I am building a news site. Currently, I use MySQL as main data store and Redis to maintain list of articles for a user home page feed. When users click on an article on home page, I connect to MySQL to get the main content of the articles, comments, and related stuff.
Is it best practice if I store all article data in Redis? I mean instead of connecting to MySQL to get the whole content of an article, I store the main content of articles in Redis so that the performance can be improved?
This is opinion-based, so here's my opinion. Redis is primed to be used as a cache. You need to decide what to cache, and if caching is actually necessary. This depends on the scale of your app. If the articles change a lot and you do not have a huge user/visitor base, I do not think Redis is necessary at all. Remember you cannot search for stuff there. You can't go SELECT articles WHERE author='foo' in Redis.
If, on the other hand, you are seeing a massive increase in DB load due to to many users, you could pre-render the HTML for all the articles and put that into Redis. That would save the DB and the web server some load. But only if you already know which articles you want to display.
That depends on the role redis is supposed to take in your case.
If it serves as a cache, you could try to store more data in redis, where possible. As long as the development overhead is small and the process doesn't introduce new sources of errors.
In case you want redis to be a primary source for your data, what it doesn't sound like in your case, you could also decide to move everything away from MySQL. With low, and "rarely" changing data, it might be worth a shot. But remember to back up the database and sync to the HDD after changes.
Related
I have a site where you can list your car for sale. There is a list and a map with filtering on car types and other car specifications. My idea was to cache cars table and use that to filter on when user is searching for a car on the website. Currently, especially when zooming in/out on the map, each time user does that, http request is made and it's querying the database, and that can be slow and heavy on the server.
As an experiment with 1 000 items, I have cached map data (trimmed data with only basic info) and it's working fine. I was thinking of doing a basically copy of cars table instead with all needed joins added in Memory Cache and use that instead of querying the DB every request for both list and the map. I would have Cron Job every 5 minutes (as data can change, but it doesn't have to be immediate) to update Memory Cache with latest cars data from DB.
What would be the cons of using this approach in long term and for using it for example storing 100 000 records? Beside server needing more RAM, would there be any concerns about scalability or usability of this approach? Would it be better to use Redis instead?
I do have in place now "search as you type" service, but I don't really need that functionality as filtering is pretty exact, I have added it more as a caching server but I think I would be better off just using Memory Cache until a real need for that kind of service is required.
Thank you
Since memory isn’t infinite, we need to limit the number of items stored in the In-Memory cache.
MemoryCache VS Redis
MemoryCache
MemoryCache is embedded in the process , hence can only be used as a plain key-value store from that process.
Redis
Redis is a remote data structure server. It is certainly slower than just storing the data in local memory.
I conclude that MemoryCache is running in the web server of the current application, and it is limited by the performance of the web server. Of course, it will be very fast under the same configuration. I think the disadvantage is that the stored data cannot be shared with other applications.
If redis is used, reading data directly from memory is not as fast as memorycache, but it has high reliability and high scalability.
Related Post:
1. How to update redis after updating database?
2. how to keep caching up to date
3. How can MySQL update data in real time in redis cache?
Use Case:
Say I wanted to create a realtime-collaborative document editing system.
In this scenario many users could create and collaborate on many documents.
Due to client-device constraints, it's not possible for any client to keep a replica of all documents, only just a handful.
There needs to be central storage server where all documents always live, and this server is always backed up.
Each client can 'subscribe' to any document, and all clients subscribed can see realtime changes of all other clients subscribed/editing the same document.
Questions:
Since each client can't store all documents, there needs to be a way to remove the replicas of 'old' documents from the client, without deleting the document from the central store, ideally based on an automatic least-recently-used approach. How is this handled in gun?
In gun, how can a document be deleted from the central store, so it's then effectively permanently removed from, and no longer accessible to, all clients?
When a document is deleted from the central store, how is the physical storage space ever actually reclaimed for later use?
Great questions, #user2672083 . Here is the current lay out:
Collaborative realtime document editing is possible with gun. Here is a quick prototype I recorded a long time ago, however there are no full pre-built examples/implementations yet.
Not all data is stored on every client by default. The browser only keeps the data it requests/gets/subscribes to.
The default server already acts as a backup. I recommend using the S3 storage adapter, because then you do not have to worry about running out of disk space.
Removing old replicas. Currently, if I want the server to act as a central "master", I just put a localStorage.clear() at the top of my browser code. This will force the browser to have to always load the latest from the server. This is not ideal though, an LRU specific feature is coming soon according to the roadmap.
Permanently removing data and reclaiming space. While this should be easy for a central setup, because gun is P2P by default, it uses a technique called tombstoning to delete data. Given a lot of requests (like yours) for LRU/TTL/GC/deleting, there will be better support for this in the future. Currently, you have to use a mix of rm data.json, localStorage.clear() and 30 day lifecycles on S3 to get this to work. This will be more integrated/easier in the future.
Now a question for you: What are you working on, and how can I help? Many of the things you asked about are possible (with some work) now, but slated to be the focus of the next version of gun - I'd love to get your feedback as we build this out.
