When people are comparing SQL and noSQL, and concluding the upsides and downsides of each one, what I never hear anyone talking about is the speed.
Isn't performing SQL queries generally faster than performing noSQL queries?
I mean, for me this would be a really obvious conclusion, because you should always be able to find something faster if you know the structure of your database than if you don't.
But people never seem to mention this, so I want to know if my conclusion is right or wrong.
People who tend to use noSQL use it specifically because it fits their use cases. Being divorced from normal RDBMS table relationships and constraints, as well as ACID-ity of data, it's very easy to make it run a lot faster.
Consider Twitter, which uses NoSQL because a user only does very limited things on site, or one exactly - tweet. And concurrency can be considered non-existent since (1) nobody else can modify your tweet and (2) you won't normally be simultaneously tweeting from multiple devices.
The definition of noSQL systems is a very broad one -- a database that doesn't use SQL / is not a RDBMS.
Therefore, the answer to your question is, in short: "it depends".
Some noSQL systems are basically just persistent key/value storages (like Project Voldemort). If your queries are of the type "look up the value for a given key", such a system will (or at least should be) faster that an RDBMS, because it only needs to have a much smaller feature set.
Another popular type of noSQL system is the document database (like CouchDB).
These databases have no predefined data structure.
Their speed advantage relies heavily on denormalization and creating a data layout that is tailored to the queries that you will run on it. For example, for a blog, you could save a blog post in a document together with its comments. This reduces the need for joins and lookups, making your queries faster, but it also could reduce your flexibility regarding queries.
As Einstein would say, speed is relative.
If you need to store a master/detail simple application (like a shopping cart), you would need to do several Insert statements in your SQL application, also you will get a Data set of information when you do a query to get the purchase, if you're using NoSQL, and you're using it well, then you would have all the data for a single order in one simple "record" (document if you use the terms of NoSQL databases like djondb).
So, I really think that the performance of an application can be measured by the number of things it need to do to achieve a single requirement, if you need to do several Inserts to store an order and you only need one simple Insert in a database like djondb then the performance will be 10x faster in the NoSQL world, just because you're using 10 times less calls to the database layer, that's it.
To illustrate my point let me link an example I wrote sometime ago about the differences between NoSQL and SQL data models approach: https://web.archive.org/web/20160510045647/http://djondb.com/blog/nosql-masterdetail-sample/, I know it's a self reference, but basically I wrote it to address this question which I found it's the most challenging question a RDBMS guy could have and it's always a good way to explain why NoSQL is so different from SQL world, and why it will achieve better performance anytime, not because we use "nasa" technology, it's because NoSQL will let the developer do less... and get more, and less code = greater performance.
The answer is: it depends. Generally speaking, the objective of NoSQL DATABASES (no "queries") is scalability. RDBMS usually have some hard limits at some point (I'm talking about millons and millons of rows) where you could not scale any more by traditional means (Replication, clustering, partitioning), and you need something more because your needs keep growing. Or even if you manage to scale, the overall setup is quite complicated. Or you can scale reads, but not writes.
And the queries depends on the particular implementation of your server, the type of query you are doing, the columns in the table, etc... remember that queries are just one part of the RDBMS.
query time of relational database like SQL for 1000 person data is 2000 ms and graph database like neo4j
is 2ms .if you crate more node 1000000 speed stable 2 ms
I need to know if it is standard practice to decompose complex queries into parts and create temporary tables which are dropped at the end.? In OLAP applications it shouldnt be much of an issue, but in OLTP since speed matters is it avoided?.
For simple queries which are well-optimized by your DBMS, temporary tables are usually a bad idea because they introduce overhead.
But sometimes your DBMS will have a really hard time optimizing complex queries. At that point you have at least 5 options:
change your schema or indexes to make it easier for the optimizer to choose a better query plan
tweak your SQL to get the DBMS to choose the indexes, join strategies, etc. that you want and to work around known and unknown bugs in your DBMS's optimizer.
use "hints" to get the DBMS to choose the indexes, join strategies, etc. that you want.
