I am using Lucene to index the records from my database. I have a million records in my table called "Documents". The records will be accessed by particular users only. A real case scenario is that a single user can access a maximum of 100 records in the Documents table. Which of the following is a best practice for this scenario.
Indexing all the 1 million records in Documents table as a single index file with the user information as one of the field in that index OR
Creating user specfic indexes
Sounds like you'll end up with a lot of indices in the second scenario, and if you want to search them concurrently, Lucene will have to keep a lot of files open, so you might easily hit your OS limit on the number of open files. If you decide to open/close them on demand, you might not benefit from caching and your search might be slow because of cold indices (or you prewarm them but again you might have a lot of overhead processing). I'd go with the first approach, Lucene can handle 1M documents in a single index.
Related
I'm learning indexing in PostgreSQL now. I started trying to create my index and analyzing how it will affect execution time. I created some tables with such columns:
also, I filled them with data. After that I created my custom index:
create index events_organizer_id_index on events(organizer_ID);
and executed this command (events table contains 148 rows):
explain analyse select * from events where events.organizer_ID = 4;
I was surprised that the search was executed without my index and I got this result:
As far as I know, if my index was used in search there would be the text like "Index scan on events".
So, can someone explain or give references to sites, please, how to use indexes effectively and where should I use them to see differences?
From "Rows removed by filter: 125" I see there are too few rows in the events table. Just add couple of thousands rows and give it another go
from the docs
Use real data for experimentation. Using test data for setting up indexes will tell you what indexes you need for the test data, but that is all.
It is especially fatal to use very small test data sets. While
selecting 1000 out of 100000 rows could be a candidate for an index,
selecting 1 out of 100 rows will hardly be, because the 100 rows probably fit within a single disk page, and there is no plan that can
beat sequentially fetching 1 disk page.
In most cases, when database using an index it gets only address where the row is located. It contains data block_id and the offset because there might be many rows in one block of 4 or 8 Kb.
So, the database first searches index for the block adress, then it looks for the block on disk, reads it and parses the line you need.
When there are too few rows they fit into one on in couple of data blocks which makes it easier and quicker for DB to read whole table without using index at all.
See it the following way:
The database decides which way is faster to find your tuple (=record) with organizer_id 4. There are two ways:
a) Read the index and then skip to the block which contains the data.
b) Read the heap and find the record there.
The information in your screenshot show 126 records (125 skipped + your record) with a length ("width") of 62 bytes. Including overhead these data fit into two database blocks of 8 KB. As a rotating disk or SSD reads a series of blocks anyway - they read always more blocks into the buffer - it's one read operation for these two blocks.
So the database decides that it is pointless to read first the index to find the correct record (of in our case two blocks) and then read the data from the heap with the information from the index. That would be two read operations. Even with modern technology newer than rotating disks this needs more time than just scanning the two blocks. That's why the database doesn't use the index.
Indexes on such small tables aren't good for searching. Nevertheless unique indexes avoid double entries.
Say I have a database that holds information about books and their dates of publishing. (two attributes, bookName and publicationDate).
Say that the attribute publicationDate has a Hash Index.
If I wanted to display every book that was published in 2010 I would enter this query : select bookName from Books where publicationDate=2010.
In my lecture, it is explained that if there is a big volume of data and that the publication dates are very diverse, the more optimized way is to use the Hash index in order to keep only the books published in 2010.
However, if the vast majority of the books that are in the database were published in 2010 it is better to search the database sequentially in terms of performance.
I really don't understand why? What are the situations where using an index is more optimized and why?
It is surprising that you are learning about hash indexes without understanding this concept. Hash indexing is a pretty advanced database concept; most databases don't even support them.
Although the example is quite misleading. 2010 is not a DATE; it is a YEAR. This is important because a hash index only works on equality comparisons. So the natural way to get a year of data from dates:
where publicationDate >= date '2010-01-01' and
publicationDate < date '2011-01-01'
could not use a hash index because the comparisons are not equality comparisons.
