I've got question concerning auto deleting particular records in one table of Oracle database using SQL.
I am making small academic project of database for private clinic and I have to design Oracle database and client application in Java.
One of my ideas is to arrange table "Visits" which stores all patients visits which took place in the past for history purposes. Aforementioned table will grow pretty fast so it will have weak searching performance.
So the idea is to make smaller table called "currentVisits" which holds only appointments for future visits because it will be much faster to search through ~1000 records than few millions after few years.
My question is how to implement auto deleting records in SQL from temporary table "currentVisits" after they took place.
Both tables will store fields like dateOfVisit, patientName, doctorID etc.
Is there any possibility to make it work in simple way? For example using triggers?
I am quite new in this topic so thanks for every answer.
Don't worry about the data size. Millions of records is not particularly large for a database on modern computing hardware. You will need an appropriate data structure, however.
In this case, you will want an index on the column that indicates current records. In all likelihood, the current records will be appended onto the end of the table, so they will tend to be congregating on a handful of data pages. This is a good thing.
If you have a heavy deletion load on the table, or you are using a clustered index, then the pages with the current records might be spread throughout the database. In that case, you want to include the "current" column in the clustered index.
Related
Is there a correlation between the amount of rows/number of columns used and it's impact within the (MS)SQL database?
A little more background:
We have to store lots of data from measurement devices. These devices ping a string with data back to us around 100 times a day. These strings contains +- 300 fields. Assume we have 100 devices in operation that means we get 10000 records back every day. At our back-end we split these data strings and have to put these into the database. When these data strings are fixed that means we add each days around 10000 new rows into the database. No big deal.
Whatsoever, the contents of these data strings may change during time. There are two options we are considering:
Using vertical tables to store the data dynamically
Using horizontal tables and add a new column now and then when it's needed.
From the perspective of ease we'd like to choose for the first approach. Whatsoever, that means we're adding 100*100*300=3000000 rows each day. Data has to be stored 1 year and a month (395 days) so then we're around 1.2 billion rows. Not calculated the expected growth.
Is it from a performance perspective smarter to use a 'vertical' or a 'horizontal' approach?
When choosing for the 'vertical' solution, how can we actual optimize performance by using PK's/FK's wisely?
When choosing for the 'horizontal' solution, are there recommendations for adding columns to the table?
I have a vertical DB with 275 million rows in the "values" table. We took this approach because we couldn't accurately define the schema at the outset either. Inserts are fantastic. Selects suck. Too be fair we throw in a couple of extra doohickies the typical vertical schema doesn't have to deal with.
Have a search for EAV aka Entity Attribute Value models. You'll find a lot of heat on both sides of the debate. Too good articles on making it work are
What is so bad about EAV, anyway?
dave’s guide to the eav
My guess is these sensors don't just start sending you extra fields. You have to release new sensors or sensor code for this to happen. That's your chance to do change control on your schema and add the extra columns. If external parties can connect sensors without notifying you this argument is null and void and you may be stuck with an EAV.
For the horizontal option you can split tables putting the frequently-used columns in one table and the less-used in a second; both tables have the same primary key values so you can link less-used to more-used columns. Also you can use RDBMS's built-in partitioning functionality to split each day's (or week's or month's) data for the others'.
Generally, you can tune a table more for inserts (or any DML) or for queries. Improving one side comes at the expense of the other. Usually, it's a balancing act.
First of all, 10K inserts a day is not really a large number. Sure, it's not insignificant, but it doesn't even come close to what would be considered "large" nowadays So, while we don't want to make inserts downright sluggish, this gives you some wiggle room.
Creating an index on the device id and/or entry timestamp will do some logical partitioning of the data for you. The exact makeup of your index(es) will depend on your queries. Are you looking for all entries for a given date or date range? Then index the timestamp column. Are you looking for all entries received from a particular device? Then index the device id column. Are you looking for entries from a particular device on a particular date or date range or sorted by the date? Then create an index on both columns.
