currently as a single user, it takes the 260ms for a certain query to run from start to finish.
what will happen if I have 1000 queries sent at the same time? should I expect the same query to take ~4 minutes? (260ms*1000)
It is not possible to make predictions without any knowledge of the situation. There will be a number of factors which affect this time:
Resources available to the server (if it is able to hold data in memory, things run quicker than if disk is being accessed)
What is involved in the query (e.g. a repeated query will usually execute quicker the second time around, assuming the underlying data has not changed)
What other bottlenecks are in the system (e.g. if the webserver and database server are on the same system, the two processes will be fighting for available resource under heavy load)
The only way to properly answer this question is to perform load testing on your application.
Related
If I have a BigQuery dataset with data that I would like to make available to 1000 people (where each of these people would only be allowed to view their subset of the data, and is OK to view a 24hr stale version of their data), how can I do this without exceeding the 50 concurrent queries limit?
In the BigQuery documentation there's mention of 50 concurrent queries being permitted which give on-the-spot accurate data, which I would surpass if I needed them to all be able to view on-the-spot accurate data - which I don't.
In the documentation there is mention of Batch jobs being permitted and saving of results into destination tables which I'm hoping would somehow allow a reliable solution for my scenario, but am having difficulty finding information on how reliably or frequently those batch jobs can be expected to run, and whether or not someone querying results that exist in those destination tables is in itself counting towards the 50 concurrent users limit.
Any advice appreciated.
Without knowing the specifics of your situation and depending on how much data is in the output, I would suggest putting your own cache in front of BigQuery.
This sounds kind of like a dashboading/reporting solution, so I assume there is a large amount of data going in and a relatively small amount coming out (per-user).
Run one query per day with a batch script to generate your output (grouped by user) and then export it to GCS. You can then break it up into multiple flat files (or just read it into memory on your frontend). Each user hits your frontend, you determine which part of the output to serve up to them and respond.
This should be relatively cheap if you can work off the cached data and it is small enough that handling the BigQuery output isn't too much additional processing.
Google Cloud Functions might be an easy way to handle this, if you don't want the extra work of setting up a new VM to host your frontend.
I am just starting with biquery, my DB is small (10K of rows 1 table) and my queries are simple count and group by.
Its takes and average of 3-4 sec per request but sometimes its jumps to 10 and event 15sec
I am querying from amazon linux server in Irland using the BQ tool.
Is it possible to get results faster (under 1sec) so I will be able to present my webpages faster.
1) Big Query is a highly scalable database, before being a "super fast" database. It's designed to process HUGE amount of data distributing the processing among several different machines using a technique named Dremel. Because it's designed to use several machines and parallel processing, you should expect to have super-scalability with a good performance.
2) BigQuery is an asset when you want to analyze billions of rows.
For example: analyzing all the wikipedia revisions in 5-10 seconds isn't bad, is it? But even a much smaller table would take about the same time, even if has 10k rows.
3) Under this size, you'll be better off using more traditional data storage solutions such as Cloud SQL or the App Engine Datastore. If you want to keep SQL capability, Cloud SQL is the best guess.
Sybase IQ is often installed in a single database and it doesn't use Dremel. That said, it's going to be faster than Big Query in many scenarios...as designed.
4) Certainly the performance differ from a dedicated environment. You get your dedicated environment for 20K$ a month.
That's the expected behaviour. In BigQuery you are using a shared infrastructure, so depending on the use at the moment you will get better or worse response time. Actually batch queries (those not needing interactivity) are encouraged and rewarded by not adding up to your quota.
You typically don't use BigQuery as your main database to show data in your web application. Depending on what you want to do, BigQuery can be a Big Data storage and you should have another intermediate store where you could store computed results to display to your users. Or maybe in your use case you don't really need BigQuery and there is a better solution.
In any case, you are not going to be able to avoid a few seconds wait (even if you go Premium, you get more guarantees about the service, but in no case a service fast enough as to be your main backend for a webapp)
I have a query that runs on a data warehouse. I ran the report last month. It gave me some results in say x minutes. The same report when run on the same database without any modifications to the database returns the same results but in y minutes now.
y>x. The difference between the time is so large.
The amount of data and the indexes are also the same. There is no difference in them.
Now clients ask for me for a reason for this. What are the possible reasons for this?