Get the plan you want and use a "saved plan" to force its use by the DBMS.
use temp tables (or table variables, etc.) to decompose complex queries into simpler intermediate queries
There's no hard-and-fast rule about which option is best for any particular query. I've used all of the above strategies. I tend to choose the temp table approach when I don't own the schema, so I can't change it, and when I don't want to depend on hints or query tuning or saved plans (often because I don't want to expose myself to changes in the underlying schema made later).
Keep in mind that using temp tables to decompose queries will give you sub-optimal performance every time. But it's usually predictably sub-optimal. The worst case using temp tables isn't nearly as bad as when your DBMS chooses a bad plan for a single large query. This happens surprisingly often, especially in the face of changes in underlying schema, DBMS version changes, dev vs. production differences, etc.
Personally, I find that if a query gets to a level of complexity where I have to bend over backwards to get the DBMS to do what I want, and if I feel that maintainability of the application is at risk, then I'll often go with decomposition and temp tables if I can't change the schema or indexes.
Of course, in theory you shouldn't be running expensive, complex queries on your OLTP database, but in practice most applications are never "pure" OLTP-- there's always a few complicated, hard-to-optimize queries in any OLTP project.
The critical word in your question is "decompose". Temp tables and other strategies are generally discouraged and found to lead to lower overall performance. The optimizer is perfectly capable of using intermediate tables if they are useful for getting to the answer most quickly. Very rarely can you help the optimizer by coercing it with your own strategy.
The same thing goes for suggesting which indexes to use.
When you see this going on, almost always some one has more work to do refining their query statements.
The only time I've used temp tables during OLTP processing is when I am dealing with a batch of data that I need to analyze/join, and eventually do a data change operation on it (Insert/Update/Delete). I'll use temp tables for a) speed but more importantly, b) because the normal select/update or select/delete logic is either too complex or can't be done in one transactional statement.
For example, find 100k users who meet some condition, and insert them into an archive table and then delete them.
I don't recommend using temp tables in most cases for normal select statements. You can almost always get better performance with either proper indexing, better sql join/hints and/or changing the data structure to match data access paths.
IN oltp systems if the processing is part of the online system (i.e. not batch) then I can't recall ever using a temporary table. Using some sort of procedural logic is usually the way to go - e.g. PL/Sql in Oracle and so on.
In OLAP temporary tables are very common, usually load the data into a table, transform it and save the result in another table, and depending on the processing have a number of transform steps.
I'd go so far as to say if you have an oltp system and you need to use a temporary table, then something is incorrect, modify your design, or use procedural logic. In OLAP, temporary tables are very common.
hth
This question already has answers here:
How to design a product table for many kinds of product where each product has many parameters
(4 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I'm upgrading a payment management system I created a while ago. It currently has one table for each payment type it can accept. It is limited to only being able to pay for one thing, which this upgrade is to alleviate. I've been asking for suggestions as to how I should design it, and I have these basic ideas to work from:
Have one table for each payment type, with a few common columns on each. (current design)
Coordinate all payments with a central table that takes on the common columns (unifying payment IDs regardless of type), and identifies another table and row ID that has columns specialized to that payment type.
Have one table for all payment types, and null the columns which are not used for any given type.
Use the central table idea, but store specialized columns in a key/value table.
My goals for this are: not ridiculously slow, self-documenting as much as possible, and maximizing flexibility while maintaining the other goals.
I don't like 1 very much because of the duplicate columns in each table. It reflects the payment type classes inheriting a base class that provides functionality for all payment types... ORM in reverse?
I'm leaning toward 2 the most, because it's just as "type safe" and self-documenting as the current design. But, as with 1, to add a new payment type, I need to add a new table.
I don't like 3 because of its "wasted space", and it's not immediately clear which columns are used for which payment types. Documentation can alleviate the pain of this somewhat, but my company's internal tools do not have an effective method for storing/finding technical documentation.