So if you ask for the entries for device x on date y, then you are going out to the table and looking only at the rows you need. The fact that the table is much larger than the small subset you query is incidental. It's as if the rest of the table doesn't even exist. The total size of the table need not be intimidating.
Another option: As it looks like the data is written to the table and never altered after that, then you may want to create a data warehouse schema for the data. New entries can be moved to the warehouse every day or several times a day. The point is, the warehouse schema can have the data sliced, diced, quartered and cubed to make queries much more efficient. So you can have the existing table tuned for more efficient inserts and the warehouse tuned for more efficient queries. That is, after all, what data warehouses are for.
You also imply that some of each entry is (or can be) duplicated from one entry to the next. See if you can segment the data into three types:
Type 1: Data that never changes (the device id, for example)
Type 2: Data that rarely changes
Type 3: Data that changes often
Now all you have is a normalization problem, something a lot easier to solve. Let's say the row is equally split between the types. So you have one table with 100 rows of 33 columns. That's it. It never changes. Linked to that is a table with at least 100 rows of 33 columns but maybe several new rows are added each day. Finally, linked to the second table a table with rows of 33 columns that possibly grows by the full 10K every day.
This minimizes the grow-space required by the online database. The warehouse could then denormalize back to one huge table for ease of querying.
I have a table A which contains entries I am regularly processing and storing the result in table B. Now I want to determine for each entry in A its latest processing date in B.
My current implementation is joining both tables and retrieving the latest date. However an alternative, maybe less flexible, approach would be to simply store the date in table A directly.
I can think of pros and cons for both cases (performance, scalability, ....), but didnt have such a case yet and would like to see whether someone here on stackoverflow had a similar situation and has a recommendation for either one for a specific reason.
Below a quick schema design.
Table A
id, some-data, [possibly-here-last-process-date]
Table B
fk-for-A, data, date
Thanks
Based on your description, it sounds like Table B is your historical (or archive) table and it's populated by batch.
I would leave Table A alone and just introduce an index on id and date. If the historical table is big, introduce an auto-increment PK for table B and have a separate table that maps the B-Pkid to A-pkid.
I'm not a fan of UPDATE on a warehouse table, that's why I didn't recommend a CURRENT_IND, but that's an alternative.
This is a fairly typical question; there are lots of reasonable answers, but there is only one correct approach (in my opinion).
You're basically asking "should I denormalize my schema?". I believe that you should denormalize your schema only if you really, really have to. The way you know you have to is because you can prove that - under current or anticipated circumstances - you have a performance problem with real-life queries.
On modern hardware, with a well-tuned database, finding the latest record in table B by doing a join is almost certainly not going to have a noticable performance impact unless you have HUGE amounts of data.
So, my recommendation: create a test system, populate the two tables with twice as much data as the system will ever need, and run the queries you have on the production environment. Check the query plans, and see if you can optimize the queries and/or indexing. If you really can't make it work, de-normalize the table.
Whilst this may seem like a lot of work, denormalization is a big deal - in my experience, on a moderately complex system, denormalized data schemas are at the heart of a lot of stupid bugs. It makes introducing new developers harder, it means additional complexity at the application level, and the extra code means more maintenance. In your case, if the code which updates table A fails, you will be producing bogus results without ever knowing about it; an undetected bug could affect lots of data.
We had a similar situation in our project tracking system where the latest state of the project is stored in the projects table (Cols: project_id, description etc.,) and the history of the project is stored in the project_history table (Cols: project_id, update_id, description etc.,). Whenever there is a new update to the project, we need find out the latest update number and add 1 to it to get the sequence number for the next update. We could have done this by grouping the project_history table on the project_id column and get the MAX(update_id), but the cost would be high considering the number of the project updates (in a couple of hundreds of thousands) and the frequency of update. So, we decided to store the value in the projects table itself in max_update_id column and keep updating it whenever there is a new update to a given project. HTH.
