I have some voting data for an issue that I want to create some reports on.
I want to display the voting results for each issue following criteria
Age
Sex
Income
Education
Race
Different issues could be Abortion, Gun Control, etc..
How would I use Redis to store this voting data and then display reports on them? Here's one report I'm trying to create.
Here's what the report looks like when I want to view the voting data by Age
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N-C4pNN_fwb1kNGQck44TIrIAEn-jPZEpEsW6qQ8lh8/edit?usp=sharing
I want to create similar reports but they could also be by age and sex or age and income or income and education, etc..
Hope you understand what I'm trying to create. I want to let the end user select different criteria on the website and create this dynamic report on the fly as fast as I can which is why I dont' want to use MySQL for this. I know Redis can be used to solve this but I'm just not sure how to get started.
Thanks in advance for any pointers you can provide for me to get started.
Really, this is a problem most easily solved with a traditional RDBMS, like PostgreSQL/MySQL.
However, there are a few ways you could do this in Redis.
One way would be to simply store attributes for each vote in a hash.
redis.hmset "vote:123", "age", 26, "abortion", "yes", "gun_control", "undecided" #, ...
You would also want a redis SET (ie: "all_votes") containing all the vote ids, so you don't have to use redis.keys to search for votes.
The next step is making other sets. If you want to be able to look up by age ranges quickly, you will probably need to build a SET (ie: "vote_indexes:age:18-22") for each age range, populating it with the ids of any votes within that age range. Every time you add a vote or remove a vote you will need to add or remove them to/from the all_votes SET as well as its corresponding age range SET, and any other index SETs you build. If this sounds a lot like database indexes, it is exactly like that. Except you have to maintain them yourself, so that is quite a bit of extra code you wouldn't have to write with an RDBMS.
Now that you have your index sets, you can perform intersections of those sets to do some querying.
redis.sinter("indexes:age:18-22", "indexes:abortion:yes").count
# => 20
Instead of manually maintaining your own hand-built indexes, you could go the route of simply iterating through every vote and build the report as you go, hopefully in one pass. This would be pretty slow to implement within your application. The most performant option would likely be to use Lua scripting running within redis. Basically your Lua script would get passed to redis with the filter parameters and it would iterate through all votes and do the filtering, returning the matching results or even a final report.
That of course means you'll have to learn Lua. Its a nice little language and not difficult to pick up, but its a bit harder than a language you probably already know: SQL.
I love Redis, but not sure you have the need for it. An adhoc reporting system is something SQL was literally made for. Don't worry about performance issues until you have them. You'll be surprised how far SQL can get you. If you do hit some performance problems, Redis is an amazing way to cache your SQL results and give your RDBMS a break.
Related
I have MS SQL 2012 DB with table for documents.
In application there are users.
users can be document managers.
one user can be manager for many documents
one document can have many managers.
There is limit 50 user for app.
I was wondering what will be te best way(or fastest) to search document that manager is some user(or few users).
1) One table for document and additional for document manager objects. then search like
select from document dk
join documentmanager dm on dm.dokid=dk.id and dm.userlogin='xxx'
or
2) do not use additional table for manager object, instead bind each user managernumber from 1 to 50 then when serach use :
SELECT * FROM documents where (managers & CAST(manager AS BIGINT) <> 0)
where manager is 2^managernumber .
Second one seem to be faster and simplier and not required that additional table so also requires less space. But i dont know if i use indexes on that additional table that maybe it will be faster then 2) . Of course there is limitation to 63 users but let say its not important.
It's hard to tell which one would be faster, at least when the number of records is small. The second approach has a simpler query, but it can't make use of any indexes as it has to calculate the value of the expression for each document.
The second approach may seem easier, but it's actually quite unconventional. Looking at the table design of the first approach anyone with a bit of database experience can immediately tell how it's supposed to work. Anyone looking at the second approach needs to examine the query to figure out what the "magic" numbers in the table is supposed to mean.
Even if the number of users is limited so that the second approach would be usable, the number of documents is likely to grow over time. As the query in the second approach has to examine every document it will get slower when the number of documents grow. The query in the first approach on the other hand can make use of indexes, so the execution time is mostly depending on the number of records returned, not so much on the number of records in the tables. It can easily handle tables with upwards of millions of records before you would even notice any difference in performance.
