I wonder what is the difference between having one table with 6 millions row (aka with a huge DB) and 100k active users:
CREATE TABLE shoes (
id serial primary key,
color text,
is_left_one boolean,
stock int
);
With also 6 index like:
CREATE INDEX blue_left_shoes ON shoes(color,is_left_one) WHERE color=blue AND is_left_one=true;
Versus: 6 tables with 1 million rows:
CREATE TABLE blue_left_shoes(
id serial primary key,
stock int
);
The latter one seems more efficient because users don't have to ask for the condition since the table IS the condition, but perhaps creating the indexes mitigate this?
This table is used to query either left, right, "blue", "green" or "red" shoes and to check the number of remaining items, but it is a simplified example but you can think of Amazon (or any digital selling platform) tooltip "only 3 items left in stock" for the workload and the usecase. It is the users (100k active daily) who will make the query.
NB: The question is mostly for PostgreSQL but differences with other DB is still relevant and interesting.
In the latter case, where you use a table called blue_left_shoes
Your code needs to first work out which table to look at (as opposed to parameterising a value in the where clause)
As permutations and options increase, you need to increase the number of tables, and increase the logic in your app that works out which table to use
Anything that needs to use this database (i.e. a reporting tool or an API) now needs to re implement all of these rules
You are imposing logic at a high layer to improve performance.
If you were to partition and/or index your table appropriately, you get the same effect - SQL queries only look through the records that matter. The difference is that you don't need to implement this logic in higher layers
As long as you can get the indexing right, keeping this is one table is almost always the right thing to do.
Partitioning
Database partitioning is where you select one or more columns to decide how to "split up" your table. In your case you could choose (color, is_left_one).
Now your table is logically split and ordered in this way and when you search for blue,true it automatically knows which partition to look in. It doesn't look in any other partitions (this is called partition pruning)
Note that this occurs automatically from the search criteria. You don't need to manually work out a particular table to look at.
Partitioning doesn't require any extra storage (beyond various metadata that has to be saved)
You can't apply multiple partitions to a table. Only one
Indexing
Creating an index also provides performance improvements. However indexes take up space and can impact insert and update performance (as they need to be maintained). Practically speaking, the select trade off almost always far outweighs any insert/update negatives
You should always look at indexes before partitioning
Non selective indexes
In your particular case, there's an extra thing to consider: a boolean field is not "selective". I won't go into details but suffice to say you shouldn't create an index on this field alone, as it won't be used because it only halves the number of records you have to look through. You'd need to include some other fields in any index (i.e. colour) to make it useful
In general, you want to keep all "like" data in a single table, not split among multiples. There are good reasons for this:
Adding new combinations is easier.
Maintaining the tables is easier.
You an easily do queries "across" entities.
Overall, the database is more efficient, because it is more likely that pages will be filled.
And there are other reasons as well. In your case, you might have an argument for breaking the data into 6 separate tables. The gain here comes from not having the color and is_left_one in the data. That means that this data is not repeated 6 million times. And that could save many tens of megabytes of data storage.
I say the last a bit tongue-in-cheek (meaning I'm not that serious). Computers nowadays have so much member that 100 Mbytes is just not significant in general. However, if you have a severely memory limited environment (I'm thinking "watch" here, not even "smart phone") then it might be useful.
Otherwise, partitioning is a fine solution that pretty much meets your needs.
For this:
WHERE color=blue AND is_left_one=true
The optimal index is
INDEX(color, is_left_one) -- in either order
Having id first makes it useless for that WHERE.
It is generally bad to have multiple identical tables instead of one.
I have a table of 755 columns and around holding 2 million records as of now and it will grow.There are many procedures accessing it with other tables join, are running slow. Now it's hard to split/normalize them as everything is already built and customer is not ready to spend much on it. Is there any way to make the query access to that table faster? Please advise.
Will column store index help?
How little are they prepared to spend?
It may be possible to split this table into multiple 1 to 1 joined tables (vertical partitioning), then use a view to present it as one single blob to existing code.
With some luck you may get join elimination happening frequently enough to make it worthwhile.
View will probably require INSTEAD OF triggers to fully replicate existing logic. INSTEAD OF triggers have a number of restrictions e.g. no support for OUTPUT clause, which can prove to be to hard to overcome depending on your specific setup.
You can name your view the same as existing table, which will eliminate the need of fixing code everywhere.
IMO this is the simplest you can do short of a full DB re-factoring exercise.