If I understand correctly, you have a table whose each row is a parameter and another table that logs each parameter value historically in a time series. If that is correct, I currently have the same situation in one of the products I am building. My parameter table hosts a listing of measures (29K recs) and the historical parameter value table has the value for that parameter every 1 hr - so that table currently has 4M rows. At any given point in time there will be a lot more requests FOR THE LATEST VALUE than for the history so I DO HAVE THE LATEST VALUE STORED IN THE PARAMETER TABLE in addition to it being in the last record in the parameter value table. While this may look like duplication of data, from the performance standpoint it makes perfect sense because
To get a listing of all parameters and their CURRENT VALUE, I do not have to make a join and more importantly
I do not have to get the latest value for each parameter from such a huge table
So yes, I would in your case most definitely store the latest value in the parent table and update it every time new data comes in. It will be a little slower for writing new data but a hell of a lot faster for reads.
there is a table which has 80.000 rows.
Everyday I will clone this table to another log table giving a name like 20101129_TABLE
, and every day the prefix will be changed according to date..
As you calculate, the data will be 2400 000 rows every month..
Advices please for saving space, and getting fast service and other advantages and disadvantages!! how should i think to create the best archive or log..
it is a table has the accounts info. branch code balance etc
It is quite tricky to answer your question since you are a bit vague on some important facts:
How often do you need the archived tables?
How free are you in your design-choices?
If you don't need the archived data often and you are free in your desgin I'd copy the data into an archive database. That will give you the option of storing the database on a separate disk (cost-efficiency) and you can have a separate backup-schedule on that database as well.
You could also store all the data in one table with just an additional column like ArchiveDate datetime. But I think this depends really on how you plan on accessing the data later.
Consider TABLE PARTITIONING (MSDN) - it is designed for exactly this kind of scenarios. Not only you can spread data across partitions (and map partitions to different disks), you can keep all data in the same table and let MSSQL do all the hard work in the background (what partition to use based on select criteria, etc.).
I have a couple of databases containing simple data which needs to be imported into a new format schema. I've come up with a flexible schema, but it relies on the critical data of the to older DBs to be stored in one table. This table has only a primary key, a foreign key (both int's), a datetime and a decimal field, but adding the count of rows from the two older DBs indicates that the total row count for this new table would be about 200,000,000 rows.
How do I go about dealing with this amount of data? It is data stretching back about 10 years and does need to be available. Fortunately, we don't need to pull out even 1% of it when making queries in the future, but it does all need to be accessible.
I've got ideas based around having multiple tables for year, supplier (of the source data) etc - or even having one database for each year, with the most recent 2 years in one DB (which would also contain the stored procs for managing all this.)
Any and all help, ideas, suggestions very, deeply, much appreciated,
Matt.
Most importantly. consider profiling your queries and measuring where your actual bottlenecks are (try identifying the missing indexes), you might see that you can store everything in a single table, or that buying a few extra hard disks will be enough to get sufficient performance.
Now, for suggestions, have you considered partitioning? You could create partitions per time range, or one partition with the 1% commonly accessed and another with the 99% of the data.
This is roughly equivalent to splitting the tables manually by year or supplier or whatnot, but internally handled by the server.
On the other hand, it might make more sense to actually splitting the tables in 'current' and 'historical'.
Another possible size improvement is using an int (like an epoch) instead of a datetime and provide functions to convert from datetime to int, thus having queries like
SELECT * FROM megaTable WHERE datetime > dateTimeToEpoch('2010-01-23')
This size savings will probably have a cost performance wise if you need to do complex datetime queries. Although on cubes there is the standard technique of storing, instead of an epoch, an int in YYYYMMDD format.
What's the problem with storing this data in a single table? An enterprise-level SQL server like Microsoft SQL 2005 can handle it without much pain.
By the way, do not do tables per year, tables per supplier or other things like this. If you have to store similar set of items, you need one and one only table. Setting multiple tables to store the same type of things will cause problems, like:
Queries would be extremely difficult to write, and performance will be decreased if you have to query from multiple tables.
The database design will be very difficult to understand (especially since it's not something natural to store the same type of items in different places).
You will not be able to easily modify your database (maybe it's not a problem in your case), because instead of changing one table, you would have to change every table.