The first idea is how a relational database is typically designed. There is a reason -- it is the better design for a database.
You say the limit on the number of users does not matter you don't need more than 63. In my opinion if you have less than 63 of anything you don't need a database. You can load it in from any file and store all the information in memory. If size and scalability don't matter then don't even use a database.
In every other case use the standard relational design that has been proven robust over many years.
Is it reasonable for an application to create database tables dynamically as a means of partitioning?
For example, say I have a large table "widgets" with a "userID" column identifying the owner of each row. If this table tended to grow extremely large, would it make sense to instead have the application create a new table called "widgets_{username}" for each new user? Assume that the application will only ever have to query for widgets belonging to a single user at a time (i.e. no need to try and join any of these user widget tables together).
Doing this would break up the one large table into more easily-managed chunks, but this doesn't seem like an elegant solution. In my mind, the database schema should be defined when the application is written, and any runtime data is stored as rows, not as additional tables.
As a more general question, is modifying the database schema at runtime ever ok?
Edit: This question is mostly hypothetical; I had a pretty good feeling that creating tables at runtime didn't make sense. That being said, we do have a table with millions of rows in our application. SELECTs perform fine, but things like deleting all rows owned by a particular user can take a while. Basically I'm looking for some solid reasoning why just dynamically creating a table for each user doesn't make sense for when I'm asked.
NO, NO, NO!! Now repeat after me, I will not do this because it will create many headaches and problems in the future! Databases are made to handle large amounts of information. they use indexes to quickly find what you are after. think phone book how effective is the index? would it be better to have a different book for each last name?
This will not give you anything performance wise. Keep a single table, but be sure to index on UserID and you'll be able to get the data fast. however if you split the table up, it becomes impossible/really really hard to get any info that spans multiple users, like search all users for a certain widget, count of all widgets of a certain type, etc. you need to have every query be built dynamically.
If deleting rows is slow, look into that. How many rows at one time are we talking about 10, 1000, 100000? What is your clustered index on this table? Could you use a "soft delete", where you have a status column that you UPDATE to "D" to mark the row as deleted. Can you delete the rows at a later time, with less database activity. is the delete slow because it is being blocked by other activity. look into those before you break up the table.
No, that would be a bad idea. However some DBMSs (e.g. Oracle) allow a single table to be partitioned on values of a column, which would achieve the objective without creating new tables at run time. Having said that, it is not "the norm" to partition tables like this: it is only usually done in very large databases.
Using an index on userID should result nearly in the same performance.
In my opinion, changing the database schema at runtime is bad practice.
Consider, for example, security issues...
Is it reasonable for an application to create database tables
dynamically as a means of partitioning?
No. (smile)
What I'm doing
I am creating an SQL table that will provide the back-end storage mechanism for complex-typed objects. I am trying to determine how to accomplish this with the best performance. I need to be able to query on each individual simple type value of the complex type (e.g. the String value of a City in an Address complex type).
I was originally thinking that I could store the complex type values in one record as an XML, but now I am concerned about the search performance of this design. I need to be able to create variable schemas on the fly without changing anything about the database access layer.
Where I'm at now
Right now I am thinking to create the following tables.
TABLE: Schemas
COLUMN NAME DATA TYPE
SchemaId uniqueidentifier
Xsd xml //contains the schema for the document of the given complex type
DeserializeType varchar(200) //The Full Type name of the C# class to which the document deserializes.
TABLE: Documents
COLUMN NAME DATA TYPE
DocumentId uniqueidentifier
SchemaId uniqueidentifier
TABLE: Values //The DocumentId+ValueXPath function as a PK
COLUMN NAME DATA TYPE
DocumentId uniqueidentifier
ValueXPath varchar(250)
Value text
from these tables, when performing queries I would do a series of self-joins on the value table. When I want to get the entire object by the DocumentId, I would have a generic script for creating a view mimics a denormalized datatable of the complex-type.
What I want to know
I believe there are better ways to accomplish what I am trying to, but I am a little too ignorant about the relative performance benefits of different SQL techniques. Specifically I don't know the performance cost of:
1 - comparing the value of a text field versus of a varchar field.