The argument I was given for 4 was that it would alleviate needing to change the database when adding a new payment method, but it suffers even worse than 3 does from the lack of explicitness. Currently, changing the database isn't a problem, but it could become a logistical nightmare if we decide to start letting customers keep their own database down the road.
So, of course I have my biases. Does anyone have any better ideas? Which design do you think fits best? What criteria should I base my decision on?
Note
This subject is being discussed, and this thread is being referenced in other threads, therefore I have given it a reasonable treatment, please bear with me. My intention is to provide understanding, so that you can make informed decisions, rather than simplistic ones based merely on labels. If you find it intense, read it in chunks, at your leisure; come back when you are hungry, and not before.
What, exactly, about EAV, is "Bad" ?
1 Introduction
There is a difference between EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value Model) done properly, and done badly, just as there is a difference between 3NF done properly and done badly. In our technical work, we need to be precise about exactly what works, and what does not; about what performs well, and what doesn't. Blanket statements are dangerous, misinform people, and thus hinder progress and universal understanding of the issues concerned.
I am not for or against anything, except poor implementations by unskilled workers, and misrepresenting the level of compliance to standards. And where I see misunderstanding, as here, I will attempt to address it.
Normalisation is also often misunderstood, so a word on that. Wikipedia and other free sources actually post completely nonsensical "definitions", that have no academic basis, that have vendor biases so as to validate their non-standard-compliant products. There is a Codd published his Twelve Rules. I implement a minimum of 5NF, which is more than enough for most requirements, so I will use that as a baseline. Simply put, assuming Third Normal Form is understood by the reader (at least that definition is not confused) ...
2 Fifth Normal Form
2.1 Definition
Fifth Normal Form is defined as:
every column has a 1::1 relation with the Primary Key, only
and to no other column, in the table, or in any other table
the result is no duplicated columns, anywhere; No Update Anomalies (no need for triggers or complex code to ensure that, when a column is updated, its duplicates are updated correctly).
it improves performance because (a) it affects less rows and (b) improves concurrency due to reduced locking
I make the distinction that, it is not that a database is Normalised to a particular NF or not; the database is simply Normalised. It is that each table is Normalised to a particular NF: some tables may only require 1NF, others 3NF, and yet others require 5NF.
2.2 Performance
There was a time when people thought that Normalisation did not provide performance, and they had to "denormalise for performance". Thank God that myth has been debunked, and most IT professionals today realise that Normalised databases perform better. The database vendors optimise for Normalised databases, not for denormalised file systems. The truth "denormalised" is, the database was NOT normalised in the first place (and it performed badly), it was unnormalised, and they did some further scrambling to improve performance. In order to be Denormalised, it has to be faithfully Normalised first, and that never took place. I have rewritten scores of such "denormalised for performance" databases, providing faithful Normalisation and nothing else, and they ran at least ten, and as much as a hundred times faster. In addition, they required only a fraction of the disk space. It is so pedestrian that I guarantee the exercise, in writing.
2.3 Limitation
The limitations, or rather the full extent of 5NF is:
it does not handle optional values, and Nulls have to be used (many designers disallow Nulls and use substitutes, but this has limitations if it not implemented properly and consistently)
you still need to change DDL in order to add or change columns (and there are more and more requirements to add columns that were not initially identified, after implementation; change control is onerous)
although providing the highest level of performance due to Normalisation (read: elimination of duplicates and confused relations), complex queries such as pivoting (producing a report of rows, or summaries of rows, expressed as columns) and "columnar access" as required for data warehouse operations, are difficult, and those operations only, do not perform well. Not that this is due only to the SQL skill level available, and not to the engine.
3 Sixth Normal Form
3.1 Definition
Sixth Normal Form is defined as:
the Relation (row) is the Primary Key plus at most one attribute (column)
It is known as the Irreducible Normal Form, the ultimate NF, because there is no further Normalisation that can be performed. Although it was discussed in academic circles in the mid nineties, it was formally declared only in 2003. For those who like denigrating the formality of the Relational Model, by confusing relations, relvars, "relationships", and the like: all that nonsense can be put to bed because formally, the above definition identifies the Irreducible Relation, sometimes called the Atomic Relation.