See: http://aboutsqlserver.com/2010/09/15/vertical-partitioning-as-the-way-to-reduce-io/ and https://logicalread.com/sql-server-optimizer-may-eliminate-foreign-key-joins-mc11/#.WXgEzlERW6I
755 Columns thats a lot. You should try to index the columns that are mostly used in where clause. this might speed up the process
It is fine, dont worry about it, actually how many columns you have it is not important in sql server (But be careful I said 'have'). The main problem is data count and how many column you select in queries. There is a few point firstly you can check.
Do not use * selector and change it if used in everywhere
In the joins, do not use it directly, you can firstly filter it as inner select. (Just try it, I have no idea about your table so I m telling the general rules.)
Try the diminish data count for ex: use history table for old records. This technicque depends on needs of your organization.
Try to use column index and something like that features.
And of course remove dynamic selects in your queries.
I wish one of them will work.
Due to client requirements I need to implement following scenario:
Whenever user want to delete a record representing a document, that particular record needs to be marked as deleted using simple BOOLEAN is_deleted condition.
Document is a general name for one of the tables that store invoices, orders or offers.
Everything is pretty dead simple, but I wonder if there is a way to index records to perform quick searching and somehow skip/omit deleted items (or there is no need to worry about performance at all and use simple where clause is_deleted=False).
Other solutions/advices would be appreciated as well.
PostgreSQL supports partial indexes. You can do something like:
create index document_id_is_deleted_idx ON document(id) where is_deleted;
You can even create unique indexes if you need unique subsets over portions of your data.
Of course getting the right columns in your index is an exercise, but it is quite manageable.
Another option you might like to explore is to move those records to another table, or to use partitioning to separate the deleted and undeleted rows (which would amount to broadly the same thing).
That would let you keep all the records of interest in a smaller table that can be indexed differently from that of the deleted records.
If you went down the partitioning route you'd have a DOCUMENTS master table with DOCUMENTS_DELETED and DOCUMENTS_LIVE tables inheriting from it.
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)
OK, so practically every database based application has to deal with "non-active" records. Either, soft-deletions or marking something as "to be ignored". I'm curious as to whether there are any radical alternatives thoughts on an `active' column (or a status column).
For example, if I had a list of people
CREATE TABLE people (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(100),
active BOOLEAN,
...
);
That means to get a list of active people, you need to use
SELECT * FROM people WHERE active=True;
Does anyone suggest that non active records would be moved off to a separate table and where appropiate a UNION is done to join the two?
Curiosity striking...
EDIT: I should make clear, I'm coming at this from a purist perspective. I can see how data archiving might be necessary for large amounts of data, but that is not where I'm coming from. If you do a SELECT * FROM people it would make sense to me that those entries are in a sense "active"
Thanks
You partition the table on the active flag, so that active records are in one partition, and inactive records are in the other partition. Then you create an active view for each table which automatically has the active filter on it. The database query engine automatically restricts the query to the partition that has the active records in it, which is much faster than even using an index on that flag.
Here is an example of how to create a partitioned table in Oracle. Oracle doesn't have boolean column types, so I've modified your table structure for Oracle purposes.
CREATE TABLE people
(
id NUMBER(10),
name VARCHAR2(100),
active NUMBER(1)
)
PARTITION BY LIST(active)
(
PARTITION active_records VALUES (0)
PARTITION inactive_records VALUES (1)
);
If you wanted to you could put each partition in different tablespaces. You can also partition your indexes as well.
Incidentally, this seems a repeat of this question, as a newbie I need to ask, what's the procedure on dealing with unintended duplicates?
Edit: As requested in comments, provided an example for creating a partitioned table in Oracle
Well, to ensure that you only draw active records in most situations, you could create views that only contain the active records. That way it's much easier to not leave out the active part.
We use an enum('ACTIVE','INACTIVE','DELETED') in most tables so we actually have a 3-way flag. I find it works well for us in different situations. Your mileage may vary.
Moving inactive stuff is usually a stupid idea. It's a lot of overhead with lots of potential for bugs, everything becomes more complicated, like unarchiving the stuff etc. What do you do with related data? If you move all that, too, you have to modify every single query. If you don't move it, what advantage were you hoping to get?
That leads to the next point: WHY would you move it? A properly indexed table requires one additional lookup when the size doubles. Any performance improvement is bound to be negligible. And why would you even think about it until the distant future time when you actually have performance problems?
I think looking at it strictly as a piece of data then the way that is shown in the original post is proper. The active flag piece of data is directly dependent upon the primary key and should be in the table.
That table holds data on people, irrespective of the current status of their data.
The active flag is sort of ugly, but it is simple and works well.
