I've been struggling with the best way to structure my table. Its intended to have many, many GBs of data (I haven't been given a more detailed estimate). The table will be claims data (example here) with a partition key being the resourceType and a sort key being the id (although these could be potentially changed). The end user should be able to search by a number of attributes (institution, provider, payee, etc totaling ~15).
I've been toying with combining global and local indices in order to achieve this functionality on the backend. What would be the best way to structure the table to allow a user to search the data according to 1 or more of these attributes in essentially any combination?
If you use resourceType as a partition key you are essentially throwing away the horizontal scaling features that DynamoDB provides out of the box.
The reason to partition your data is such that you distribute it across many nodes in order to be able to scale without incurring a performance penalty.
It sounds like you're looking to put all claim documents into a single partition so you can do "searches" by arbitrary attributes.
You might be better off combining your DynamoDB table with something like ElasticSearch for quick, arbitrary search capabilities.
Keep in mind that DynamoDB can only accommodate approximately 10GB of data in a single partition and that a single partition is limited to up to 3000 reads per second, and up to 1000 writes per second (reads + 3 * writes <= 3000).
Finally, you might consider storing your claim documents directly into ElasticSearch.
Related
I have a table with three columns: user_id, post_id and voting.
Each post in the application can get a voting by multiple users but only one voting per user.
Imagine we end up with 1 billion posts and an average of 1000 votings on each. Would it still be a good practice to store all these information in a single table? (performancewise)
Is it maybe better to split the information in different tables, maybe userwise? (potentially multiple thousand users, so multiple tables)
For best practices create a non-clustered index on user_id the reason I say this is it will help you to run operations like - get all posts of a particular user etc.
If in future record is very big like half to what you mentioned you can do DB shading it will improve overall performance. The idea is to distribute data that can’t fit on a single node onto a cluster of database nodes. You can refer to your vendor's documentation to achieve these.
I'm not sure which is faster. I have the need to store lists of possible data.
Currently I have an SQL table with the following structure being accessed with php.
boxID
place
name -- (serialNum, itemNum, idlock, etc, etc)
data
--(Note: The Primary Key here would be boxId, place, name, and data, to prevent duplicate data.)
The reason i set it up like this was to prevent creating columns per named data. Its a possibility in the future to have 5-10 different named data or more. Also possible to store 1,000 - 10,000 entries of data in one week for just one named data. It will be searched as well, like when i get place from a specific serialNum, then getting all data related to that place. (A specific serialNum, itemNum, idLock, etc, etc,)
But my concern is that my structure could be slower than just creating a named column for each named data. For example:
boxID
place
serialNum
itemNum
idLock
etc
etc
--(Note: Not even sure how to add keys to this if i would do it this way)
To sum it up: Which is faster and better practice? (keep in mind im still a novice with SQL)
The best practice is to model your data as entities with specific attributes. Typically an entity has at most a few dozen attributes. The entities typically turn into tables, and the attributes typically which turn into columns. That is, the physical model and the logic model are often very similar.
There may be other considerations. For instance, there is a limit on the number of columns a row can have -- and if you have more columns, you need another solution. Similarly, if the data is sparse (that is, most values are NULL), then having lots of unused columns may be a waste of space. That is, it is more efficient to store it in another format. SQL Server offers sparse columns for this reason.
My suggestion is that you design your table in an intuitive way with named columns. A volume of data of 1,000 - 10,000 rows per week is not that much data. That turns into 50,000 - 500,000 rows per year, which SQL Server should be easily able to handle the volume. You don't say how many named entities you have, but table with millions or tens of millions of rows are quite reasonable for modern databases.
Alongside the users table, Wordpress has a usersmeta table with the following columns
meta_id
user_id
meta_key (e.g. first_name)
meta_value (e.g. Tom)
Each user has 20 rows in the usersmeta table, regardless of whether or not the rows have a filled-in meta_value. That said, would it not be more efficient to add the always-present meta rows to the users table?
I'm guessing that the information in the users table is more frequently queried (e.g. user_id, username, pass), so it is more efficient to keep those rows smaller. Is this true? And are there other reasons for this separation of tables?
Entity Attribute Value
It's known as the Entity Attribute Value (EAV) data model, and allows an arbitrary number of attributes to be assigned to a given entity. That means any number of meta-data entries per user.
