain different state for each client
This is a "pick any two" kind of situation. You have to compromise; accept that you can't keep each client's pagination state exactly right, accept that you have to download a big data set to the client, or accept that you have to use a huge amount of server resources to maintain client state.
There are variations within those that mix the various compromises, but that's what it all boils down to.
For example, some people will send the client some extra data, enough to satisfy most client requirements. If the client exceeds that, then it gets broken pagination.
Some systems will cache client state for a short period (with short lived unlogged tables, tempfiles, or whatever), but expire it quickly, so if the client isn't constantly asking for fresh data its gets broken pagination.
Etc.
See also:
How to provide an API client with 1,000,000 database results?
Using "Cursors" for paging in PostgreSQL
Iterate over large external postgres db, manipulate rows, write output to rails postgres db
offset/limit performance optimization
If PostgreSQL count(*) is always slow how to paginate complex queries?
How to return sample row from database one by one
I'd probably implement a hybrid solution of some form, like:
Using a cursor, read and immediately send the first part of the data to the client.
Immediately fetch enough extra data from the cursor to satisfy 99% of clients' requirements. Store it to a fast, unsafe cache like memcached, Redis, BigMemory, EHCache, whatever under a key that'll let me retrieve it for later requests by the same client. Then close the cursor to free the DB resources.
Expire the cache on a least-recently-used basis, so if the client doesn't keep reading fast enough they have to go get a fresh set of data from the DB, and the pagination changes.
If the client wants more results than the vast majority of its peers, pagination will change at some point as you switch to reading direct from the DB rather than the cache or generate a new bigger cached dataset.
That way most clients won't notice pagination issues and you don't have to send vast amounts of data to most clients, but you won't melt your DB server. However, you need a big boofy cache to get away with this. Its practical depends on whether your clients can cope with pagination breaking - if it's simply not acceptable to break pagination, then you're stuck with doing it DB-side with cursors, temp tables, coping the whole result set at first request, etc. It also depends on the data set size and how much data each client usually requires.
I am not aware of a perfect solution for this problem. But if you want the user to have a stale view of the data then cursor is the way to go. Only tuning you can do is to store only the data for 1st 2 pages in the cursor. Beyond that you fetch it again.
I am developing a VB.Net application. That application might be working on a LAN. MS Access as a back end will be used. I have developed many single user applications, but don't know of multi user , LAN, manage DB etc. How do I make the program as Multi user on LAN. Data will be accessed at the same time. How to manage such things.
Please give me some help and Guidance.
Thanks
Your VB application does not care how many people run it.
Your database, with MS Access, has some serious issues with multiple users. Get away from it if you can. SQL Server has a free version called SQL Express. If you only plan on 2 people, you might be OK with Access for a while but be prepared to support it more.
That was all the easy stuff, now you have to think about how you are going to handle multiple users trying to access and update the same data (concurrency).
Imagine this, you are a user looking at employee record 1 and so is someone else. You change the birthday and save. The the other user changes thier suppervisor and saves. How do you know something changed? What do you do if something changed? These are questions I cannot answer for you, you must decide based on your situation.
There are 2 main types of concurrency, optimistic and pessimistic. See this link for a great explaination and discussion on them: optimistic-vs-pessimistic-locking
You can look at this on a table-by-table basis.
If a table is never updated, you dont have to worry about concurrency
If a table is rarely updated, like a table of states, you can decide if it is worth the extra effort to add concurrency.
Everything else, pretty much should have some type of concurrency.
Now, the million dollar question, how?
You will find as many ways to handle concurrency as you will find colors in the rainbow. Here are some of the ones I like:
Simple number that you increment with each save. Small and easy.
DateTime stamp - As long as you dont expect to ever have 2 people save the same record during the same second, this is easy. (I personally dont like it by it's self)
User Name - Pretty simple gives a little bit of an audit by knowing who last inserted/edited the record but doesn't handle an issue I have seen to often. Imagine the same senerio as above but you had 2 instances of record 1. Now you change the data again, maybe supervisor, and when you save, you overwrite the changes from your first save with those of the second save.
Guid - VB can create a guid, SQL Server can create a guid and so can Access. It is nice an unique and most important, you can create it on the client so you dont have to requery the database after you save the record to get a refreshed record.