2 - different kind of joins versus nested queries
3 - getting a view versus an xml document from the sql db
4 - doing some other things that I don't even know I don't know would be affecting my query but, I am experienced enough to know exist
I would appreciate any information or resources about these performance issues in sql as well as a recommendation for how to approach this general issue in a more efficient way.
For Example,
Here's an example of what I am currently planning on doing.
I have a C# class Address which looks like
public class Address{
string Line1 {get;set;}
string Line2 {get;set;}
string City {get;set;}
string State {get;set;}
string Zip {get;set;
}
An instance is constructed from new Address{Line1="17 Mulberry Street", Line2="Apt C", City="New York", State="NY", Zip="10001"}
its XML value would be look like.
<Address>
<Line1>17 Mulberry Street</Line1>
<Line2>Apt C</Line2>
<City>New York</City>
<State>NY</State>
<Zip>10001</Zip>
</Address>
Using the db-schema from above I would have a single record in the Schemas table with an XSD definition of the address xml schema. This instance would have a uniqueidentifier (PK of the Documents table) which is assigned to the SchemaId of the Address record in the Schemas table. There would then be five records in the Values table to represent this Address.
They would look like:
DocumentId ValueXPath Value
82415E8A-8D95-4bb3-9E5C-AA4365850C70 /Address/Line1 17 Mulberry Street
82415E8A-8D95-4bb3-9E5C-AA4365850C70 /Address/Line2 Apt C
82415E8A-8D95-4bb3-9E5C-AA4365850C70 /Address/City New York
82415E8A-8D95-4bb3-9E5C-AA4365850C70 /Address/State NY
82415E8A-8D95-4bb3-9E5C-AA4365850C70 /Address/Zip 10001
Just Added a Bounty...
My objective is to obtain the resources I need in order to give my application a data access layer that is fully searchable and has a data-schema generated from the application layer that does not require direct database configuration (i.e. creating a new SQL table) in order to add a new aggregate root to the domain model.
I am open to the possibility of using .NET compatible technologies other than SQL, but I will require that any such suggestions be adequately substantiated in order to be considered.
How about looking for a solution at the architectural level? I was also breaking my head on complex graphs and performance until I discovered CQRS.
[start evangelist mode]
You can go document-based or relational as storage. Even both! (Event Sourcing)
Nice separation of concerns: Read Model vs Write Model
Have your cake and eat it too!
Ok, there is an initial learning / technical curve to get over ;)
[end evangelist mode]
As you stated: "I need to be able to create variable schemas on the fly without changing anything about the database access layer." The key benefit is that your read model can be very fast since it's made for reading. If you add Event Sourcing to the mix, you can drop and rebuild your Read Model to whatever schema you want... even "online".
There are some nice opensource frameworks out there like nServiceBus which saves lots of time and technical challenges. All depends on how far you want to take these concepts what you're willing/can spend time on. You can even start with just basics if you follow Greg Young's approach. See the info in the links below.
See
CQRS Examples and Screencasts
CQRS Questions
Intro (Also see the video)
Somehow what you want sounds like a painful thing to do in SQL. Basically, you should treat the inside of a text field as opaque as when querying an SQL database. Text fields were not made for efficient queries.
If you just want to store serialized objects in a text field, that is fine. But do not try to build queries that look inside the text field to find objects.
Your idea sounds like you want to perform some joins, XML parsing, and XPath application to get to a value. This doesn't strike me as the most efficient thing to do.
So, my advise:
Either just store serialized objects in the db, and do nothing more than load them and perform all other operations in memory
Or, if you need to query complex data structures, you may really want to look into document stores/databases like CouchDB or MongoDB; you can also check Wikipedia on the subject. There are even databases specifically designed for storing XML, even though I personally don't like them very much.
Addendum, per your explanations above
Simply put, don't go over the top with this thing:
If you just want to persist C#/.NET objects, just use the XML Serialization already built into the framework, a single table and be done with it.