3.2 Progression
The increment that 6NF provides (that 5NF does not) is:
formal support for optional values, and thus, elimination of The Null Problem
a side effect is, columns can be added without DDL changes (more later)
effortless pivoting
simple and direct columnar access
it allows for (not in its vanilla form) an even greater level of performance in this department
Let me say that I (and others) were supplying enhanced 5NF tables 20 years ago, explicitly for pivoting, with no problem at all, and thus allowing (a) simple SQL to be used and (b) providing very high performance; it was nice to know that the academic giants of the industry had formally defined what we were doing. Overnight, my 5NF tables were renamed 6NF, without me lifting a finger. Second, we only did this where we needed it; again, it was the table, not the database, that was Normalised to 6NF.
3.3 SQL Limitation
It is a cumbersome language, particularly re joins, and doing anything moderately complex makes it very cumbersome. (It is a separate issue that most coders do not understand or use subqueries.) It supports the structures required for 5NF, but only just. For robust and stable implementations, one must implement additional standards, which may consist in part, of additional catalogue tables. The "use by" date for SQL had well and truly elapsed by the early nineties; it is totally devoid of any support for 6NF tables, and desperately in need of replacement. But that is all we have, so we need to just Deal With It.
For those of us who had been implementing standards and additional catalogue tables, it was not a serious effort to extend our catalogues to provide the capability required to support 6NF structures to standard: which columns belong to which tables, and in what order; mandatory/optional; display format; etc. Essentially a full MetaData catalogue, married to the SQL catalogue.
Note that each NF contains each previous NF within it, so 6NF contains 5NF. We did not break 5NF in order provide 6NF, we provided a progression from 5NF; and where SQL fell short we provided the catalogue. What this means is, basic constraints such as for Foreign Keys; and Value Domains which were provided via SQL Declarative Referential integrity; Datatypes; CHECKS; and RULES, at the 5NF level, remained intact, and these constraints were not subverted. The high quality and high performance of standard-compliant 5NF databases was not reduced in anyway by introducing 6NF.
3.4 Catalogue
It is important to shield the users (any report tool) and the developers, from having to deal with the jump from 5NF to 6NF (it is their job to be app coding geeks, it is my job to be the database geek). Even at 5NF, that was always a design goal for me: a properly Normalised database, with a minimal Data Directory, is in fact quite easy to use, and there was no way I was going to give that up. Keep in mind that due to normal maintenance and expansion, the 6NF structures change over time, new versions of the database are published at regular intervals. Without doubt, the SQL (already cumbersome at 5NF) required to construct a 5NF row from the 6NF tables, is even more cumbersome. Gratefully, that is completely unnecessary.
Since we already had our catalogue, which identified the full 6NF-DDL-that-SQL-does-not-provide, if you will, I wrote a small utility to read the catalogue and:
generate the 6NF table DDL.
generate 5NF VIEWS of the 6NF tables. This allowed the users to remain blissfully unaware of them, and gave them the same capability and performance as they had at 5NF
generate the full SQL (not a template, we have those separately) required to operate against the 6NF structures, which coders then use. They are released from the tedium and repetition which is otherwise demanded, and free to concentrate on the app logic.
I did not write an utility for Pivoting because the complexity present at 5NF is eliminated, and they are now dead simple to write, as with the 5NF-enhanced-for-pivoting. Besides, most report tools provide pivoting, so I only need to provide functions which comprise heavy churning of stats, which needs to be performed on the server before shipment to the client.
3.5 Performance
Everyone has their cross to bear; I happen to be obsessed with Performance. My 5NF databases performed well, so let me assure you that I ran far more benchmarks than were necessary, before placing anything in production. The 6NF database performed exactly the same as the 5NF database, no better, no worse. This is no surprise, because the only thing the 'complex" 6NF SQL does, that the 5NF SQL doesn't, is perform much more joins and subqueries.
