Ok, so I work for a company who sells a web product which has a MS SQL Server back end (can be any version, we've just changed our requirements to 2008+ now that 05 is out of extended support). All databases are owned by the company who purchases the product but we have VPN access and have a tech support department to deal with any issues. One part of my role is to act as 3rd line support for SQL issues.
When performance is a concern one of the usual checks is unused/missing indexes. We've got the usual standard indexes but depending on which modules or how a company utilises the system then it will require different indexes (there's an accounting module and a document management module amongst others). With hundreds of customers it's not possible to remote onto each on a regular basis in order to carry out optimisation work. I'm wondering if anybody else in my position has considered a scheduled task that may be able to drop and create indexes when needed?
I've got concerns (obviously), any changes that this procedure makes would also be stored in a table with full details of the change and a time stamp. I'd need this to be bullet proof, can't be sending something out into the wild if it may cause issues. I'm thinking an overnight or (probably) weekly task.
Dropping Indexes:
Would require the server to be up for a minimum amount of time to ensure all relevant server statistics are up to date (say 2 weeks or 1 month).
Only drop unused indexes for tables that are being actively used (indexes on unused parts of the system aren't a concern).
Log it.
This won't highlight duplicate indexes (that will have to be manual), just the quick wins (unused indexes with writes).
Creating Indexes
Only look for indexes with a value above a certain threshold.
Would have to check whether any similar indexes could be modified to cover the requirement. This could be on a ranking (check all indexed fields are the same and then score the included fields to see if additional would be needed).
Limit to a maximum number of indexes to be created (say 5 per week) to ensure it doesn't get carried away and create a bunch at once). This should help only focus on the most important indexes.
Log it.
This would need to be dynamic as we've got customers on different versions of the system with different usage patterns.
Just to clarify: I'm not expecting anybody to code for this, it's more a question relating to the feasibility and concerns for a task like this.
Edit: I've put a bounty on this to gather some further opinions and to get feedback from anybody who may have tried this before. I'll award it to the answer with the most upvotes by the time the bounty duration ends.
I can't recommend what you're contemplating, but you might be able to simplify your life by gathering the inputs to your contemplated program and making them available to clients and the support team.
If the problem were as simple as you suppose, surely the server itself or the tuning advisor would have solved it by now. You're making at least one unwarranted assumption,
require the server to be up for a minimum amount of time to ensure all relevant server statistics are up to date.
Table statistics are only as good as the last time the were updated after a significant change. Uptime won't guarantee anything about truncate table or a bulk insert.
This won't highlight duplicate indexes
But that's something you can do in a single query using the system tables. (It would be disappointing if the tuning gadget didn't help with those.) You could similarly look for overlapping indexes, such as for columns {a,b} and {a}; the second won't be useful unless {b} is selective and there are queries that don't mention {b}.
To look for new indexes, I would be tempted to try to instrument query use frequency and automate the analysis of query plan output. If you can identify frequently used, long-running queries and map their physical operations (table scan, hash join, etc.) onto the tables and existing indexes, you would have good input for adding and removing indexes. But you have to allow for the infrequently run quarterly report that, without its otherwise unused index, would take days to complete.
I must tell you that when I did that kind of analysis once some years ago, I was disappointed to learn that most problem children were awful queries, usually prompted by awful table design. No index will help the SQL mule. Hopefully that will not be your experience.
An aspect you didn't touch on that might be just as important is machine capacity. You might look into gathering, say, hourly snapshots of SQL Server stats, like disk queue depth and paging. Hardly a server exists that can't be improved with more RAM, and sometimes that's really the best answer.
SQL perf tuning advisor worth a check: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186232.aspx
another way could be to get performance data, start here: https://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/17780/Monitoring-table-level-activity-in-a-SQL-Server-database-by-using-T-SQL.html and generate indexes based on the performance table data
check this too : https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn817826.aspx
Related
I have a database with tables that grow every day. I cannot predict which tables are going to grow and which are not as I'm not the one who is putting the data into them.