Indexes can be used for several purposes:
To quickly determine which rows match filtering conditions so fewer data pages need to be read.
To identify rows with common key values for aggregations.
To match rows between tables for joins.
To support unique constraints (via unique indexes).
And for b-tree indexes, to support order by.
This is the first purpose, which is to reduce the number of data pages being read. Reading a data page is non-trivial work, because it needs to be fetched from disk. A sequential scan reads all data pages, regardless of whether or not they are needed.
If only one row matches the index conditions, then only one page needs to be read. That is a big win on performance. However, if every page has a row that matches the condition, then you are reading all the pages anyway. The index seems less useful.
And using an index is not free. The index itself needs to be loaded into memory. The keys need to be hashed and processed during the lookup operation. All of this overhead is unnecessary if you just scan the pages (although there is other overhead for the key comparisons for filtering).
Using an index has a performance cost. If the percentage of matches is a small fraction of the whole table, this cost is more than made up for by not having to scan the whole table. But if there's a large percentage of matches, it's faster to simply read the table.
There is the cost of reading the index. A small, frequently used index might be in memory, but a large or infrequently used one might be on disk. That means slow disk access to search the index and get the matching row numbers. If the query matches a small number of rows this overhead is a win over searching the whole table. If the query matches a large number of rows, this overhead is a waste; you're going to have to read the whole table anyway.
Then there is an IO cost. With disks it's much, much faster to read and write sequentially than randomly. We're talking 10 to 100 times faster.
A spinning disk has a physical part, the head, it must move around to read different parts of the disk. The time it takes to move is known as "seek time". When you skip around between rows in a table, possibly out of order, this is random access and induces seek time. In contrast, reading the whole table is likely to be one long continuous read; the head does not have to jump around, there is no seek time.
SSDs are much, much faster, there's no physical parts to move, but they're still much faster for sequential access than random.
In addition, random access has more overhead between the operating system and the disk; it requires more instructions.
So if the database decides a query is going to match most of the rows of a table, it can decide that it's faster to read them sequentially and weed out the non-matches, than to look up rows via the index and using slower random access.
Consider a bank of post office boxes, each numbered in a big grid. It's pretty fast to look up each box by number, but it's much faster to start at a box and open them in sequence. And we have an index of who owns which box and where they live.
You need to get the mail for South Northport. You look up in the index which boxes belong to someone from South Northport, see there's only a few of them, and grab the mail individually. That's an indexed query and random access. It's fast because there's only a few mailboxes to check.
Now I ask you to get the mail for everyone but South Northport. You could use the index in reverse: get the list of boxes for South Northport, subtract those from the list of every box, and then individually get the mail for each box. But this would be slow, random access. Instead, since you're going to have to open nearly every box anyway, it is faster to check every box in sequence and see if it's mail for South Northport.
More formally, the indexed vs table scan performance is something like this.
# Indexed query
C[index] + (C[random] * M)
# Full table scan
(C[sequential] + C[match]) * N
Where C are various constant costs (or near enough constant), M is the number of matching rows, and N is the number of rows in the table.
We know C[sequential] is 10 to 100 times faster than C[random]. Because disk access is so much slower than CPU or memory operations, C[match] (the cost of checking if a row matches) will be relatively small compared to C[sequential]. More formally...
C[random] >> C[sequential] >> C[match]
Using that we can assume that C[sequential] + C[match] is C[sequential].
# Indexed query
C[index] + (C[random] * M)
# Full table scan
C[sequential] * N
When M << N the indexed query wins. As M approaches N, the full table scan wins.
Note that the cost of using the index isn't really constant. C[index] is things like loading the index, looking up a key, and reading the row IDs. This can be quite variable depending on the size of the index, type of index, and whether it is on disk (cold) or in memory (hot). This is why the first few queries are often rather slow when you've first started a database server.
In the real world it's more complicated than that. In reality rows are broken up into data pages and databases have many tricks to optimize queries and disk access. But, generally, if you're matching most of the rows a full table scan will beat an indexed lookup.