You have to examine the myths.
Anyone who has benchmarked the issue (i.e examined the execution plans of queries) will know that Joins Cost Nothing, it is a compile-time resolution, they have no effect at execution time.
Yes, of course, the number of tables joined; the size of the tables being joined; whether indices can be used; the distribution of the keys being joined; etc, all cost something.
But the join itself costs nothing.
A query on five (larger) tables in a Unnormalised database is much slower than the equivalent query on ten (smaller) tables in the same database if it were Normalised. the point is, neither the four nor the nine Joins cost anything; they do not figure in the performance problem; the selected set on each Join does figure in it.
3.6 Benefit
Unrestricted columnar access. This is where 6NF really stands out. The straight columnar access was so fast that there was no need to export the data to a data warehouse in order to obtain speed from specialised DW structures.
My research into a few DWs, by no means complete, shows that they consistently store data by columns, as opposed to rows, which is exactly what 6NF does. I am conservative, so I am not about to make any declarations that 6NF will displace DWs, but in my case it eliminated the need for one.
It would not be fair to compare functions available in 6NF that were unavailable in 5NF (eg. Pivoting), which obviously ran much faster.
That was our first true 6NF database (with a full catalogue, etc; as opposed to the always 5NF with enhancements only as necessary; which later turned out to be 6NF), and the customer is very happy. Of course I was monitoring performance for some time after delivery, and I identified an even faster columnar access method for my next 6NF project. That, when I do it, might present a bit of competition for the DW market. The customer is not ready, and we do not fix that which is not broken.
3.7 What, Exactly, about 6NF, is "Bad" ?
Note that not everyone would approach the job with as much formality, structure, and adherence to standards. So it would be silly to conclude from our project, that all 6NF databases perform well, and are easy to maintain. It would be just as silly to conclude (from looking at the implementations of others) that all 6NF databases perform badly, are hard to maintain; disasters. As always, with any technical endeavour, the resulting performance and ease of maintenance are strictly dependent on formality, structure, and adherence to standards, in addition to the relevant skill set.
4 Entity Attribute Value
Disclosure: Experience. I have inspected a few of these, mostly hospital and medical systems. I have performed corrective assignments on two of them. The initial delivery by the overseas provider was quite adequate, although not great, but the extensions implemented by the local provider were a mess. But not nearly the disaster that people have posted about re EAV on this site. A few months intense work fixed them up nicely.
4.1 What It Is
It was obvious to me that the EAV implementations I have worked on are merely subsets of Sixth Normal Form. Those who implement EAV do so because they want some of the features of 6NF (eg. ability to add columns without DDL changes), but they do not have the academic knowledge to implement true 6NF, or the standards and structures to implement and administer it securely. Even the original provider did not know about 6NF, or that EAV was a subset of 6NF, but they readily agreed when I pointed it out to them. Because the structures required to provide EAV, and indeed 6NF, efficiently and effectively (catalogue; Views; automated code generation) are not formally identified in the EAV community, and are missing from most implementations, I classify EAV as the bastard son Sixth Normal Form.
4.2 What, Exactly, about EAV, is "Bad" ?
Going by the comments in this and other threads, yes, EAV done badly is a disaster. More important (a) they are so bad that the performance provided at 5NF (forget 6NF) is lost and (b) the ordinary isolation from the complexity has not been implemented (coders and users are "forced" to use cumbersome navigation). And if they did not implement a catalogue, all sorts of preventable errors will not have been prevented.
All that may well be true for bad (EAV or other) implementations, but it has nothing to do with 6NF or EAV. The two projects I worked had quite adequate performance (sure, it could be improved; but there was no bad performance due to EAV), and good isolation of complexity. Of course, they were nowhere near the quality or performance of my 5NF databases or my true 6NF database, but they were fair enough, given the level of understanding of the posted issues within the EAV community. They were not the disasters and sub-standard nonsense alleged to be EAV in these pages.
