I have a ZODB catalog query with a start and end date. I want to sort the result on end_date first and then start_date second.
Sorting on either end_date or start_date works fine.
I tried with a tuple (start_date,end_date), but with no luck.
Is there a way to achieve this or do one have to employ some custom logic afterwards?
The generalized answer ought to be post-hoc-sort of your entire result set of catalog brains, use zope.sequencesort (via PyPI, but already shipped with Plone) or similar.
The more complex answer is a rabbit-hole of optimizations that you should only go down if you know you need to and know what you are doing:
Make sure when you do sort the brains that your user gets a sticky session to the same instance, at least for cache-affinity to get the same catalog indexes and brains (metadata);
You might want to cache across requests (thread-global) a unique session id, and a sequence of catalog RID (integer) values for your entire sorted request, should you expect the user to come back and need in subsequent batches. Of course, RIDs need to be re-constituted into ZCatalog's lazy-sequences of brains, and this requires some know-how (or reading the source).
Finally, for large result (many thousands) sets, I would suggest that it is reasonable to make application-specific compromises that approximate correct by post-hoc sorting of the current batch through to the end of the n-batches after it, where n is inversely proportional to the len(site.portal_catalog.uniqueValuesFor(indexnamehere)). For a large set of results, the correctness of an approximated secondary-sort is high for high-variability, and low for low variability (many items with same secondary value, such that count is much larger than batch size can make this frustrating).
Do not optimize as such unless you are dealing with particularly large result sets.
It should go without saying: if you do optimize, you need to verify that you are actually getting a superior result (profile and benchmark). If you cannot justify investing the time to do this, you cannot justify optimizing.
Related
I have an program that needs to run queries on a number of very large Oracle tables (the largest with tens of millions of rows). The output of these queries is fed into another process which (as a side effect) can record the progress of the query (i.e., the last row fetched).
It would be nice if, in the event that the task stopped half way through for some reason, it could be restarted. For this to happen, the query has to return rows in a consistent order, so it has to be sorted. The obvious thing to do is to sort on the primary key; however, there is probably going to be a penalty for this in terms of performance (an index access) versus a non-sorted solution. Given that a restart may never happen this is not desirable.
Is there some trick to ensure consistent ordering in another way? Any other suggestions for maintaining performance in this case?
EDIT: I have been looking around and seen "order by rowid" mentioned. Is this useful or even possible?
EDIT2: I am adding some benchmarks:
With no order by: 17 seconds.
With order by PK: 46 seconds.
With order by rowid: 43 seconds.
So any order by has a savage effect on performance, and using rowid makes little difference. Accepted answer is - there is no easy way to do it.
The best advice I can think of is to reduce the chance of a problem occurring that might stop the process, and that means keeping the code simple. No cursors, no commits, no trying to move part of the data, just straight SQL statements.
Unless a complete restart would be a completely unacceptable disaster, I'd go for simplicity without any part-way restart code at all.
If you want some order and queried data is unsorted then you need to sort it anyway, and spend some resources to do sorting.
So, there are at least two variants for optimization:
Minimize resources spent on sorting;
Query already sorted data.
For the first variant Oracle on its own calculates a best variant to minimize data access and overall query time. It may be possible to choose sorting order involved in unique index which already used by optimizer, but it's a very questionable tactic.
Second variant is about index-organized tables and about forcing Oracle with hints to use some specific index. It seems Ok if you need to process nearly all records in some specific table, but if selectivity of query is high it's significantly slows a process, even on a single table.
Think about a table with surrogate primary key which holds data with 10-year transaction history. If you need data only for previous year and you force order by primary key then Oracle need to process records in all 10 years one-by-one to find all records which belongs to a single year.
But if you need data for 9 years from this table then full table scan may be faster than index-based choice.
So selectivity of your query is a key to choose between full table scan and result sorting.
For storing results and restarting query a good solution is to use Oracle Streams Advanced Queuing to fed another process.
All unprocessed messages in queue redirected to Exception Queue where it may be processed separately.
Because you don't specify exact ordering for selected messages I suppose that you need ordering only to maintain unprocessed part of records. If it's true then with AQ you don't need ordering at all and may, even, process records in parallel.
So, finally, from my point of view Buffered Queue is what you really need.
You could skip ordering and just update the records you processed with something like SET is_processed = 'Y' or SET date_processed = sysdate. Complete restartability and no ordering.
For performance you can partition by is_processed. Yes, partition key changes might be slow, but it is all about trade-offs.
Suppose the data distribution does not change, For a same query, only dataset is enlarged a time, will the time taken also becomes 1 time? If the data distribution does not change, will the query plan change if in theory?
Yes, the query plan may still change even if the data is completely static, though it probably won't.
The autovaccum daemon will ANALYZE your tables and generate new statistics. This usually happens only when they've changed, but may happen for other reasons (wrap-around prevention vacuum, etc).