All peers reply to requests for data (#2), meaning that localStorage and the server will both reply. Because localStorage is physically closer to a user, it will reply first/fastest and then replies from the server will be merged. GUN does not try each peer "in sequence" doing try/catch cascades, GUN replies from all peers in parallel.
GUN has swappable storage and transport interfaces, so yes, it is easy to build other layers on top or into it.
I have been using redis a lot lately, and really am loving it. I am mostly familiar with persistence (rdb and aof). I do have one concern. I would like to be able to selectively "archive" some of my data to disk (or cheaper storage) once it is no longer important. I don't really want to delete it because it might be valuable at some point.
All of my keys are named id_<id>_<someattribute>. So when I am done with id 4, I want to "archive" all all keys that match id_4_*. I can view them quite easily in with the command line, but I can't do anything with them, persay. I have quite a bit of data (very large bitmaps) associated with this data set, and frankly I can't afford the space once the id is no longer relevant or important.
If this were mysql, I would have my different tables and would very easily just dump it to a .sql file and then drop the table. The actual .sql file isn't directly useful to me, but I could reimport the data if/when I need it. Or maybe I have to mysql database and I want to move one table to another database. Are there redis corollaries to these processes? Is there someway to make an rdb or aof file that is a subset of the data?
Any help or input on this matter would be appreciated! Thanks!
#Hoseong Hwang recently asked what I did, so I'm posting what I ended up doing.
It was really quite simple, actually. I was benefited by the fact that my key space is segmented out by different users. All of my keys were of the structure user_<USERID>_<OTHERVALUES>. My archival needs were on a user basis, some user's data was no longer needed to be kept in redis.
So, I started up another instance of redis-server, on another port locally (6380?) or another machine, it makes no difference. Then, I wrote a short script that basically just called KEYS user_<USERID>_* (I understand the blocking nature of KEYS, my key space is so small it didn't matter, you can use SCAN if that is an issue for you.) Then, for each key, I MIGRATED them to that new redis-server instance. After they were all done. I did a SAVE to ensure that the rdb file for that instance was up to date. And now I have that rdb, which is just the content that I wanted to archive. I then terminated that temporary redis-server and the memory was reclaimed.
Now, keep that rdb file somewhere for cheap, safe keeping. And if you ever needed it again, doing the reverse of my process above to get those keys back into your main redis-server would be fairly straightforward.
Instead of trying to extract data from a live Redis instance for archiving purpose, my suggestion would be to extract the data from a dump file.
Run a bgsave command to generate a dump, and then use redis-rdb-tools to extract the keys you are interested in - you can easily get the result as a json file.
See https://github.com/sripathikrishnan/redis-rdb-tools
You can keep the json data in flat files, or try to store them into a relational database or a document store if you need them to be indexed for retrieval purpose.
A few suggestions for you...
I would like to be able to selectively "archive" some of my data to
disk (or cheaper storage) once it is no longer important. I don't
really want to delete it because it might be valuable at some point.
If such data is that valuable, use a traditional database for storage. Despite redis supporting snap-shotting to disk and AOF logs, you should view it as mostly volatile storage. The primary use case for redis is reducing latency, not persistence of valuable data.
So when I am done with id 4, I want to "archive" all all keys that
match id_4_*
What constitutes done? You need to ask yourself this question; does it mean after 1 day the data can fall out of redis? If so, just use TTL and expiration to let redis remove the object from memory. If you need it again, fall back to the database and pull the object back into redis. That first client will take the hit of pulling from the db, but subsequent requests will be cached. If done means something not associated with a specific duration, then you'll have to remove items from redis manually to conserve memory space.
If this were mysql, I would have my different tables and would very
easily just dump it to a .sql file and then drop the table. The actual
.sql file isn't directly useful to me, but I could reimport the data
if/when I need it.
We do the same at my firm. Important data is imported into redis from rdbms executed as on-demand job. We don't drop tables, we just selectively import data from the database into redis; nothing wrong with that.
Is there someway to make an rdb or aof file that is a subset of the
data?
I don't believe there is a way to do selective archiving; it's either all or none.
IMO, spend more time playing with redis. I highly recommend leveraging out-of-box features instead of reinventing and/or over-engineering solutions to suit your needs.
Hope that helps!...
Imagine we have a web-site which sends write and read requests into some DB via Hibernate. I use Java, but it doesn't matter for this question.
Usually we want to read the fresh data from DB. But I want to introduce some delay between the written data becomes visible to reads just to increase the performance. I.e. I dont need to "publish" the rows inserted into DB immediately. Its OK for me to "publish" fresh data after some delay.
How can I achieve it?
As far as I understand this can be set up on several different tiers of my system.
I can cache some requests in front-end. Probably I should set up proxy server for this. But this will work only if all the parameters of the query match.
I can cache the read requests in Hibernate. OK, but can I specify or estimate the average time the read query will return stale data after some fresh insert occurred? In other words how can I control the delay time between fresh data becomes visible to the users?