Is there a way to find tables that need indexes at a particular point in time? Is there a way, in SQL Server, to notify me if a database needs tuning on certain tables?
This is a product we have deployed at different client locations and we cannot go onto their servers every time to check if they have a performance issue. What I was thinking about is something that can notify me if there are performance issues on certain tables, so as the new patches go to the clients we can add these indexes or tuned queries.
After referring to Insertion of data after creating index on empty table or creating unique index after inserting data on oracle? I'm not willing to create indexes while installing databases or when the tables have few rows or are empty.
As per my understanding we must not create indexes on a smaller table as it can affect the write performances.
This is only a real concern if you're bulk loading or otherwise generating a hundred million records each day and write performance is a problem. Indexes do increase write times because they have to be updated when data is written, but unless you're running on a potato or running very high loads it's unlikely to be a problem. You'd know it was a problem before you encountered it.
If we're talking about small tables (less than 100 pages) then it's much more likely that indexes won't be useful because the data set is so small, but you shouldn't be concerned about impacting write performance.
Overall, your application should have indexes that support the queries that you expect should be run in your unit testing and staging. You will need feedback from your customers or clients, but until you really know how people use their data, you're going to have to make a best guess.
The general question of "How do I know what indexes I need when I don't know what queries will be run?" is better suited to DBA Stack Exchange. Briefly, you'll need to use dynamic management views for that. The three missing index dynamic views can be used for this. The example query given isn't horrible:
SELECT mig.*, statement AS table_name,
column_id, column_name, column_usage
FROM sys.dm_db_missing_index_details AS mid
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_db_missing_index_columns (mid.index_handle)
INNER JOIN sys.dm_db_missing_index_groups AS mig
ON mig.index_handle = mid.index_handle
ORDER BY mig.index_group_handle, mig.index_handle, column_id;
You shouldn't just blindly follow what this view says, however. It's a good lead on what to look at, but you have to look at the column order and queries actually being used to tell.
You should also monitor index usage statistics and examine how much and in what way indexes are used compared to how much they have to be updated. Indexes that are updated a million times a day but are used once or twice should be considered for removal.
You will also want to monitor query stats to look for queries that run for a long time. This may be poor development on the part of your client, but can also be a sign of design problems.
This is not even a comprehensive overview of things to look for, however. There's a lot to database maintenance and operations. That's why DBAs make a good living. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Just the tip for indexes, even.
What I'd do if you want to maintain this is consider asking your customers to allow you to send feedback for performance analysis. Set up a broker that monitors the management views and sends compiled and sanitized information back to yourselves. You'll need to be very careful about what you send because you don't want to be sending actual customer data, of course.
Keep in mind that dynamic management views typically reset when the instance does, so the results will not typically represent the entire lifespan of the database.
The task is to filter and analyze a huge amount of logfiles (around 8TB) from a finished research project. The idea is to fill a database with the data to be able to run different analysis tasks later.
The values are stored comma separated. In principle the values are tuples of up to 5 values:
id, timestamp, type, v1, v2, v3, v4, v5
In a first try using MySQL I used one table with one log entry per row. So there is no direct relation between the log values. The downside here is slow querying of subsets.
Because there is no relation I looked into alternatives like NoSQL databases, and column based tables like hbase or cassandra seemed to be a perfect fit for this kind of data. But these systems are made for huge distributed systems, which we not have. In our case the analysis will run on a single machine or perhaps some VMs.
Which kind of database would fit this task? Is it worth to setup a single machine instance with hadoop+hbase... or is this all a bit over-sized?
What database would you choose to do high-performance logfile analysis?
EDIT: Maybe out of my question it is not clear that we cannot spend money for cloud services or new hardware. The Question is if there are benefits in using noSQL approaches instead of mySQL (especially for this data). If there are none, or if they are so small that the effort of setting up a noSQL system is not worth the benefit we can use our ESXi infrastructure and MySQL.
EDIT2: I'm still having the Problem here. I did further experiments with MySQL and just inserted a quarter of all available data. The insert is now running for over 2 days and is not yet finished. Currently there are 2,147,483,647 rows in my single table db. With indeces this takes 211,2 GiB of disk space. And this is just a quarter of all logging data...