Hash indexes are of limited use these days. It is a simple key/value pair and can only be used for equality checks. Most databases use a B-Tree as their standard index. They're a little more costly, but can handle a broader range of operations including equality, ranges, comparisons, and prefix searches such as like 'foo%'.
The Postgres Index Types documentation is pretty good high level run-down of the various advantages and disadvantages of types of indexes.
In my application, users can create custom tables with three column types, Text, Numeric and Date. They can have up to 20 columns. I create a SQL table based on their schema using nvarchar(430) for text, decimal(38,6) for numeric and datetime, along with an Identity Id column.
There is the potential for many of these tables to be created by different users, and the data might be updated frequently by users uploading new CSV files. To get the best performance during the upload of the user data, we truncate the table to get rid of existing data, and then do batches of BULK INSERT.
The user can make a selection based on a filter they build up, which can include any number of columns. My issue is that some tables with a lot of rows will have poor performance during this selection. To combat this I thought about adding indexes, but as we don't know what columns will be included in the WHERE condition we would have to index every column.
For example, on a local SQL server one table with just over a million rows and a WHERE condition on 6 of its columns will take around 8 seconds the first time it runs, then under one second for subsequent runs. With indexes on every column it will run in under one second the first time the query is ran. This performance issue is amplified when we test on an SQL Azure database, where the same query will take over a minute the first time its run, and does not improve on subsequent runs, but with the indexes it takes 1 second.
So, would it be a suitable solution to add a index on every column when a user creates a column, or is there a better solution?
Yes, it's a good idea given your model. There will, of course, be more overhead maintaining the indexes on the insert, but if there is no predictable standard set of columns in the queries, you don't have a lot of choices.
Suppose by 'updated frequently,' you mean data is added frequently via uploads rather than existing records being modified. In that case, you might consider one of the various non-SQL databases (like Apache Lucene or variants) which allow efficient querying on any combination of data. For reading massive 'flat' data sets, they are astonishingly fast.
So, it seems to me like a query on a table with 10k records and a query on a table with 10mil records are almost equally fast if they are both fetching roughly the same number of records and making good use of simple indexes(auto increment, record id type indexed field).
My question is, will this extend to a table with close to 4 billion records if it is indexed properly and the database is set up in such a way that queries always use those indexes effectively?
Also, I know that inserting new records in to a very large indexed table can be very slow because all the indexes have to be recalculated, if I add new records only to the end of the table can I avoid that slow down, or will that not work because the index is a binary tree and a large chunk of the tree will still have to be recalculated?
Finally, I looked around a bit for a FAQs/caveats about working with very large tables, but couldn't really find one, so if anyone knows of something like that, that link would be appreciated.
Here is some good reading about large tables and the effects of indexing on them, including cost/benefit, as you requested:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_indexing_power.htm
Indexing very large tables (as with anything database related) depends on many factors, incuding your access patterns, ratio of Reads to Writes and size of available RAM.
If you can fit your 'hot' (i.e. frequently accessed index pages) into memory then accesses will generally be fast.
The strategy used to index very large tables, is using partitioned tables and partitioned indexes. BUT if your query does not join or filter on the partition key then there will no improvement in performance over an unpartitioned table i.e. no partition elimination.
SQL Server Database Partitioning Myths and Truths
Oracle Partitioned Tables and Indexes
It's very important to keep your indexes as narrow as possible.
Kimberly Tripp's The Clustered Index Debate Continues...(SQL Server)
Accessing the data via a unique index lookup will slow down as the table gets very large, but not by much. The index is stored as a B-tree structure in Postgres (not binary tree which only has two children per node), so a 10k row table might have 2 levels whereas a 10B row table might have 4 levels (depending on the width of the rows). So as the table gets ridiculously large it might go to 5 levels or higher, but this only means one extra page read so is probably not noticeable.
When you insert new rows, you cant control where they are inserted in the physical layout of the table so I assume you mean "end of the table" in terms of using the maximum value being indexed. I know Oracle has some optimisations around leaf block splitting in this case, but I dont know about Postgres.