You could move them to another table as you suggested. I'd suggest looking at the percentage of active / inactive records. If you have over 20 or 30 % inactive records, then you might consider moving them elsewhere. Otherwise, it's not a big deal.
Yes, we would. We currently have the "active='T/F'" column in many of our tables, mainly to show the 'latest' row. When a new row is inserted, the previous T row is marked F to keep it for audit purposes.
Now, we're moving to a 2-table approach, when a new row is inserted, the previous row is moved to an history table. This give us better performance for the majority of cases - looking at the current data.
The cost is slightly more than the old method, previously you had to update and insert, now you have to insert and update (ie instead of inserting a new T row, you modify the existing row with all the new data), so the cost is just that of passing in a whole row of data instead of passing in just the changes. That's hardly going to make any effect.
The performance benefit is that your main table's index is significantly smaller, and you can optimise your tablespaces better (they won't grow quite so much!)
Binary flags like this in your schema are a BAD idea. Consider the query
SELECT count(*) FROM users WHERE active=1
Looks simple enough. But what happens when you have a large number of users, so many that adding an index to this table would be required. Again, it looks straight forward
ALTER TABLE users ADD INDEX index_users_on_active (active)
EXCEPT!! This index is useless because the cardinality on this column is exactly two! Any database query optimiser will ignore this index because of it's low cardinality and do a table scan.
Before filling up your schema with helpful flags consider how you are going to access that data.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/108503/mysql-advisable-number-of-rows
We use active flags quite often. If your database is going to be very large, I could see the value in migrating inactive values to a separate table, though.
You would then only require a union of the tables when someone wants to see all records, active or inactive.
In most cases a binary field indicating deletion is sufficient. Often there is a clean up mechanism that will remove those deleted records after a certain amount of time, so you may wish to start the schema with a deleted timestamp.
Moving off to a separate table and bringing them back up takes time. Depending on how many records go offline and how often you need to bring them back, it might or might not be a good idea.
If the mostly dont come back once they are buried, and are only used for summaries/reports/whatever, then it will make your main table smaller, queries simpler and probably faster.
We use both methods for dealing with inactive records. The method we use is dependent upon the situation. For records that are essentially lookup values, we use the Active bit field. This allows us to deactivate entries so they wont be used, but also allows us to maintain data integrity with relations.
We use the "move to separation table" method where the data is no longer needed and the data is not part of a relation.
The situation really dictates the solution, methinks:
If the table contains users, then several "flag" fields could be used. One for Deleted, Disabled etc. Or if space is an issue, then a flag for disabled would suffice, and then actually deleting the row if they have been deleted.
It also depends on policies for storing data. If there are policies for keeping data archived, then a separate table would most likely be necessary after any great length of time.
No - this is a pretty common thing - couple of variations depending on specific requirements (but you already covered them):
1) If you expect to have a whole BUNCH of data - like multiple terabytes or more - not a bad idea to archive deleted records immediately - though you might use a combination approach of marking as deleted then copying to archive tables.
2) Of course the option to hard delete a record still exists - though us developers tend to be data pack-rats - I suggest that you should look at the business process and decide if there is now any need to even keep the data - if there is - do so... if there isn't - you should probably feel free just to throw the stuff away.....again, according to the specific business scenario.
From a 'purist perspective' the realtional model doesn't differentiate between a view and a table - both are relations. So that use of a view that uses the discriminator is perfectly meaningful and valid provided the entities are correctly named e.g. Person/ActivePerson.
Also, from a 'purist perspective' the table should be named person, not people as the name of the relation reflects a tuple, not the entire set.
Regarding indexing the boolean, why not:
ALTER TABLE users ADD INDEX index_users_on_active (id, active) ;
Would that not improve the search?
However I don't know how much of that answer depends on the platform.
This is an old question but for those search for low cardinality/selectivity indexes, I'd like to propose the following approach that avoids partitioning, secondary tables, etc.:
The trick is to use "dateInactivated" column that stores the timestamp of when the record is inactivated/deleted. As the name implies, the value is NULL while the record is active, but once inactivated, write in the system datetime. Thus, an index on that column ends up having high selectivity as the number of "deleted" records grows since each record will have a unique (not strictly speaking) value.
Then your query becomes:
SELECT * FROM people WHERE dateInactivated is NULL;
The index will pull in just the right set of rows that you care about.
Filtering data on a bit flag for big tables is not really good in terms of performance. In case when 'active' determinate virtual deletion you can create 'TableName_delted' table with the same structure and move deleted data there using delete trigger.
That solution will help with performance and simplifies data queries.