A query of the form
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE `timestamp`>=1342105200000 AND `timestamp`<=1342126800000 AND `logid`=123456 AND `unit`="UNIT40";
takes 761 seconds to complete, in this case returning one row.
There is a combined index on timestamp, logid, unit.
So I think this is not the way to go, because later in analysis I will have to get all entries in a time range and compare the datapoints.
I read bout MongoDB and Redis, but the problem with them is, that they are in Memory databases.
In the later analyzing process there will a very small amount of concurrent database access. In fact the analyzing will be run from one single machine.
I do not need redundancy. I would be able to regenerate the database in case of a failure.
When the database is once completely written, there would also be no need to update or add further row.
What do you think about alternatives like Redis, MongoDB and so on. When I get this right, i would need RAM in the dimension of my data...
Is this task even somehow possible with a single node system or with maybe two nodes?
well i personally would prefer the faster solution, as you said you need a high-perfomance analysis. the problem is, if you have to setup a whole new system to do so and the performance-improvement would be minor in relation to the additional effort you'd need, then stay with SQL.
in our company, we have a quite small Database containing not even half a GB of Data on the VM. the problem now is, as soon as you use a VM, you will have major performance issues, when opening the Database on VM you can go for a coffee in the meantime ;)
But if the time until the Database is loaded to cache is not so important it doesn't matter. It all depends on how much faster you think the new System will be, and how much effort you will have to put in it, but as i said i'd prefer the faster solution if you have to go for "high-performance analysis"
I am working on a project that must store very large datasets and associated reference data. I have never come across a project that required tables quite this large. I have proved that at least one development environment cannot cope at the database tier with the processing required by the complex queries against views that the application layer generates (views with multiple inner and outer joins, grouping, summing and averaging against tables with 90 million rows).
The RDBMS that I have tested against is DB2 on AIX. The dev environment that failed was loaded with 1/20th of the volume that will be processed in production. I am assured that the production hardware is superior to the dev and staging hardware but I just don't believe that it will cope with the sheer volume of data and complexity of queries.
Before the dev environment failed, it was taking in excess of 5 minutes to return a small dataset (several hundred rows) that was produced by a complex query (many joins, lots of grouping, summing and averaging) against the large tables.
My gut feeling is that the db architecture must change so that the aggregations currently provided by the views are performed as part of an off-peak batch process.
Now for my question. I am assured by people who claim to have experience of this sort of thing (which I do not) that my fears are unfounded. Are they? Can a modern RDBMS (SQL Server 2008, Oracle, DB2) cope with the volume and complexity I have described (given an appropriate amount of hardware) or are we in the realm of technologies like Google's BigTable?
I'm hoping for answers from folks who have actually had to work with this sort of volume at a non-theoretical level.
The nature of the data is financial transactions (dates, amounts, geographical locations, businesses) so almost all data types are represented. All the reference data is normalised, hence the multiple joins.
I work with a few SQL Server 2008 databases containing tables with rows numbering in the billions. The only real problems we ran into were those of disk space, backup times, etc. Queries were (and still are) always fast, generally in the < 1 sec range, never more than 15-30 secs even with heavy joins, aggregations and so on.
Relational database systems can definitely handle this kind of load, and if one server or disk starts to strain then most high-end databases have partitioning solutions.
You haven't mentioned anything in your question about how the data is indexed, and 9 times out of 10, when I hear complaints about SQL performance, inadequate/nonexistent indexing turns out to be the problem.
The very first thing you should always be doing when you see a slow query is pull up the execution plan. If you see any full index/table scans, row lookups, etc., that indicates inadequate indexing for your query, or a query that's written so as to be unable to take advantage of covering indexes. Inefficient joins (mainly nested loops) tend to be the second most common culprit and it's often possible to fix that with a query rewrite. But without being able to see the plan, this is all just speculation.
So the basic answer to your question is yes, relational database systems are completely capable of handling this scale, but if you want something more detailed/helpful then you might want to post an example schema / test script, or at least an execution plan for us to look over.