If you, for some reason, need to store complex XML, use a dedicated XML store
If you have a fixed database schema, but it is too complex for efficient queries, use a Document Store in memory where you keep a denormalized version of your data for faster queries (or just simplify your database schema)
If you don't really need a fixed schema, use just a Document Store, and forget about having any "schema definition" at all
As for your solution, yes, it could work somehow. As could a plain SQL schema if you set it up right. But for applying an XPath, you'll probably parse the whole XML document each time you access a record, which wouldn't be very efficient to begin with.
If you want to check out Document databases, there are .NET drivers for CouchDB and MongoDB. The eXist XML database offers a number of Web protocols, and you can probably create a client class easily with VisualStudio's point-and-shoot interface. Or just google for someone who already did.
I need to be able to create variable
schemas on the fly without changing
anything about the database access
layer.
You are re-implementing the RDBMS within an RDBMS. The DB can do this already - that is what the DDL statements like create table and create schema are for....
I suggest you look into "schemas" and SQL security. There is no reason with the correct security setup you cannot allow your users to create their own tables to store document attributes in, or even generate them automatically.
Edit:
Slightly longer answer, if you don't have full requirements immediately, I would store the data as XML data type, and query them using XPath queries. This will be OK for occasional queries over smallish numbers of rows (fewer than a few thousand, certainly).
Also, your RDBMS may support indexes over XML, which may be another way of solving your problem. CREATE XML INDEX in SqlServer 2008 for example.
However for frequent queries, you can use triggers or materialized views to create copies of relevant data in table format, so more intensive reports can be speeded up by querying the breakout tables.
I don't know your requirements, but if you are responsible for creating the reports/queries yourself, this may be an approach to use. If you need to enable users to create their own reports that's a bigger mountain to climb.
I guess what i am saying is "are you sure you need to do this and XML can't just do the job".
In part, it will depend of your DB Engine. You're using SQL Server, don't you?
Answering your topics:
1 - Comparing the value of a text field versus of a varchar field: if you're comparing two db fields, varchar fields are smarter. Nvarchar(max) stores data in unicode with 2*l+2 bytes, where "l" is the lengh. For performance issues, you will need consider how much larger tables will be, for selecting the best way to index (or not) your table fields. See the topic.
2 - Sometimes nested queries are easily created and executed, also serving as a way to reduce query time. But, depending of the complexity, would be better to use different kind of joins. The best way is try to do in both ways. Execute two or more times each query, for the DB engine "compiles" a query on first executing, then the subsequent are quite faster. Measure the times for different parameters and choose the best option.
"Sometimes you can rewrite a subquery to use JOIN and achieve better performance. The advantage of creating a JOIN is that you can evaluate tables in a different order from that defined by the query. The advantage of using a subquery is that it is frequently not necessary to scan all rows from the subquery to evaluate the subquery expression. For example, an EXISTS subquery can return TRUE upon seeing the first qualifying row." - link
3- There's no much information in this question, but if you will get the xml document directly from the table, would be a good idea insted a view. Again, it will depends of the view and the document.
4- Other issues is about the total records expected for your table; the indexing of the columns, in wich you need to consider sorting, joining, filtering, PK's and FK's. Each situation could demmand different aproaches. My sugestion is to invest some time reading about your database engine and queries functioning and relating to your system.
I hope I've helped.
Interesting question.
I think you may be asking the wrong question here. Broadly speaking, as long as you have a FULLTEXT index on your text field, queries will be fast. Much faster than varchar if you have to use wild cards, for instance.
However, if I were you, I'd concentrate on the actual queries you're going to be running. Do you need boolean operators? Wildcards? Numerical comparisons? That's where I think you will encounter the real performance worries.
I would imagine you would need queries like:
"find all addresses in the states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania"
"find all addresses between house numbers 1 and 100 on Mulberry Street"
"find all addresses where the zipcode is missing, and the city is New York"
At a high level, the solution you propose is to store your XML somewhere, and then de-normalize that XML into name/value pairs for querying.
Name/value pairs have a long and proud history, but become unwieldy in complex query situations, because you're not using the built-in optimizations and concepts of the relational database model.
Some refinements I'd recommend is to look at the domain model, and at least see if you can factor out separate data types into the "value" column; you might end up with "textValue", "moneyValue", "integerValue" and "dateValue". In the example you give, you might factor "address 1" into "housenumber" (as an integer) and "streetname".