Combination of these. I like 2 and 3 myself. Gives a mini audit and is unique to the user.
If you use a DataAdapter, by default, MS will assume concurrency checking means to compare EVERY field to make sure it did not change. This works, but is completely un-scaleable and should not be done.
All of this depends on the size of your application and how you see it being used. Definately do some more research before you settle on a decision.
There are a number of solutions here.
If I may suggest a drastic alternative, have you considered pairing the client running on the user's computer with a server component (through a web service)? A simpler alternative would be for the client to talk directly to a SQL Server (or other database) instance through the network?*
*I'm not a fan of having client side apps talk directly to the database. It will mean maintenance headaches in the future, but I
included it to give you options
.
I found this random example via Google so YMMV.
We have data stored in a data warehouse as follows:
Price
Date
Product Name (varchar(25))
We currently only have four products. That changes very infrequently (on average once every 10 years). Once every business day, four new data points are added representing the day's price for each product.
On the website, a user can request this information by entering a date range and selecting one or more products names. Analytics shows that the feature is not heavily used (about 10 users requests per week).
It was suggested that the data warehouse should daily push (SFTP) a CSV file containing all data (currently 6718 rows of this data and growing by four each day) to the web server. Then, the web server would read data from the file and display that data whenever a user made a request.
Usually, the push would only be once a day, but more than one push could be possible to communicate (infrequent) price corrections. Even in the price correction scenario, all data would be delivered in the file. What are problems with this approach?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request? Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request?
Yes it would. You have very little data, so there is no need to try and 'cache' this in some way. (Apart from the fact that CSV might not be the best way to do this).
There is nothing stopping you from doing these requests from the webserver to the database server. With as little information as this you will not find performance an issue, but even if it would be when everything grows, there is a lot to be gained on the database-side (indexes etc) that will help you survive the next 100 years in this fashion.
The amount of requests from your users (also extremely small) does not need any special treatment, so again, direct query would be the best.
Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Well, it might, but that would not justify your CSV method. Examples and why you need not worry, could be
the connection with the databaseserver is down.
This is an issue for both methods, but with only one connection per day the change of a 1-in-10000 failures might seem to be better for once-a-day methods. But these issues should not come up very often, and if they do, you should be able to handle them. (retry request, give a message to user). This is what enourmous amounts of websites do, so trust me if I say that this will not be an issue. Also, think of what it would mean if your daily update failed? That would present a bigger problem!
Performance issues
as said, this is due to the amount of data and requests, not a problem. And even if it becomes one, this is a problem you should be able to catch at a different level. Use a caching system (non CSV) on the database server. Use a caching system on the webserver. Fix your indexes to stop performance from being a problem.
BUT:
It is far from strange to want your data-warehouse separated from your web system. If this is a requirement, and it surely could be, the best thing you can do is re-create your warehouse-database (the one I just defended as being good enough to query directly) on another machine. You might get good results by doing a master-slave system
your datawarehouse is a master-database: it sends all changes to the slave but is inexcessible otherwise
your 2nd database (on your webserver even) gets all updates from the master, and is read-only. you can only query it for data
your webserver cannot connect to the datawarehouse, but can connect to your slave to read information. Even if there was an injection hack, it doesn't matter, as it is read-only.
Now you don't have a single moment where you update the queried database (the master-slave replication will keep it updated always), but no chance that the queries from the webserver put your warehouse in danger. profit!
I don't really see how SQL injection could be a real concern. I assume you have some calendar type field that the user fills in to get data out. If this is the only form just ensure that the only field that is in it is a date then something like DROP TABLE isn't possible. As for getting access to the database, that is another issue. However, a separate file with just the connection function should do fine in most cases so that a user can't, say open your webpage in an HTML viewer and see your database connection string.
As for the CSV, I would have to say querying a database per user, especially if it's only used ~10 times weekly would be much more efficient than the CSV. I just equate the CSV as overkill because again you only have ~10 users attempting to get some information, to export an updated CSV every day would be too much for such little pay off.
EDIT:
Also if an attack is a big concern, which that really depends on the nature of the business, the data being stored, and the visitors you receive, you could always create a backup as another option. I don't really see a reason for this as your question is currently stated, but it is a possibility that even with the best security an attack could happen. That mainly just depends on if the attackers want the information you have.