The statistics include a random sampling to collect common values for a histogram. Being random, the outcome may be somewhat different each time.
To reduce the chances of plans shifting for a static dataset, you probably want to increase the statistics target on the table's columns and re-ANALYZE. Don't set it too high though, as the query planner has to read those histograms when it makes planning decisions, and bigger histograms mean slightly more planning time.
If your table is growing continuously but the distribution isn't changing then you want the planner to change plans at various points. A 1000-row table is almost certainly best accessed by doing a sequential scan; an index scan would be a waste of time and effort. You certainly don't want a million row table being scanned sequentially unless you're retrieving a majority of the rows, though. So the planner should - and does - adjust its decisions based not only on the data distribution, but the overall row counts.
Here is an example. You have record on one page and an index. Consider the query:
select t.*
from table t
where col = x;
And, assume you have an index on col. With one record, the fastest way is to simply read the record and check the where clause. You could have 200 records on the page, so the selectivity of the query might be less than 1%.
One of the key considerations that a SQL optimizer makes in choosing an algorithm is the number of expected page reads. So, if you have a query like the above, the engine might think "I have to read all pages in the table anyway, so let me just do a full table scan and ignore the index." Note that this will be true when the data is on a single page.
This generalizes to other operations as well. If all the records in your data fit on one data page, then "slow" algorithms are often the best or close enough to the best. So, nested loop joins might be better than using indexes, hash-based, or sort-merge based joins. Similarly, a sort-based aggregation might be better than other methods.
Alas, I am not as familiar with the Postgres query optimizer as I am with SQL Server and Oracle. I have definitely encountered changes in execution plans in those databases as data grew.
On postgres 9.0, set both index_scan and seq_scan to Off. Why does it improve query performance by 2x?
This may help some queries run faster, but is almost certain to make other queries slower. It's interesting information for diagnostic purposes, but a bad idea for a long-term "solution".
PostgreSQL uses a cost-based optimizer, which looks at the costs of all possible plans based on statistics gathered by scanning your tables (normally by autovacuum) and costing factors. If it's not choosing the fastest plan, it is usually because your costing factors don't accurately model actual costs for your environment, statistics are not up-to-date, or statistics are not fine-grained enough.
After turning index_scan and seq_scan back on:
I have generally found the cpu_tuple_cost default to be too low; I have often seen better plans chosen by setting that to 0.03 instead of the default 0.01; and I've never seen that override cause problems.
If the active portion of your database fits in RAM, try reducing both seq_page_cost and random_page_cost to 0.1.
Be sure to set effective_cache_size to the sum of shared_buffers and whatever your OS is showing as cached.
Never disable autovacuum. You might want to adjust parameters, but do that very carefully, with small incremental changes and subsequent monitoring.
You may need to occasionally run explicit VACUUM ANALYZE or ANALYZE commands, especially for temporary tables or tables which have just had a lot of modifications and are about to be used in queries.
You might want to increase default_statistics_target, from_collapse_limit, join_collapse_limit, or some geqo settings; but it's hard to tell whether those are appropriate without a lot more detail than you've given so far.
You can try out a query with different costing factors set on a single connection. When you confirm a configuration which works well for your whole mix (i.e., it accurately models costs in your environment), you should make the updates in your postgresql.conf file.
If you want more targeted help, please show the structure of the tables, the query itself, and the results of running EXPLAIN ANALYZE for the query. A description of your OS and hardware helps a lot, too, along with your PostgreSQL configuration.
Why ?
The most logical answer is because of the way your database tables are configured.
Without you posting your table schema's I can only hazard a guess that your indices don't have a high cardinality.
that is to say, that if your index contains too much information to be useful then it will be far less efficient, or indeed slower.
Cardinality is a measure of how unique a row in your index is. The lower the cardinality, the slower your query will be.
A perfect example is having a boolean field in your index; perhaps you have a Contacts table in your database and it has a boolean column that records true or false depending on whether the customer would like to be contacted by a third party.
In the mean, if you did 'select * from Contacts where OptIn = true'; you can imagine that you'd return a lot of Contacts; imagine 50% of contacts in our case.
Now if you add this 'Optin' column to an index on that same table; it stands to reason that no matter how fine the other selectors are, you will always return 50% of the table, because of the value of 'OptIn'.
This is a perfect example of low cardinality; it will be slow because any query involving that index will have to select 50% of the rows in the table; to then be able to apply further WHERE filters to reduce the dataset again.
Long story short; If your Indices include bad fields or simply represent every column in the table; then the SQL engine has to resort to testing row-by-agonizing-row.
Anyway, the above is theoretical in your case; but it is a known common reason for why queries suddenly start taking much longer.
Please fill in the gaps regarding your data structure, index definitions and the actual query that is really slow!
I don't quite understand how a SQL command would sort a large resultset. Is it done in memory on the fly (i.e. when a query is perfomed)?