Or may be I should use something like a memcached system instead of Hibernate cache?
Probably I can set something in DB. I dont know what should I do with DB. Probably I can ease the isolation level to burst the performance of my DB.
So, which way is the best one?
And the main question, of course: does the relaxation of requirements I introduce here may REALLY help to increase the performance of my system?
If I am reading your architecture correct you have client -> server -> database server
Answers to each point
This will put the burden on the client to implement the caching if you only use your own client I would go for this method. It will have the side effect of improving client performance possibly and put less load on the server and database server so they will scale better.
Now caching on the server will improve scalability of the database server and possibly performance in the client but will put a memory burden on the server. This would be my second option
Implement something in the database. At this point what are you gaining? the database server still has to do work to determine what rows to send back. And also you will get no scalability benefits.
So to sum up I would cache at the client first if you can if not cache at the server. Leave the DB out of the loop.
To answer your main question - caching is one of the most effective ways of increasing both performance and scalability of web applications which are constrained by database performance - your application may or may not fall into this category.
In general, I'd recommend setting up a load testing rig, and measure the various parts of your app to identify the bottleneck before starting to optimize.
The most effective cache is one outside your system - a CDN or the user's browser. Read up on browser caching, and see if there's anything you can cache locally. Browsers have caching built in as a standard feature - you control them via HTTP headers. These caches are very effective, because they stop requests even reaching your infrastructure; they are very efficient for static web assets like images, javascript files or stylesheets. I'd consider a proxy server to be in the same category. The major drawback is that it's hard to manage this cache - once you've said to the browser "cache this for 2 weeks", refreshing it is hard.
The next most effective caching layer is to cache (parts of) web pages on your application server. If you can do this, you avoid both the cost of rendering the page, and the cost of retrieving data from the database. Different web frameworks have different solutions for this.
Next, you can cache at the ORM level. Hibernate has a pretty robust implementation, and it provides a lot of granularity in your cache strategies. This article shows a sample implementation, including how to control the expiration time. You get a lot of control over caching here - you can specify the behaviour at the table level, so you can cache "lookup" data for days, and "transaction" data for seconds.
The database already implements a cache "under the hood" - it will load frequently used data into memory, for instance. In some applications, you can further improve the database performance by "de-normalizing" complex data - so the import routine might turn a complex data structure into a simple one. This does trade of data consistency and maintainability against performance.
I'm considering MongoDB right now. Just so the goal is clear here is what needs to happen:
In my app, Finch (finchformac.com for details) I have thousands and thousands of entries per day for each user of what window they had open, the time they opened it, the time they closed it, and a tag if they choose one for it. I need this data to be backed up online so it can sync to their other Mac computers, etc.. I also need to be able to draw charts online from their data which means some complex queries hitting hundreds of thousands of records.
Right now I have tried using Ruby/Rails/Mongoid in with a JSON parser on the app side sending up data in increments of 10,000 records at a time, the data is processed to other collections with a background mapreduce job. But, this all seems to block and is ultimately too slow. What recommendations does (if anyone) have for how to go about this?
You've got a complex problem, which means you need to break it down into smaller, more easily solvable issues.
Problems (as I see it):
You've got an application which is collecting data. You just need to
store that data somewhere locally until it gets sync'd to the
server.
You've received the data on the server and now you need to shove it
into the database fast enough so that it doesn't slow down.
You've got to report on that data and this sounds hard and complex.
You probably want to write this as some sort of API, for simplicity (and since you've got loads of spare processing cycles on the clients) you'll want these chunks of data processed on the client side into JSON ready to import into the database. Once you've got JSON you don't need Mongoid (you just throw the JSON into the database directly). Also you probably don't need rails since you're just creating a simple API so stick with just Rack or Sinatra (possibly using something like Grape).
Now you need to solve the whole "this all seems to block and is ultimately too slow" issue. We've already removed Mongoid (so no need to convert from JSON -> Ruby Objects -> JSON) and Rails. Before we get onto doing a MapReduce on this data you need to ensure it's getting loaded into the database quickly enough. Chances are you should architect the whole thing so that your MapReduce supports your reporting functionality. For sync'ing of data you shouldn't need to do anything but pass the JSON around. If your data isn't writing into your DB fast enough you should consider Sharding your dataset. This will probably be done using some user-based key but you know your data schema better than I do. You need choose you sharding key so that when multiple users are sync'ing at the same time they will probably be using different servers.
Once you've solved Problems 1 and 2 you need to work on your Reporting. This is probably supported by your MapReduce functions inside Mongo. My first comment on this part, is to make sure you're running at least Mongo 2.0. In that release 10gen sped up MapReduce (my tests indicate that it is substantially faster than 1.8). Other than this you can can achieve further increases by Sharding and directing reads to the the Secondary servers in your Replica set (you are using a Replica set?). If this still isn't working consider structuring your schema to support your reporting functionality. This lets you use more cycles on your clients to do work rather than loading your servers. But this optimisation should be left until after you've proven that conventional approaches won't work.
I hope that wall of text helps somewhat. Good luck!