Having said all this - I don't think there's a better solution other than completely changing tack to a document-focused database.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
What is the point (if any) in having a table in a database with only one row?
Note: I'm not talking about the possibility of having only one row in a table, but when a developer deliberately makes a table that is intended to always have exactly one row.
Edit:
The sales tax example is a good one.
I've just observed in some code I'm reviewing three different tables that contain three different kinds of certificates (a la SSL), each having exactly one row. I don't understand why this isn't made into one large table; I assume I'm missing something.
I've seen something like this when a developer was asked to create a configuration table to store name-value pairs of data that needs to persist without being changed often. He ended up creating a one-row table with a column for each configuration variable. I wouldn't say it's a good idea, but I can certainly see why the developer did it given his instructions. Needless to say it didn't pass review.
I've just observed in some code I'm reviewing three different tables that contain three different kinds of certificates (a la SSL), each having exactly one row. I don't understand why this isn't made into one row; I assume I'm missing something.
This doesn't sound like good design, unless there are some important details you don't know about. If there are three pieces of information that have the same constraints, the same use and the same structure, they should be stored in the same table, 99% of the time. That's a big part of what tables are for fundamentally.
For some things you only need one row - typically system configuration data. For example, "current sales tax rate". This might change in the future and so shouldn't be hardcoded, but you'll typically only ever need one at any given time. This kind of data needs to be in the database so that queries can use it in computations.
It's not necessarily a bad idea.
What if you had some global state (say, a boolean) that you wanted to store somewhere? And you wanted your stored procedures to easily access this state?
You could create a table with a primary key whose value range was limited to exactly one value.
Single row is like a singleton class. purpose: to control or manage some other process.
Single row table could act as a critical section or as deterministic automaton (kind of dispatcher based on row values)
Single row is use full in a table COMPANY_DESCRIPTION, to obtain consistent data about that company. Use full on company letters and addressing.
Single row is use full to contain an actual value like VAT or Date or Time, and so on.
It can be useful sometime to emulate some features the Database system doesn't provide. I'm thinking of sequences in MySQL for instance.
If your database is your application, then it probably makes sense for storing configuration data that might be required by stored procedures implementing business logic.
If you have an application that could use the file system to store information, then I don't think there is an advantage to using the database over an XML or flat file, except maybe that most developers are now far more well versed in using SQL to store and retrieve data than accessing the file system.
What is the point (if any) in having a table in a database with only one row?
A relational database stores things as relations: a tuples of data satisfying some relation.
Like, this one: "a VAT of this many percent is in effect in my country now".
If only one tuple satisifies this relation, then yes, it will be the only one in the table.
SQL cannot store variables: it can store a set consisting of 1 element, this is a one-row table.
Also, SQL is a set based language, and for some operations you need a fake set of only one row, like, to select a constant expression.
You cannot just SELECT out of nothing in Oracle, you need a FROM clause.
Oracle has a pseudotable, dual, which contains only one row and only one column.
Once, long time ago, it used to have two rows (hence the name dual), but lost its second row somewhere on its way to version 7.
MySQL has this pseudotable too, but MySQL is able to do selects without FROM clause. Still, it's useful when you need an empty rowset: SELECT 1 FROM dual WHERE NULL
I've just observed in some code I'm reviewing three different tables that contain three different kinds of certificates (a la SSL), each having exactly one row. I don't understand why this isn't made into one large table; I assume I'm missing something.
It may be a kind of "have it all or lose" scenario, when all three certificates are needed at once:
SELECT *
FROM ssl1
CROSS JOIN
ssl2
CROSS JOIN
ssl3
If any if the certificates is missing, the whole query returns nothing.
A table with a single row can be used to store application level settings that are shared across all database users. 'Maximum Allowed Users' for example.
Funny... I asked myself the same question. If you just want to store some simple value and your ONLY method of storage is an SQL server, that's pretty much what you have to do. If I have to do this, I usually end up creating a table with several columns and one row. I've seen a couple commercial products do this as well.