90 million rows should be about 90GB, thus your bottleneck is disk.
If you need these queries rarely, run them as is.
If you need these queries often, you have to split your data and precompute your gouping summing and averaging on the part of your data that doesn't change (or didn't change since last time).
For example if you process historical data for the last N years up to and including today, you could process it one month (or week, day) at a time and store the totals and averages somewhere. Then at query time you only need to reprocess period that includes today.
Some RDBMS give you some control over when views are updated (at select, at source change, offline), if your complicated grouping summing and averaging is in fact simple enough for the database to understand correctly, it could, in theory, update a few rows in the view at every insert/update/delete in your source tables in reasonable time.
It looks like you're calculating the same data over and over again from normalized data. One way to speed up processing in cases like this is to keep SQL with it's nice reporting and relationships and consistency and such, and use a OLAP Cube which is calculated every x amount of minutes. Basically you build a big table of denormalized data on a regular basis which allows quick lookups. The relational data is treated as the master, but the Cube allows quick precalcuated values to be retrieved from the database at any one point.
If that is only 1/20 of your data, you almost surely need to look into more scalable and efficient solutions, such as Google's Big Table. Have a look at NoSQL
I personally think that MongoDB is an awesome inbetween of NoSQL and RDMS. It isn't relational, but it provides a lot more features than a simple document store.
In dimensional (Kimball methodology) models in our data warehouse on SQL Server 2005, we regularly have fact tables with that many rows just in a single month partition.
Some things are instant and some things take a while, it depends on the operation and how many stars are being combined and what's going on.
The same models perform poorly on Teradata, but it is my understanding that if we re-model in 3NF, Teradata parallelization will work a lot better. The Teradata installation is many times more expensive than the SQL Server installation, so it just goes to show how much of a difference modeling and matching your data and processes to the underlying feature set matters.
Without knowing more about your data, and how it's currently modeled and what indexing choices you've made it's hard to say anything more.
We're thinking about putting up a data warehouse system to load with web access logs that our web servers generate. The idea is to load the data in real-time.
To the user we want to present a line graph of the data and enable the user to drill down using the dimensions.
The question is how to balance and design the system so that ;
(1) the data can be fetched and presented to the user in real-time (<2 seconds),
(2) data can be aggregated on per-hour and per-day basis, and
(2) as large amount of data can still be stored in the warehouse, and
Our current data-rate is roughly ~10 accesses per second which gives us ~800k rows per day. My simple tests with MySQL and a simple star schema shows that my quires starts to take longer than 2 seconds when we have more than 8 million rows.
Is it possible it get real-time query performance from a "simple" data warehouse like this,
and still have it store a lot of data (it would be nice to be able to never throw away any data)
Are there ways to aggregate the data into higher resolution tables?
I got a feeling that this isn't really a new question (i've googled quite a lot though). Could maybe someone give points to data warehouse solutions like this? One that comes to mind is Splunk.
Maybe I'm grasping for too much.
UPDATE
My schema looks like this;
dimensions:
client (ip-address)
server
url
facts;
timestamp (in seconds)
bytes transmitted
Seth's answer above is a very reasonable answer and I feel confident that if you invest in the appropriate knowledge and hardware, it has a high chance of success.
Mozilla does a lot of web service analytics. We keep track of details on an hourly basis and we use a commercial DB product, Vertica. It would work very well for this approach but since it is a proprietary commercial product, it has a different set of associated costs.
Another technology that you might want to investigate would be MongoDB. It is a document store database that has a few features that make it potentially a great fit for this use case.
Namely, the capped collections (do a search for mongodb capped collections for more info)
And the fast increment operation for things like keeping track of page views, hits, etc.
http://blog.mongodb.org/post/171353301/using-mongodb-for-real-time-analytics
Doesn't sound like it would be a problem. MySQL is very fast.
For storing logging data, use MyISAM tables -- they're much faster and well suited for web server logs. (I think InnoDB is the default for new installations these days - foreign keys and all the other features of InnoDB aren't necessary for the log tables). You might also consider using merge tables - you can keep individual tables to a manageable size while still being able to access them all as one big table.