Is is going to be faster to sort using ORDER BY in SQL rather than sort say a linked list of objects containing the results in a language like Java (assuming a fast built-in sort, probably using quicksort)?
It will almost certainly be more efficient to sort the data in the database. Databases are designed to deal with large data volumes. And there are various optimizations available to the database that would not be available to the middle tier. If you plan on writing a hyper-efficient sort routine in the middle tier that takes advantage of information that you have about your data that the database doesn't (i.e. farming the data out to a cluster of dozens of middle tier machines so that the sort never spills to disk, taking advantage of the fact that your data is mostly ordered to choose an algorithm that wouldn't normally be particularly efficient), you can probably beat the database's sort speed. But that tends to be rare.
Depending on the query, for example, the database optimizer may choose a query plan that returns the data in order without performing a sort. For example, the database knows that the data in an index is sorted so it may choose to do an index scan to return the data in order without ever having to materialize and sort the entire result set. If it does have to materialized the entire result, it only needs the columns you are sorting by and some sort of row identifier (i.e. a ROWID in Oracle) rather than sorting an entire row of data like a naive middle tier implementation is likely to do. For example, if you have a composite index on (col1, col2) and you decide to sort on UPPER(col2), LOWER(col1), the database could read the col1 & col2 values from the index, sort the row identifiers, and then go fetch the data from the table. Of course, the database doesn't have to do this-- the optimizer will take into account the cost of doing a sort against the cost of fetching the data from the table or from the various indexes. The database may well conclude that the most efficient approach is to do a table scan, read the entire row into memory, and sort it. It may conclude that leveraging an index results in more I/O to fetch the data but makes up for it by reducing or eliminating the sort costs.
The answer is... it depends. If the ORDER BY part can be done by using an index in the database, then the execution plan for the query will use that index and the results will come back in the right order straight from the DB. If not, then the database will perform the sorting, but it's likely better at it than you reading all the results into memory (and certainly better than reading the results into a linked list).
The exact method depends on the product you are using, but normally a fully-featured DBMS has multiple sort algorithms at its disposal. Some work on disk, optimizing for space over time, some work in memory, optimizing for speed. Check the source code of the available open source ones, if you are interested in the gory details.
It's unlikely that you are going to get better results by doing the sorting yourself or using some other library, although there can be pathological cases such as some operating system's qsort() having problems with certain data distributions. Try it out if you must, but prefer using a DBMS to manage your data, because that's what they are good at.
Unless sort is index based if you use database sort you are guaranteeing you will wait for entire result set to be resolved and sorted in the database before you see even a single row of the result set.
If you sort it yourself data may be incrementally streamed (better for network constrained environment) and perhaps incrementally useful to application reducing execution delay even if sorting operation consumes the same amount of total time.
Depending on deployment scenario it might make a big difference where the extra costs associated with sorting should be paid out. In scenarios I work with middle tier is disposable and scalable while data tier is more expensive to scale out. If it costs the same CPU but database CPU costs 5x or 10x in terms of operational cost it becomes cheaper in real terms to do it outside the database.
I think this is a pretty common scenario: I have a webpage that's returning links and excerpts to the 10 most recent blog entries.
If I just queried the entire table, I could use my ORM mapped object, but I'd be downloading all the blog text.
If I restricted the query to just the columns that I need, I'd be defining another class that'll hold just those required fields.
How bad is the performance hit if I were to query entire rows? Is it worth selecting just what I need?
The answer is "it depends".
There are two things that affect performance as far as column selection:
Are there covering indexes? E.g. if there is an index containing ALL of the columns in the smaller query, then a smaller column set would be extremely benefifical performance wise, since the index would be read without reading any rows themselves.
Size of columns. Basically, count how big the size of the entire row is, vs. size of only the columns in smaller query.
If the ratio is significant (e.g. full row is 3x bigger), then you might have significant savings in both IO (for retrieval) and network (for transmission) cost.
If the ratio is more like 10% benefit, it might not be worth it as far as DB performance gain.
It depends, but it will never be as efficient as returning only the columns you need (obviously). If there are few rows and the row sizes are small, then network bandwidth won't be affected too badly.
But, returning only the columns you need increases the chance that there is a covering index that can be used to satisfy the query, and that can make a big difference in the time a query takes to execute.
,Since you specify that it's for 10 records, the answer changes from "It Depends" to "Don't spend even a second worrying about this".
Unless your server is in another country on a dialup connection, wire time for 10 records will be zero, regardless of how many bytes you shave off each row. It's simply not something worth optimizing for.
So for this case, you get to set your ORM free to grab you those records in the least efficient manner it can come up with. If your situation changes, and you suddenly need more than, say, 1000 records at once, then you can come back and we'll make fun of you for not specifying columns, but for now you get a free pass.
For extra credit, once you start issuing this homepage query more than 10x per second, you can add caching on the server to avoid repeatedly hitting the database. That'll get you a lot more bang for your buck than optimizing the query.