If it is indexed properly, insert performance may be impacted more than select performance. Indexes in PostgreSQL have vast numbers of options which can allow you to index part of a table or the output of an immutable function on tuples in the table. Also size of the index, assuming it is usable, will affect speed much more slowly than will the actual scan of the table. The biggest difference is between searching a tree and scanning a list. Of course you still have disk I/O and memory overhead that goes into index usage, and so large indexes don't perform as well as they theoretically could.
How would you tackle the following storage and retrieval problem?
Roughly 2.000.000 rows will be added each day (365 days/year) with the following information per row:
id (unique row identifier)
entity_id (takes on values between 1 and 2.000.000 inclusive)
date_id (incremented with one each day - will take on values between 1 and 3.650 (ten years: 1*365*10))
value_1 (takes on values between 1 and 1.000.000 inclusive)
value_2 (takes on values between 1 and 1.000.000 inclusive)
entity_id combined with date_id is unique. Hence, at most one row per entity and date can be added to the table. The database must be able to hold 10 years worth of daily data (7.300.000.000 rows (3.650*2.000.000)).
What is described above is the write patterns. The read pattern is simple: all queries will be made on a specific entity_id. I.e. retrieve all rows describing entity_id = 12345.
Transactional support is not needed, but the storage solution must be open-sourced. Ideally I'd like to use MySQL, but I'm open for suggestions.
Now - how would you tackle the described problem?
Update: I was asked to elaborate regarding the read and write patterns. Writes to the table will be done in one batch per day where the new 2M entries will be added in one go. Reads will be done continuously with one read every second.
"Now - how would you tackle the described problem?"
With simple flat files.
Here's why
"all queries will be made on a
specific entity_id. I.e. retrieve all
rows describing entity_id = 12345."
You have 2.000.000 entities. Partition based on entity number:
level1= entity/10000
level2= (entity/100)%100
level3= entity%100
The each file of data is level1/level2/level3/batch_of_data
You can then read all of the files in a given part of the directory to return samples for processing.
If someone wants a relational database, then load files for a given entity_id into a database for their use.
Edit On day numbers.
The date_id/entity_id uniqueness rule is not something that has to be handled. It's (a) trivially imposed on the file names and (b) irrelevant for querying.
The date_id "rollover" doesn't mean anything -- there's no query, so there's no need to rename anything. The date_id should simply grow without bound from the epoch date. If you want to purge old data, then delete the old files.
Since no query relies on date_id, nothing ever needs to be done with it. It can be the file name for all that it matters.
To include the date_id in the result set, write it in the file with the other four attributes that are in each row of the file.
Edit on open/close
For writing, you have to leave the file(s) open. You do periodic flushes (or close/reopen) to assure that stuff really is going to disk.
You have two choices for the architecture of your writer.
Have a single "writer" process that consolidates the data from the various source(s). This is helpful if queries are relatively frequent. You pay for merging the data at write time.
Have several files open concurrently for writing. When querying, merge these files into a single result. This is helpful is queries are relatively rare. You pay for merging the data at query time.
Use partitioning. With your read pattern you'd want to partition by entity_id hash.
You might want to look at these questions:
Large primary key: 1+ billion rows MySQL + InnoDB?
Large MySQL tables
Personally, I'd also think about calculating your row width to give you an idea of how big your table will be (as per the partitioning note in the first link).
HTH.,
S
Your application appears to have the same characteristics as mine. I wrote a MySQL custom storage engine to efficiently solve the problem. It is described here
Imagine your data is laid out on disk as an array of 2M fixed length entries (one per entity) each containing 3650 rows (one per day) of 20 bytes (the row for one entity per day).
Your read pattern reads one entity. It is contiguous on disk so it takes 1 seek (about 8mllisecs) and read 3650x20 = about 80K at maybe 100MB/sec ... so it is done in a fraction of a second, easily meeting your 1-query-per-second read pattern.
The update has to write 20 bytes in 2M different places on disk. IN simplest case this would take 2M seeks each of which takes about 8millisecs, so it would take 2M*8ms = 4.5 hours. If you spread the data across 4 “raid0” disks it could take 1.125 hours.