If you're still not able to keep up, then get yourself more memory, faster disks, a RAID, or a faster system, in that order.
Also: Never throwing away data is probably a bad idea. If each line is about 200 bytes long, you're talking about a minimum of 50 GB per year, just for the raw logging data. Multiply by at least two if you have indexes. Multiply again by (at least) two for backups.
You can keep it all if you want, but in my opinion you should consider storing the raw data for a few weeks and the aggregated data for a few years. For anything older, just store the reports. (That is, unless you are required by law to keep around. Even then, it probably won't be for more than 3-4 years).
Also, look into partitioning, especially if your queries mostly access latest data; you could -- for example -- set-up weekly partitions of ~5.5M rows.
If aggregating per-day and per hour, consider having date and time dimensions -- you did not list them so I assume you do not use them. The idea is not to have any functions in a query, like HOUR(myTimestamp) or DATE(myTimestamp). The date dimension should be partitioned the same way as fact tables.
With this in place, the query optimizer can use partition pruning, so the total size of tables does not influence the query response as before.
This has gotten to be a fairly common data warehousing application. I've run one for years that supported 20-100 million rows a day with 0.1 second response time (from database), over a second from web server. This isn't even on a huge server.
Your data volumes aren't too large, so I wouldn't think you'd need very expensive hardware. But I'd still go multi-core, 64-bit with a lot of memory.
But you will want to mostly hit aggregate data rather than detail data - especially for time-series graphing over days, months, etc. Aggregate data can be either periodically created on your database through an asynchronous process, or in cases like this is typically works best if your ETL process that transforms your data creates the aggregate data. Note that the aggregate is typically just a group-by of your fact table.
As others have said - partitioning is a good idea when accessing detail data. But this is less critical for the aggregate data. Also, reliance on pre-created dimensional values is much better than on functions or stored procs. Both of these are typical data warehousing strategies.
Regarding the database - if it were me I'd try Postgresql rather than MySQL. The reason is primarily optimizer maturity: postgresql can better handle the kinds of queries you're likely to run. MySQL is more likely to get confused on five-way joins, go bottom up when you run a subselect, etc. And if this application is worth a lot, then I'd consider a commercial database like db2, oracle, sql server. Then you'd get additional features like query parallelism, automatic query rewrite against aggregate tables, additional optimizer sophistication, etc.
In a recent project the "lead" developer designed a database schema where "larger" tables would be split across two separate databases with a view on the main database which would union the two separate database-tables together. The main database is what the application was driven off of so these tables looked and felt like ordinary tables (except some quirky things around updating). This seemed like a HUGE performance problem. We do see problems with performance around these tables but nothing to make him change his mind about his design. Just wondering what is the best way to do this, or if it is even worth doing?
I don't think that you are really going to gain anything by partitioning the table across multiple databases in a single server. All you have essentially done there is increased the overhead in working with the "table" in the first place by having several instances (i.e. open in two different DBs) of it under a single SQL Server instance.
How large of a dataset do you have? I have a client with a 6 million row table in SQL Server that contains 2 years worth of sales data. They use it transactionally and for reporting without any noticiable speed problems.
Tuning the indexes and choosing the correct clustered index is crucial to performance of course.
If your dataset is really large and you are looking to partition, you will get more bang for your buck partitioning the table across physical servers.
Partitioning is not something to be undertaken lightly as there can be many subtle performance implications.
My first question is are you referring simply to placing larger table objects in separate filegroups (on separate spindles) or are you referring to data partitioning inside of a table object?
I suspect that the situation described is an attempt to have the physical storage of certain large tables on different spindles from the rest of the tables. In this case, adding the extra overhead of separate databases, losing any ability to enforce referential integrity across databases, and the security implications of enabling cross-database ownership chaining does not provide any benefit over using multiple filegroups within a single database. If, as is quite possible, the separate databases you refer to in your question are not even stored on separate spindles but are all stored on the same spindle then you negate even the slight performance benefit you could have gained by physically separating your disk activity and have received absolutely no benefit.