You leave a lot of questions open
is the database running on a dedicated server.
do you run the reports from clients or directly on the server.
have there been changes to the phyisical network, have some settings been changed.
did they (by accident) change the protocol to communicate with the server (tcp, named-pipes, ...)
have you tried defragmenting
have you rebooted the server
do you have an execution plan before and after
Most likely the query plan has changed. Some minor difference in data has pushed the query optimisers calculations onto a new, less optimal plan.
Here are a few:
The amount of data in the warehouse has changed.
Indexes might have been modified.
Your warehouse is split across different servers and there is connectivity lag between them...
Your database server is processing something else as well due to which it has lesser memory and cpu for ur reports to run.
I have been struggling with a problem that only happens when the database has been idle for a period of time for the data queried. The first query will be extremely slow, on the order of 30 seconds and then related queries will be fast like 0.1 seconds. I am assuming this is related to caching, but I have been unable to find the cause of it.
Changing the mysql variables tmp_table_size, max_heap_table_size to a larger size had no effect except to create the temp tables in memory.
I do not think this is related to the query itself as it is well indexed and after the first slow query, variants of the same query do not show up in the slow query log. I am most interested in trying to determine the cause of this or a way to reset the offending cache so I can troubleshoot the issue.
Pages of the innodb data files get cached in the innodb buffer pool. This is what you'd expect. Reading files is slow, even on good hard drives, especially random reads which is mostly what databases see.
It may be that your first query is doing some kind of table scan which pulls a lot of pages into the buffer pool, then accessing them is fast. Or something similar.
This is what I'd expect.
Ideally, use the same engine for all tables (exceptions: system tables, temporary tables (perhaps) and very small tables or short-lived ones). If you don't do this then they have to fight for ram.
Assuming all your tables are innodb, make the buffer pool use up to 75% of the server's physical ram (assuming you don't run too many other tasks on the machine).
Then you will be able to fit around 12G of your database into ram, so once it's "warmed up", the "most used" 12G of your database will be in ram, where accessing it is nice and fast.
Some users of mysql tend to "warm up" production servers following a restart by sending them queries copied from another machine for a while (these will be replication slaves) until they add them into their production pool. This avoids the extreme slowness seen while the cache is cold. For example, Youtube does this (or at least it used to; Google bought them and they may now use Google-fu)
MySQL Workbench:
The below isn't 100% related to this SO question, but the symptoms are very related and this is the first SO result when searching for "mysql workbench slow" or related terms, so hopefully it's useful for others.
Clear the query history! - following the process at MySql workbench query history ( last executed query / queries ) i.e. create / alter table, select, insert update queries to clear MySQL Workbench's query history really sped up the program for me.
In summary: change the Output pane to History Output, right click on a Date and select Delete All Logs.
The issue I was experiencing was "slow first query" in that it would take a few seconds to load the results even though the duration/fetch were well under 1 second. After clearing my query history, the duration/fetch times stayed the same (well under 1 second, so no DB behavior actually changed), but now the results loaded instantly rather than after a few second delay.
Is anything else running on your mysql server? My thought is that maybe after the first query, your table is still cached in memory. Once it's idle, another process is causing it to be de-cached. Just a guess though.
How much memory do you have any what else is running?
I had an SSIS package that was timing out. The query was very simple, from a single MySQL table, but it sometimes returned a lot of records and would sometimes take a few minutes initially to execute, then only a few milliseconds afterwards if I wanted to query it again. We were stuck with the ADO connection, which meant it would time out after 30 seconds, so about half the databases we were trying to load were failing.
After beating my head against the wall I tried performing an initial query first; very simple and only returning a few rows. Since it was so simple it executed fast and set the table in the cache for faster querying. In the next step of the package I would do the more complex query which returned the large data set that kept timing out. Problem solved - all tables loaded. I may start doing this on a regular basis, the complex queries execute much faster by doing a simple query first.
Ttry and compare the output of "vmstat 1" on the linux command line when running the query after a period of time, vs when you re-run it and get results fast. Specifically check the "bi" column (that's the kb read from disk per second).
You may find the operating system is caching the disk blocks in the fast case (and thus a low "bi" figure), but not in the slow case (and hence a large "bi" figure).
You might also find that vmstat shows high/low cpu usage in either case. If it's low when fast, and disk throughput is also low, then your system may still be returning a cached query, even though you've indicated the relevant config value is set to zero. Perhaps check the output of show engine innodb status and SHOW VARIABLES and confirm.
innodb_buffer_pool_size may also be set high (it should be...), which would cache the blocks even before the OS can return them.
You might also find that "key_buffer" is set high - this would cache the keys in the indexes, which could make your select blindingly fast.