It would require to automate a bunch of tasks. Let's see you have a table per year. If a new record is inserted on 2011-01-01 00:00:00.001, will a new table be created? Will you check at each insert if you must create a new table? How it would affect performance? Can you test it easily?
If there is a real, visible separation between "recent" and "old" data (for example you have to use daily the data saved the last month only, and you have to keep everything older, but you do not use it), you can build a system with two SQL servers (installed on different machines). The first, highly available server, will serve to handle recent data. The second, less available and optimized for writing, will store everything else. Then, on schedule, a program will move old data from the first one to the second.
With such a small tuple size (2 ints, 1 datetime, 1 decimal) I think you will be fine having a single table with all the results in it. SQL server 2005 does not limit the number of rows in a table.
If you go down this road and run in to performance problems, then it is time to look at alternatives. Until then, I would plow ahead.
EDIT: Assuming you are using DECIMAL(9) or smaller, your total tuple size is 21 bytes which means that you can store the entire table in less than 4 GB of memory. If you have a decent server(8+ GB of memory) and this is the primary memory user, then the table and a secondary index could be stored in memory. This should ensure super fast queries after a slower warm-up time before the cache is populated.
I am working on a data driven web application that uses a SQL 2005 (standard edition) database.
One of the tables is rather large (8 million+ rows large with about 30 columns). The size of the table obviously effects the performance of the website which is selecting items from the table through stored procs. The table is indexed but still the performance is poor due to the sheer amount of rows in the table - this is part of the problem - the table is as equally read as updated, so we can't add / remove indexes without making one of the operations worse.
The goal I have here is to increase the performance when selecting items from the table. The table has 'current' data and old / barely touched data. The most effective solution we can think of at this stage is to seperate the table into 2, i.e, one for old items (before a certain date, say 1 Jan 2005) and one for newer items (equal to or before 1 Jan 2005).
We know of things like Distributed Partitioned Views - but all of these features require Enterprise Edition, which the client will not buy (and no, throwing hardware at it isn't going to happen either).
You can always roll your own "poor man's partitioning / DPV," even if it doesn't smell like the right way to do it. This is just a broad conceptual approach:
Create a new table for the current year's data - same structure, same indexes. Adjust the stored procedure that writes to the main, big table to write to both tables (just temporarily). I recommend making the logic in the stored procedure say IF CURRENT_TIMESTAMP >= '[some whole date without time]' - this will make it easy to backfill the data in this table which pre-dates the change to the procedure that starts logging there.
Create a new table for each year in your history by using SELECT INTO from the main table. You can do this in a different database on the same instance to avoid the overhead in the current database. Historical data isn't going to change I assume, so in this other database you could even make it read only when it is done (which will dramatically improve read performance).
Once you have a copy of the entire table, you can create views that reference just the current year, another view that references 2005 to the current year (by using UNION ALL between the current table and those in the other database that are >= 2005), and another that references all three sets of tables (those mentioned, and the tables that pre-date 2005). Of course you can break this up even more but I just wanted to keep the concept minimal.
Change your stored procedures that read the data to be "smarter" - if the date range requested falls within the current calendar year, use the smallest view that is only local; if the date range is >= 2005 then use the second view, else use the third view. You can follow similar logic with stored procedures that write, if you are doing more than just inserting new data that is relevant only to the current year.
At this point you should be able to stop inserting into the massive table and, once everything is proven to be working, drop it and reclaim some disk space (and by that I mean freeing up space in the data file(s) for reuse, not performing a shrink db - since you will use that space again).
I don't have all of the details of your situation but please follow up if you have questions or concerns. I have used this approach in several migration projects including one that is going on right now.
performance is poor due to the sheer amount of rows in the table
8 million rows doesn't sound all that crazy. Did you check your query plans?
the table is as equally read as updated
Are you actually updating an indexed column or is it equally read and inserted to?
(and no, throwing hardware at it isn't going to happen either)
That's a pity because RAM is dirt cheap.
Rebuild all your indexes. This will boost up performance of queries.
How to do it is this and More on effect on rebuild of clustered and non-clustered index here
Secondly perform de-fragmentation on your drive on which the DB is stored.