We have used a single-row table in the past (not often). In our case, this table was used to store system-wide configuration values that were updatable via a web interface. We could have gone the route of a simple name/value table, but the end client preferred a single row. I personally would have preferred the latter, but it really is up to preference, especially if this table will never have any sort of relationship with another table.
I really cannot figure out why this would be the best solution. It seams more efficient to just have some kind of config file that will contain the data that would be in the tables one row. The cost of connecting to the database and querying the one row would be more costly. However if this is going to be some kind of config for the database logic. Then this would make a little bit more sense depending on the type of database you are using.
I use the totally awesome rails-settings plugin for this http://github.com/Squeegy/rails-settings/tree/master
It's really easy to set up and provides a nice syntax:
Settings.admin_password = 'supersecret'
Settings.date_format = '%m %d, %Y'
Settings.cocktails = ['Martini', 'Screwdriver', 'White Russian']
Settings.foo = 123
Want a list of all the settings?
Settings.all # returns {'admin_password' => 'super_secret', 'date_format' => '%m %d, %Y'}
Set defaults for certain settings of your app. This will cause the defined settings to return with the Specified value even if they are not in the database. Make a new file in config/initializers/settings.rb with the following:
Settings.defaults[:some_setting] = 'footastic'
A use for this might be to store the current version of the database.
If one were storing database versions for schema changes it would need to reside within the database itself.
I currently analyse the schema and update accordingly but am thinking of moving to versioning. Unless someone has a better idea.
I use vb.net and sql express
Unless there are insert constraints on the table a timestamp for versioning then this sounds like a bad idea.
There was a table set up like this in a project I inherited. It was for configuration data, and the reason that was given was that it made for very simple queries:
SELECT WidgetSize FROM ConfigTable
SELECT FooLength FROM ConfigTable
Okay fine. We converted to a generalized configuration table:
ID Name IntValue StringValue TextValue
This has served our purposes well.
CREATE TABLE VERSION (VERSION_STRING VARCHAR2(20 BYTE))
?
I used a single datum in a SQLite database as a counter in a dynamic web page. That's the simplest way I can think of to make it thread-safe (or process-safe to be precise). But I am not sure whether it's a good idea.
I think the best way to deal with these scenarios is to, rather than using a database at all, use the configuration file (which is usually XML) or make your own configuration file that is read during start up of the application. It only takes a few minutes to write the code to read the file in.
The advantage here is that the there is no chance accidentally adding additional values for the same XML variable, and its great for testing because you don't need to write a lot of code to test the different inputs, just a simple change to the text value and re-run the application.
I need to do paging with the sort order based on a calculation. The calculation is similar to something like reddit's hotness algorithm in that its dependant on time - time since post creation.
I'm wondering what the best practice for this would be. Whether to have this sort as a SQL function, or to run an update once an hour to calculate the whole table.
The table has hundreds of thousands of rows. And I'm using nhibernate, so this could cause problems for the scheduled full calcution.
Any advice?
It most likely will depend a lot on the load on your server. A few assumptions for my answer:
Your calculation is most likely not simple, but will take into account a variety of factors, including time elapsed since post
You are expecting at least reasonable growth in your site, meaning new data will be added to your table.
I would suggest your best bet would be to calculate and store your ranking value, and as Nuno G mentioned retrieve using an ordered clause. As you note there are likely to be some implications, two of which would be:
Scheduling Updates
Ensuring access to the table
As far as scheduling goes you may be able to look at some ways of intelligently recalculating your value. For example, you may be able to identify when a calculation is likely to be altered (for example, if a dependant record is updated you might fire a trigger, adding the ID of your table to a queue for recalculation). You may also do the update in ranges, rather then in the full table.
You will also want to minimise any locking of your table whilst you are recalculating. There are a number of ways to do this, including setting your isolation levels (using MS SQL terminonlogy). If you are really worried you could even perform your calculation externally (eg. in a temp table) and then simply run an update of the values to your main table.
As a final note I would recommend looking into the paging options available to you - if you are talking about thousands of records make sure that your mechanism determines the page you need on the SQL server so that you are not returning the thousands of rows to your application, as this will slow things down for you.
If you can perform the calculation using SQL, try use Hibernate to load the sorted collection by executing a SQLQuery, where your query includes a 'ORDER BY' expression.