I am developing a MVC application where the view can fetch data using a stored procedure call which has multiple different queries or calling all of them individually directly from model. I am really confused about which approach makes a good practice ?
Thanks
I would go for a single call to the stored procedure in almost all cases (I will talk of the exception at the end).
Reasons:
Whoever maintains the stored procedure may introduce some extra logic (be it for performance reasons or business reasons) that you will have to either duplicate in your own direct calls, or - even worse - might miss altogether due to miscommunication with whoever is maintaining the stored procedure. (Even if you maintain both, you will have to spend effort on duplication). This is #1 reason: using a dedicated interface ensures correctness and avoid duplication
Every time you interact with your DB you incur in a small (but not null) overhead to open the connection (or retrieve it from a pool), marshalling and unmarshalling data over the wire, network latency and so on. Having a single entry point (your Stored Procedure) will amortize these better.
It is possible (but it really depends on a lot of different factors so it is not a guarantee of anything) that the DB engine can further optimize its workload by having everything in a single transaction context. I.e. maybe it issues two consecutive queries which are similar enough that a some of the indexes/records are buffered in the DB cache and so can be accessed faster by the second query).
Possible exception: your application has a sort of "zooming" process where you load first the header of a multirecord structure, and need the lower level details only when/if the user requires those. In this case it might be better to access these on the fly. I would still prefer the previous solution unless I can prove (i.e. testing with realistic loads) that the detail records are big enough to make this a burden on the front-end.
Please resist the temptation to just decide that it is more efficient this way unless you have hard data to backup your "insight". Most of the time this will prove to be a mistake.
So I feel pretty confident inside of Postgres but I have an interesting problem in my opinion.
I have my local Postgres instance and a remote Postgres instance. My remote instance is read only as it is a production server. I need to be able to pull records and generate views/tables/reports/whatever.
How can I accomplish that?
Currently I am using dblink running every 15 Minutes pretty much resetting my local instance by dropping all objects and using pgAgent jobs to rebuild all objects ready for the next cycle. It is really labor intensive to make changes and even worse to troubleshoot.
My eventual solution was to make views through dblink. it is slightly clunky but the speed increase is substantial and worth the more restrictive coding requirements for the connection.
First of all, thanks in advance for your help.
I've decided to ask for help in forums like this one because after several months of hard working, I couldn't find a solution for my problem.
This can be described as 'Why an object created in VB.net isn't released by the GC when it is disposed even when the GC was forced to be launched?"
Please consider the following piece of code. Obviously my project is much more complex, but I was able to isolate the problem:
Imports System.Data.Odbc
Imports System.Threading
Module Module1
Sub Main()
'Declarations-------------------------------------------------
Dim connex As OdbcConnection 'Connection to the DB
Dim db_Str As String 'ODBC connection String
'Sentences----------------------------------------------------
db_Str = "My ODBC connection String to my MySQL database"
While True
'Condition: Infinite loop.
connex = New OdbcConnection(db_Str)
connex.Open()
connex.Close()
'Release created objects
connex.Dispose()
'Force the GC to be launched
GC.Collect()
'Send the application to sleep half a second
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(500)
End While
End Sub
End Module
This simulates a multithreaded application making connections to a MySQL database. As you can see, the connection is created as a new object, then released. Finally, the GC was forced to be launched. I've seen this algorithm in several forums but also in the MSDN online help, so as far as I am concerned, I am not doing anything wrong.
The problem begins when the application is launched. The object created is disposed within the code, but after a while, the availiable memory is exhausted and the application crashes.
Of course, this problem is hard to see in this little version, but on the real project, the application runs out of memory very quickly (due to the amount of connections made over the time) and as result, the uptime is only two days. Then I need to restart the application again.
I installed a memory profiler on my machine (Scitech .Net Memory profiler 4.5, downloadable trial version here). There is a section called 'Investigate memory leaks'. I was absolutely astonished when I saw this on the 'Real Time' tab. If I am correct, this graphic is telling me that none of the objects created on the code have been actually released:
The surprise was even bigger when I saw this other screen. According to this, all undisposed objects are System.Transactions type, which I assume are internally managed within the .Net libraries as I am not creating any object of this type on my code. Does it mean there is a bug on the VB.net Standard libraries???:
Please notice that in my code, I am not executing any query. If I do, the ODBCDataReader object won't be released either, even if I call the .Close() method (surprisingly enough, the number of unreleased objects of this type is exactly the same as the unreleased objects of type System.Transactions)
Another important thing is the statement GC.Collect(). This is used by the memory profiler to refresh the information to be displayed. If you remove it from the code, the profiler wont' update the real time diagram properly, giving you the false impression that everything is correct.
