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.
Related
My chosen database is MongoDB. But the question should be independent.
So for example, each row of record will have a flag that can take 1 of 2 possible values.
What is the pro and con of:
Having 1 table with a column to hold the value of this flag.
versus:
the pro and con of:
Having 2 tables to hold the two different types of records distinguished by the aforementioned flag?
Would this be cheaper in terms of storage, since you don't have that extra column?
Would this also be faster in queries, since you know exactly which table to look without having to perform a filter?
What is the common practice in industry?
Storage for a single column holding just a flag (e.g. active and archived) should be negligible. The query could be faster with two tables, however your application is more complex, you have to write 2 queries.
When you have only 2 distinct values and these values are more or less evenly distributed, then an index will not be used, thus the performance should be equal - unless you select the entire table.
It might be useful to have 2 tables if the flags are not evenly distributed. For example you have a rather small active data set which is queried frequently, and a big archive data set which is much bigger but hardly queried.
If available, you can also work with partitions which is actually a good combination of both.
We have data of different dimensions, for example:
Name by Company
Stock prices by Date, Company
Commodity prices by Date & Commodity
Production volumes by Date, Commodity & Company
We're thinking of the best way of storing these in BigQuery. One potential method is to put them all in the same table, and nest the extra dimensions.
That would mean:
Almost all the data would be nested - e.g. there would be a single 'row' for each Company, and then its prices would be nested by Date.
Data would have to share at least one dimension - I don't think there would be a way of representing Commodity prices in a table whose first column was the company's Name
Are there disadvantages? Are there performance implications? Is it sensible to nest 5000 dates + associated values within each company's row?
It's common to have nested/repeated columns in BigQuery schemas since it makes reasoning about the data easier. Firebase produces schemas with repetition at many levels, for instance. If you flatten everything, the downside is you need some kind of unique ID for each row in order to associate events with each other, and then you'll need aggregations (using the ID as a key) rather than simple filters if you want to do any kind of counting.
As for downsides of nested/repeated schemas, one is that you may find yourself performing complicated transformations of the structure with ARRAY subqueries or STRUCT operators, for instance. These are generally fast, but they do have some overhead relative to queries without any structure imposed on the result at all.
My best suggestion would be to load some data and run some experiments. Storage and querying both are relatively cheap, so you can try a few different schema shapes and see which works better for your purposes.
Updating in Bigquery is pretty new, but based on the public available info BigQuery DML it is currently limited to only 48 updates per table per day.
Quotas
DML statements are significantly more expensive to process than SELECT
statements.
Maximum UPDATE/DELETE statements per day per table: 48 Maximum
UPDATE/DELETE statements per day per project: 500 Maximum INSERT
statements per day per table: 1,000 Maximum INSERT statements per day
per project: 10,000
Processing nested data is also very expensive since all of the data from that column is loaded on every query. It is also slow if you are doing a lot of operations on nested data.
I'm designing a database for storing a bunch of product data that is both pulled via an API and scraped off the web. This scraper will pull some data that is static and some data that varies with time. Therefore there will one table for each type of data (static/variable). I'm trying to decide if there should be a separate table for variable data that is scraped compared to variable data that is pulled through an API.
At first, I thought they should be stored in separate tables because they are managed by separate tools. However, data will be pulled through the API and scraped on the same schedule (daily), and so they will both be mapped with the same ProductID and date. So, it seems like I could just combine the schema of both tables to save on the join time during queries for processing the data later. The obvious downside to this is managing whether rows need to be created or updated whenever one of the processes runs (which of the scraper vs API tools create or update rows).
For what it's worth, these scripts will be pulling data for millions (maybe tens of millions) of rows per day, and storing it for quite a while. So, the tables are going to get quite huge, and that's why I'm concerned with join times later on.
Here's an example in case this is all a little cloudy as an example. There are multiple industries for this, but I'll just use real estate:
Scraped Static Data: ProductID, Address, City, State, Zip, SquareFeet, etc.
Scraped Variable Data: ProductID, Price, PricePerSqFt, etc.
API Variable Data: ProductID, PageHits, UniqueVisitors, etc.
Mainly just the variable data is the concern here. So, just summarize, separate tables for the sake of general design principles, or one table for the sake of speed on joins?
Thanks in advance for the input
The example you give indicates that, apart from having 2 or 3 tables, you should also consider having just one table for both static and variable data. As long as the key of everything is just the product id, you can keep all information describing a particular id value in one record. Or do you intend to have a time stamp as part of the key of your variable data?
Once this has been decided, I can't see any advantage in having more tables than necessary.
The joins you mention won't be particularly complicated, as they basically mean to read a single record from each of your tables, each time using a primary key, which is fast. But still reading 3 records means more effort than reading 2, or only one.
There is no general design principle saying you should have a separate table for each way to collect data. On the contrary, it's the purpose of a database to contain data according to their logical structure without (too much) regard of the technical means of collecting or accessing them.
The logic to decide whether to insert or update a row isn't complicated. Also, if you want to verify your data, you might need some logic anyway, e.g. making sure that variable data only get inserted for an object that already has static data.
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 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.