Try check the mysql performance blog site for lots of useful info.
I had issue when MySQL 5.6 was slow on first query after idle period. This was a connection problem, not MySQL instance problem, e.g. if you run MYSQL Query Browser execute "select * from some_queue", leave it alone for a couple of hours, then execute any query, it runs slow, while at the same time processes on server or new instance of Browser will select from same tables instantly.
Adding skip-host-cache, skip-name-resolve to my.ini file solved this problem.
I don't know why is that. Why I tried this: MySQL 5.1 without those options was slowly establishing connections from other networks (e.g. server is 192.168.1.100, 192.168.1.101 connects fast, 192.168.2.100 connects slow), MySQL 5.6 didn't have such problem to start with so we didn't add these to my.ini initially.
UPD: Solved half the cases, actually. Setting wait_timeout to maximum integer fixed the other half. Maybe I even now can remove skip-host-cache, skip-name-resolve and it won't slow down in 100% of the cases
Our database architecture consists of two Sql Server 2005 servers each with an instance of the same database structure: one for all reads, and one for all writes. We use transactional replication to keep the read database up-to-date.
The two servers are very high-spec indeed (the write server has 32GB of RAM), and are connected via a fibre network.
When deciding upon this architecture we were led to believe that the latency for data to be replicated to the read server would be in the order of a few milliseconds (depending on load, obviously). In practice we are seeing latency of around 2-5 seconds in even the simplest of cases, which is unsatisfactory. By a simplest case, I mean updating a single value in a single row in a single table on the write db and seeing how long it takes to observe the new value in the read database.
What factors should we be looking at to achieve latency below 1 second? Is this even achievable?
Alternatively, is there a different mode of replication we should consider? What is the best practice for the locations of the data and log files?
Edit
Thanks to all for the advice and insight - I believe that the latency periods we are experiencing are normal; we were mis-led by our db hosting company as to what latency times to expect!
We're using the technique described near the bottom of this MSDN article (under the heading "scaling databases"), and we'd failed to deal properly with this warning:
The consequence of creating such specialized databases is latency: a write is now going to take time to be distributed to the reader databases. But if you can deal with the latency, the scaling potential is huge.
We're now looking at implementing a change to our caching mechanism that enforces reads from the write database when an item of data is considered to be "volatile".
No. It's highly unlikely you could achieve sub-1s latency times with SQL Server transactional replication even with fast hardware.
If you can get 1 - 5 seconds latency then you are doing well.
From here:
Using transactional replication, it is
possible for a Subscriber to be a few
seconds behind the Publisher. With a
latency of only a few seconds, the
Subscriber can easily be used as a
reporting server, offloading expensive
user queries and reporting from the
Publisher to the Subscriber.
In the following scenario (using the
Customer table shown later in this
section) the Subscriber was only four
seconds behind the Publisher. Even
more impressive, 60 percent of the
time it had a latency of two seconds
or less. The time is measured from
when the record was inserted or
updated at the Publisher until it was
actually written to the subscribing
database.
I would say it's definately possible.
I would look at:
Your network
Run ping commands between the two servers and see if there are any issues
If the servers are next to each other you should have < 1 ms.
Bottlenecks on the server
This could be network traffic (volume)
Like network cards not being configured for 1GB/sec
Anti-virus or other things
Do some analysis on some queries and see if you can identify indexes or locking which might be a problem
See if any of the selects on the read database might be blocking the writes.
Add with (nolock), and see if this makes a difference on one or two queries you're analyzing.
Essentially you have a complicated system which you have a problem with, you need to determine which component is the problem and fix it.
Transactional replication is probably best if the reports / selects you need to run need to be up to date. If they don't you could look at log shipping, although that would add some down time with each import.
For data/log files, make sure they're on seperate drives so the performance is maximized.
Something to remember about transaction replication is that a single update now requires several operations to happen for that change to occur.
First you update the source table.
Next the log readers sees the change and writes the change to the distribution database.
Next the distribution agent sees the new entry in the distribution database and reads that change, then runs the correct stored procedure on the subscriber to update the row.
If you monitor the statement run times on the two servers you'll probably see that they are running in just a few milliseconds. However it is the lag time while waiting for the log reader and distribution agent to see that they need to do something which is going to kill you.
If you truly need sub second processing time then you will want to look into writing your own processing engine to handle data moving from one server to another. I would recommend using SQL Service Broker to handle this as this way everything is native to SQL Server and no third party code has to be written.