However the places are only 80K apart. In the which means there are 200 such places within a 16MB block (typical disk cache size) so it could operate at anything up to 200 times faster. (1 minute) Reality is somewhere between the two.
My storage engine operates on that kind of philosophy, although it is a little more general purpose than a fixed length array.
You could code exactly what I have described. Putting the code into a MySQL pluggable storage engine means that you can use MySQL to query the data with various report generators etc.
By the way, you could eliminate the date and entity id from the stored row (because they are the array indexes) and may be the unique id – if you don't really need it since (entity id, date) is unique, and store the 2 values as 3-byte int. Then your stored row is 6 bytes, and you have 700 updates per 16M and therefore a faster inserts and a smaller file.
Edit Compare to Flat Files
I notice that comments general favor flat files. Don't forget that directories are just indexes implemented by the file system and they are generally optimized for relatively small numbers of relatively large items. Access to files is generally optimized so that it expects a relatively small number of files to be open, and has a relatively high overhead for open and close, and for each file that is open. All of those "relatively" are relative to the typical use of a database.
Using file system names as an index for a entity-Id which I take to be a non-sparse integer 1 to 2Million is counter-intuitive. In a programming you would use an array, not a hash-table, for example, and you are inevitably going to incur a great deal of overhead for an expensive access path that could simply be an array indeing operation.
Therefore if you use flat files, why not use just one flat file and index it?
Edit on performance
The performance of this application is going to be dominated by disk seek times. The calculations I did above determine the best you can do (although you can make INSERT quicker by slowing down SELECT - you can't make them both better). It doesn't matter whether you use a database, flat-files, or one flat-file, except that you can add more seeks that you don't really need and slow it down further. For example, indexing (whether its the file system index or a database index) causes extra I/Os compared to "an array look up", and these will slow you down.
Edit on benchmark measurements
I have a table that looks very much like yours (or almost exactly like one of your partitions). It was 64K entities not 2M (1/32 of yours), and 2788 'days'. The table was created in the same INSERT order that yours will be, and has the same index (entity_id,day). A SELECT on one entity takes 20.3 seconds to inspect the 2788 days, which is about 130 seeks per second as expected (on 8 millisec average seek time disks). The SELECT time is going to be proportional to the number of days, and not much dependent on the number of entities. (It will be faster on disks with faster seek times. I'm using a pair of SATA2s in RAID0 but that isn't making much difference).
If you re-order the table into entity order
ALTER TABLE x ORDER BY (ENTITY,DAY)
Then the same SELECT takes 198 millisecs (because it is reading the order entity in a single disk access).
However the ALTER TABLE operation took 13.98 DAYS to complete (for 182M rows).
There's a few other things the measurements tell you
1. Your index file is going to be as big as your data file. It is 3GB for this sample table. That means (on my system) all the index at disk speeds not memory speeds.
2.Your INSERT rate will decline logarithmically. The INSERT into the data file is linear but the insert of the key into the index is log. At 180M records I was getting 153 INSERTs per second, which is also very close to the seek rate. It shows that MySQL is updating a leaf index block for almost every INSERT (as you would expect because it is indexed on entity but inserted in day order.). So you are looking at 2M/153 secs= 3.6hrs to do your daily insert of 2M rows. (Divided by whatever effect you can get by partition across systems or disks).
I had similar problem (although with much bigger scale - about your yearly usage every day)
Using one big table got me screeching to a halt - you can pull a few months but I guess you'll eventually partition it.
Don't forget to index the table, or else you'll be messing with tiny trickle of data every query; oh, and if you want to do mass queries, use flat files
Your description of the read patterns is not sufficient. You'll need to describe what amounts of data will be retrieved, how often and how much deviation there will be in the queries.
This will allow you to consider doing compression on some of the columns.
Also consider archiving and partitioning.
If you want to handle huge data with millions of rows it can be considered similar to time series database which logs the time and saves the data to the database. Some of the ways to store the data is using InfluxDB and MongoDB.