On my website, there exists a group of 'power users' who are fantastic and adding lots of content on to my site.
However, their prolific activities has led to their profile pages slowing down a lot. For 95% of the other users, the SPROC that is returning the data is very quick. It's only for these group of power users, the very same SPROC is slow.
How does one go about optimising the query for this group of users?
You can assume that the right indexes have already been constructed.
EDIT: Ok, I think I have been a bit too vague. To rephrase the question, how can I optimise my site to enhance the performance for these 5% of users. Given that this SPROC is the same one that is in use for every user and that it is already well optimised, I am guessing the next steps are to explore caching possibilities on the data and application layers?
EDIT2: The only difference between my power users and the rest of the users is the amount of stuff they have added. So I guess the bottleneck is just the sheer number of records that is being fetched. An average user adds about 200 items to my site. These power users add over 10,000 items. On their profile, I am showing all the items they have added (you can scroll through them).
I think you summed it up here:
An average user adds about 200 items
to my site. These power users add over
10,000 items. On their profile, I am
showing all the items they have added
(you can scroll through them).
Implement paging so that it only fetches 100 at a time or something?
Well you can't optimize a query for a specific result set and leave the query for the rest unchanged. If you know what I mean. I'm guessing there's only one query to change, so you will optimize it for every type of user. Therefore this optimization scenario is no different from any other. Figure out what the problem is; is it too much data being returned? Calculations taking too long because of the amount of data? Where exactly is the cause of the slowdown? Those are questions you need to ask yourself.
However I see you talking about profile pages being slow. When you think the query that returns that information is already optimized (because it works for 95%), you might consider some form of caching of the profile page content. In general, profile pages do not have to supply real-time information.
Caching can be done in a lot of ways, far too many to cover in this answer. But to give you one small example; you could work with a temp table. Your 'profile query' returns information from that temp table, information that is already calculated. Because that query will be simple, it won't take that much time to execute. Meanwhile, you make sure that the temp table periodically gets refreshed.
Just a couple of ideas. I hope they're useful to you.
Edit:
An average user adds about 200 items to my site. These power users add over 10,000 items.
On their profile, I am showing all the
items they have added (you can scroll
through them).
An obvious help for this will be to limit the number of results inside the query, or apply a form of pagination (in the DAL, not UI/BLL!).
You could limit the profile display so that it only shows the most recent 200 items. If your power users want to see more, they can click a button and get the rest of their items. At that point, they would expect a slower response.
Partition / separate the data for those users then the tables in question will be used by only them.
In a clustered environment I believe SQL recognises this and spreads the load to compensate, however in a single server environment i'm not entirely sure how it does the optimisation.
So essentially (greatly simplified of course) ...
If you havea table called "Articles", have 2 tables ... "Articles", "Top5PercentArticles".
Because the data is now separated out in to 2 smaller subsets of data the indexes are smaller and the read and write requests on a single table in the database will drop.
it's not ideal from a business layer point of view as you would then need some way to list what data is stored in what tables but that's a completely separate problem altogether.
Failing that your only option past execution plans is to scale up your server platform.
When considering social web app architecture, is it a better approach to document user social patterns in a database or in logs? I thought for sure that behavior, actions, events would be strictly database stored but I noticed that some of the larger social sites out there also track a lot by logging what happens.
Is it good practice to store prominent data about users in a database and since thousands of user actions can be spawned easily, should they be simply logged?
Remember that Facebook, for example, doesn't update users information per se, they just insert your new information and use the most recent one, keeping the old one. If you plan to take this approach is HIGHLY recommended, if not mandatory, to use a NoSQL DB like Cassandra, you'll need speed over integrity.
Information = money. Update = lose information = lose money.
Obviously, it depends on what you want to do with it (and what you mean be "logging").
I'd recommend a flexible database storage. That way you can query it reasonably easily, and also make it flexible to changes later on.
Also, from a privacy point of view, it's appropriate to be able to easily associate items with certain entities so they can be removed, if so requested.
You're making an artificial distinction between "logging" and "database".
Whenever practical, I log to a database, even though this data will effectively be static and never updated. This is because the data analysis is much easier if you can cross-reference the log table with other, non-static data.
Of course, if you have a high volume of things to track, logging to a SQL data table may not be practical, but in that case you should probably be considering some other kind of database for the application.