I would suggest instead of using additional databases to hold large tables you look into the Filegroup topic in SQL Server Books Online or for a quick review see this article:
If you are interested in data partitioning (including partitioning into multiple file groups) then I recommend reading articles by Kimberly Tripp, who gave an excellent presentation at the time SQL Server 2005 came out about the improvements available there. A good place to start is this whitepaper
Which version of SQL Server are you using? SQL Server 2005 has partitioned tables, but in 2000 (or 7.0) you needed to use partition views.
Also, what was the reasoning for putting the table partitions in a separate database?
When I've had to partition tables in the past (pre-2005), it's usually by a date column or something similar, with a view over the various partitions. Books Online has a section that talks about how to do this and all of the rules around it. You need to follow the rules to make it work how it's supposed to work.
The key thing to remember is that your partitioning column must be part of the primary key and you want to try to always use that column in any access against the table so that the optimizer can ignore partitions that shouldn't be affected by the query.
Look up "partitioned table" in MSDN and you should be able to find a more complete tutorial for SQL Server 2005 partitioned tables as well as advice on how to set them up for maximum performance.
Are you asking about best practices in terms of database design, or convincing your lead to change his mind? :)
In terms of design... Back in the goode olde days, vertical partitioning was sometimes needed to work around database engine limitations, where the number of columns in a table was a hard limit, like 255 columns. These days the main benefits are purely for performance: putting rarely used columns, or blobs on a separate disk array. But if you're regularly pulling things from both tables it will likely be a loss. It sounds like your lead is suffering from a case of premature optimisation.
In terms of telling your lead is wrong... that requires diplomacy. If he's aware of mutterings of discontent in terms of performance, a benchmark is probably the best way to show the difference.
Create a new physical table somewhere with 'create table t1 as select * from view1' and then run some lengthy batch with the vertically partitioned table and your new table. If it's as bad as you say, the difference should be evident.
But this too may be premature optimisation. Find out what the end-users think of the performance. If the performance is good enough, for some definition of good, then don't fix what ain't broke.
There is a definite benefit for table partitioning (regardless whether it's on same or different filegroups /disks). If the partition column is correctly selected, you'll realize that your queries will hit only the required partition. So imagine if you have 100 million records (I've partitioned tables much bigger than that - about 20+ Billion rows) and if for the most part, more than 70% of your data access is only a certain category or timeline or type of data then it helps to keep the most accessed data in a separate partition. Plus you can align the partition with separate file groups with various type of disks (SATA, Fiber channel, SSDs) so that the most accessed/busy data are on the fastest storage and the least/rarely accessed are virtually on slower disks.
Although, in SQL Server there's limited partitioning ability, unlike Oracle. You can choose only one column for partitioning (even in SQL 2008). So you've to choose a column wisely where that column also is part of most of your frequent queries. For the most part, people find it easy to choose to partition by a date column. However although it seems logical to partition that way, if your queries do not have that column as part of the condition, you won't be gaining sufficient benefits from partitioning (in other words, your query will hit all the partition regardless).
It's much easier to partition for data warehouse/data mining type databases than OLTP as most DW database queries are limited by time period.
That's why these days due to the volume of data being handled by databases, it's wise to design the application in such a way that ever query is limited by some broader group such as time, geographical location or such so that when such columns are chosen for partitioning you'll gain maximum benefits.
I would disagree with the assumption that nothing can be gained by partitioning.
If the partition data is physically and logically aligned, then the potential IO of queries should be dramatically reduced.
For example, We have a table which has the batch field as an INT representing an INT.
If we partition the data by this field and then re-run a query for a particular batch, we should be able to run set statistics io ON before and after partitioning and see a reduction in IO,
If we have a million rows per partition and each partition is written to a separate device. The query should be able to eliminate the nonessential partitions.
I've not done a lot of partitioning on SQL Server, but I do have experience of partitioning on Sybase ASE, and this is known as partition eliminiation. When I have time I'm going to test out the scenario on a SQL Server 2005 machine.