Finally, if you ommit the connex.Open() statement, the screenshot #1 will render a flat line (that means all the objects created have been successfully released), but unfortunatelly, we can't make any query against the database if the connection hasn't been opened.
Can someone find a logical explanation to this and also, a workaround for effectively releasing the objects?
Thank you all folks.
Nico
Dispose has nothing to do with garbage collection. Garbage collection is exclusively about managed resources (memory). Dispose has no bearing on memory at all, and is only relevant for unmanaged resources (database connections, file handles, gdi resource, sockets... anything not memory). The only relationship between the two has to do with how an object is finalized, because many objects are often implemented such that disposing them will suppress finalization and finalizing them will call .Dispose(). Explicitly Disposing() an object will never cause it to be collected1.
Explicitly calling the garbage collector is almost always a bad idea. .Net uses a generational garbage collector, and so the main effect of calling it yourself is that you'll hold onto memory longer, because by forcing the collection earlier you're likely to check the items before they are eligible for collection at all, which sends them into a higher-order generation that is collected less often. These items otherwise would have stayed in the lower generation and been eligible for collection when the GC next ran on it's own. You may need to use GC.Collect() now for the profiler, but you should try to remove it for your production code.
You mention your app runs for two days before crashing, and are not profiling (or showing results for) your actual production code, so I also think the profiler is in part misleading you here. You've pared down the code to something that produced a memory leak, but I'm not sure it's the memory leak you are seeing in production. This is partly because of the difference in time to reproduce the error, but it's also "instinct". I mention that because some of what I'm going to suggest might not make sense immediately in light of your profiler results. That out of the way, I don't know for sure what is going on with your lost memory, but I can make a few guesses.
The first guess is that your real code has try/catch block. An exception is thrown... perhaps not on every connection, but sometimes. When that happens, the catch block allows your program to keep running, but you skipped over the connex.Dispose() line, and therefore leave open connections hanging around. These connections will eventually create a denial of service situation for the database, which can manifest itself in a number of ways. The correction here is to make sure you always use a finally block for anything you .Dispose(). This is true whether or not you currently have a try/catch block, and it's important enough that I would say the code you've posted so far is fundamentally wrong: you need a try/finally. There is a shortcut for this, via a using block.
The next guess is that some of your real commands end up fairly large, possibly with large strings or image (byte[]) data involved. In this case, items end up on a special garbage collector generation called the Large Object Heap (LOH). The LOH is rarely collected, and almost never compacted. Think of compaction as analogous to what happens when you defrag a hard drive. If you have items going to the LOH, you can end up in a situation where the physical memory itself is freed (collected), but the address space within your process (you are normally limited to 2GB) is not freed (compacted). You have holes in your memory address space that will not be reclaimed. The physical RAM is available to your system for other processes, but over time this still results in the same kind of OutOfMemory exception you're seeing. Most of the time this doesn't matter: most .Net programs are short-lived user-facing apps, or ASP.Net apps where the entire thread can be torn down after a page is served. Since you're building something like a service that should run for days, you have to be more careful. The fix may involve significantly re-working some code, to avoid creating the large objects at all. That may mean re-using a single or small set of byte arrays over and over, or using streaming techniques instead of string concatenation or string builders for very large sql queries or sql query data. It may also mean you find this easier to do as a scheduled task that runs daily and shuts itself down at the end of the day, or a program that is invoked on demand.
A final guess is that something you are doing results in your connection objects still being in some way reachable by your program. Event handlers are a common source of mistakes of this sort, though I would find it strange to have event handlers on your connections, especially as this is not part of your example.
1 I suppose I could contrive a scenario that would make this happen. A simple way would be to build an object assumes a global collection for all objects of that type... the objects add themselves to the collection at construction and remove themselves at disposal. In this way, the object could not be collected before disposal, because before that point it would still be reachable... but that would be a very flawed program design.
Thank you all guys for your very helpful answers.
Joel, you're right. This code produces 'a leak' which is not necesarily the same as 'the leak' problem I have on my real project, though they reproduce the same symptoms, that is, the number of unreleased objects keep growing (and eventually will exhaust the memory) on the code mentioned above. So I wonder what's wrong with it as everything seems to be properly coded. I don't understand why they are not disposed/collected. But according to the profiler, they are still in memory and eventually will prevent to create new objects.
One of your guesses about my 'real' project hit the nail on the head. I've realized that my 'catch' blocks didn't call for object disposal, and this has been now fixed. Thanks for your valuable suggestion. However, I implemented the 'using' clause in the code in my example above and didn't actually fix the problem.