Why use it
By default there are a few keys that wordpress sets (20 stated in the question) but there can be any number. If all users have one thousand meta data entries - there are simply one thousand entries in the usermeta table for each user - it doesn't have (in terms of the database structure) a limit to the number of meta data entries a user can have. It also permits one user to have one thousand meta data entires, whilst all others have 20 and still store the data efficiently - or any permutation thereof.
In addition to flexibility, using this kind of structure permits the main users table to remain small - which means more efficient queries.
Alternatives
The alternatives to using EAV include:
Modify the schema whenever the number of attributes changes
Store all attributes in a serialized string (on the user object)
Use a schemaless db
Permissions is the biggest problem with the first point, it is not a good idea to grant blanket access to alter the schema of your database tables, and is a (sane) roadblock for many if not most wordpress installs (hosted on wordpress.com or on a shared host where the db user has no alter permissions). Mysql also has a hard-limit of 4096 columns and 65,535 bytes per row. Attempting to store a large number of columns in a single table will eventually fail, along the way creating a table that is inefficient to query.
Storing all attribute in a serialized string would make it difficult and slow to query by a meta-data value.
Wordpress is quite tied to mysql, and therefore changing datastore isn't a realistic option.
Further WP info
If you aren't using any/many plugins it's possible you will have a constant number of rows in the usermeta table for each user, but typically each plugin you add may need to add meta-data for users; the number added may not be trivial and this data is stored in the usermeta table.
The docs for add_meta_user may add some clarity as to why the database is structured that way. If you put code like this somewhere:
add_user_meta($user_id, "favorite_color", "blue");
It will create a row in the usermeta table for the given user_id, without the need to add a column (favorite_color) to the main users table. That makes it easy-ish to find users by favorite color without the need to modify the schema of the users table.
This is really a question about database normalization. You can look for information on that topic in many places.
Basic answer Since there is a huge literature about this, and there are a lot of differences, I will just give some examples of why this might happen - it boild down to trade-offs; Speed versus storage requirements, or ease of use versus data duplication. Efficiency is multidimensional, and since wordpress does a lot of different things, it may have various reasons to keep them separate - space could be an issue, speed of queries may depend on this, it may be easier to look at just the meta table instead of the full table for some purposes, or vice versa.
Further reading This is a deep topic, you may want to learn more - there are hundreds of books and thousands of scholarly papers on these issues. For instance, look at this previous SO question about designing a database:
Database design: one huge table or separate tables?, or this one: First-time database design: am I overengineering?
or Database Normalization Basics
on About.com.
We are building an caching solution for our user data. The data is currently stored i sybase and is distributed across 5 - 6 tables but query service built on top of it using hibernate and we are getting a very poor performance. In order to load the data into the cache it would take in the range of 10 - 15 hours.
So we have decided to create a denormalized table of 50 - 60 columns and 5mm rows into another relational database (UDB), populate that table first and then populate the cache from the new denormalized table using JDBC so the time to build us cache is lower. This gives us a lot better performance and now we can build the cache in around an hour but this also does not meet our requirement of building the cache whithin 5 mins. The denormlized table is queried using the following query
select * from users where user id in (...)
Here user id is the primary key. We also tried a query
select * from user where user_location in (...)
and created a non unique index on location also but that also did not help.
So is there a way we can make the queries faster. If not then we are also open to consider some NOSQL solutions.
Which NOSQL solution would be suited for our needs. Apart from the large table we would be making around 1mm updates on the table on a daily basis.
I have read about mongo db and seems that it might work but no one has posted any experience with mongo db with so many rows and so many daily updates.
Please let us know your thoughts.
The short answer here, relating to MongoDB, is yes - it can be used in this way to create a denormalized cache in front of an RDBMS. Others have used MongoDB to store datasets of similar (and larger) sizes to the one you described, and can keep a dataset of that size in RAM. There are some details missing here in terms of your data, but it is certainly not beyond the capabilities of MongoDB and is one of the more frequently used implementations:
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/The+Database+and+Caching
The key will be the size of your working data set and therefore your available RAM (MongoDB maps data into memory). For larger solutions, write heavy scaling, and similar issues, there are numerous approaches (sharding, replica sets) that can be employed.
With the level of detail given it is hard to say for certain that MongoDB will meet all of your requirements, but given that others have already done similar implementations and based on the information given there is no reason it will not work either.
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.