Hans, you are also right. After posting the question, I've changed the libraries on the code above to make connections to MySQL.
The old libraries (in the example):
System.Data.Odbc
The new libraries:
System.Data
Microsoft.Data.Odbc
Whith the new ones, the profiler rendered a flat line, whithout any further changes on the code, which it was what I've been looking after. So my conclussion is the same as yours, that is there may be some internal error in the old ones that makes that thing to happen, which makes them a real 'troublemaker'.
Now I remember that I originally used the new ones on my project (the System.Data and Microsoft.Data.Odbc) but I soon changed for the old ones (the System.Data.Odbc) because the new ones doesn't allow Multiple Active Recordsets (MARS) opened. My application makes a huge amount of queries against the MySQL database, but unfortunately, the number of connections are limited. So I initially implemented my real code in such a way that it made only a few connections, but they were shared accross the code (passing the connection between functions as parameter). This was great because (for example) I needed to retrieve a recordset (let's say clients), and make a lot of checks at the same time (example, the client has at least one invoice, the client has a duplicated email address, etc, which involves a lot of side queries). Whith the 'old' libraries, the same connection allowed to create multiple commands and execute different queries.
The 'new' libraries don't allow MARS. I can only create one command (that is, to execute a query) per session/connection. If I need to execute another one, I need to close the previous recordset (which isn't actually possible as I am iterating over it), and then to make the new query.
I had to find the balance between both problems. So I end up using the 'new libraries' because of the memory problems, and I recoded my application to not share the connections (so each procedure will create a new one when needed), as well as reducing the number of connections the application can do at the same time to not exhaust the connection pool.
The solution is far to ideal as it introduces spurious logic on the application (the ideal case scenario would be to migrate to SQL server), but it is giving me better results and the application is being more stable, at least in the early stages of the new version.
Thanks again for your suggestions, I hope you will find mines usefult too.
Cheers.
Nico
I have a reasonable number of records in an Azure Table that I'm attempting to do some one time data encryption on. I thought that I could speed things up by using a Parallel.ForEach. Also because there are more than 1K records and I don't want to mess around with continuation tokens myself I'm using a CloudTableQuery to get my enumerator.
My problem is that some of my records have been double encrypted and I realised that I'm not sure how thread safe the enumerator returned by CloudTableQuery.Execute() is. Has anyone else out there had any experience with this combination?
I would be willing to bet the answer to Execute returning a thread-safe IEnumerator implementation is highly unlikely. That said, this sounds like yet another case for the producer-consumer pattern.
In your specific scenario I would have the original thread that called Execute read the results off sequentially and stuff them into a BlockingCollection<T>. Before you start doing that though, you want to start a separate Task that will control the consumption of those items using Parallel::ForEach. Now, you will probably also want to look into using the GetConsumingPartitioner method of the ParallelExtensions library in order to be most efficient since the default partitioner will create more overhead than you want in this case. You can read more about this from this blog post.
An added bonus of using BlockingCollection<T> over a raw ConcurrentQueueu<T> is that it offers the ability to set bounds which can help block the producer from adding more items to the collection than the consumers can keep up with. You will of course need to do some performance testing to find the sweet spot for your application.
Despite my best efforts I've been unable to replicate my original problem. My conclusion is therefore that it is perfectly OK to use Parallel.ForEach loops with CloudTableQuery.Execute().
I currently use a singleton to acces my database (see related question) but now when try to add some background processing everything fall apart. I read the sqlite docs and found that sqlite could work thread-safe, but each thread must have their own db connection. I try using egodatabase that promise a sqlite wrapper with thread safety but is very buggy, so I return to my old FMDB library I start to see how use it in multi-thread way.
Because I have all code with the idea of singleton, change everything will be expensive (and a lot of open/close connections could become slow), so I wonder if, as the sqlite docs hint, build a pooling for each connection will help. If is the case, how make it? How to know which connection to get from the pool (because 2 threads can't share the connection)?
I wonder if somebody already use sqlite in multi-threading with NSOperation or similar stuff, my searching only return "yeah, its possible" but let the details to my imagination...
You should look at using thread-local variables to hold the connection; if the variable is empty (i.e., holding something like a NULL) you know you can safely open a connection at that point to serve the thread and store the connection back in the variable. Don't know how to do this with Obj-C though.
Also be aware that SQLite is not tuned for concurrent writes. Writer locks are expensive, so keep any time in a writing transaction (i.e., one that includes an INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE) to a minimum in all threads. Transaction commits are also expensive too.