5 Nulls
There is a well-known and documented issue called The Null Problem. It is worthy of an essay by itself. For this post, suffice to say:
the problem is really the optional or missing value; here the consideration is table design such that there are no Nulls vs Nullable columns
actually it does not matter because, regardless of whether you use Nulls/No Nulls/6NF to exclude missing values, you will have to code for that, the problem precisely then, is handling missing values, which cannot be circumvented
except of course for pure 6NF, which eliminates the Null Problem
the coding to handle missing values remains
except, with automated generation of SQL code, heh heh
Nulls are bad news for performance, and many of us have decided decades ago not to allow Nulls in the database (Nulls in passed parameters and result sets, to indicate missing values, is fine)
which means a set of Null Substitutes and boolean columns to indicate missing values
Nulls cause otherwise fixed len columns to be variable len; variable len columns should never be used in indices, because a little 'unpacking' has to be performed on every access of every index entry, during traversal or dive.
6 Position
I am not a proponent of EAV or 6NF, I am a proponent of quality and standards. My position is:
Always, in all ways, do whatever you are doing to the highest standard that you are aware of.
Normalising to Third Normal Form is minimal for a Relational Database (5NF for me). DataTypes, Declarative referential Integrity, Transactions, Normalisation are all essential requirements of a database; if they are missing, it is not a database.
if you have to "denormalise for performance", you have made serious Normalisation errors, your design in not normalised. Period. Do not "denormalise", on the contrary, learn Normalisation and Normalise.
There is no need to do extra work. If your requirement can be fulfilled with 5NF, do not implement more. If you need Optional Values or ability to add columns without DDL changes or the complete elimination of the Null Problem, implement 6NF, only in those tables that need them.
If you do that, due only to the fact that SQL does not provide proper support for 6NF, you will need to implement:
a simple and effective catalogue (column mix-ups and data integrity loss are simply not acceptable)
5NF access for the 6NF tables, via VIEWS, to isolate the users (and developers) from the encumbered (not "complex") SQL
write or buy utilities, so that you can generate the cumbersome SQL to construct the 5NF rows from the 6NF tables, and avoid writing same
measure, monitor, diagnose, and improve. If you have a performance problem, you have made either (a) a Normalisation error or (b) a coding error. Period. Back up a few steps and fix it.
If you decide to go with EAV, recognise it for what it is, 6NF, and implement it properly, as above. If you do, you will have a successful project, guaranteed. If you do not, you will have a dog's breakfast, guaranteed.
6.1 There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
That adage has been referred to, but actually it has been misused. The way it actually, deeply applies is as above: if you want the benefits of 6NF/EAV, you had better be willing too do the work required to obtain it (catalogue, standards). Of course, the corollary is, if you don't do the work, you won't get the benefit. There is no "loss" of Datatypes; value Domains; Foreign keys; Checks; Rules. Regarding performance, there is no performance penalty for 6NF/EAV, but there is always a substantial performance penalty for sub-standard work.
7 Specific Question
Finally. With due consideration to the context above, and that it is a small project with a small team, there is no question:
Do not use EAV (or 6NF for that matter)
Do not use Nulls or Nullable columns (unless you wish to subvert performance)
Do use a single Payment table for the common payment columns
and a child table for each PaymentType, each with its specific columns
All fully typecast and constrained.
What's this "another row_id" business ? Why do some of you stick an ID on everything that moves, without checking if it is a deer or an eagle ? No. The child is a dependent child. The Relation is 1::1. The PK of the child is the PK of the parent, the common Payment table. This is an ordinary Supertype-Subtype cluster, the Differentiator is PaymentTypeCode. Subtypes and supertypes are an ordinary part of the Relational Model, and fully catered for in the database, as well as in any good modelling tool.
Sure, people who have no knowledge of Relational databases think they invented it 30 years later, and give it funny new names. Or worse, they knowingly re-label it and claim it as their own. Until some poor sod, with a bit of education and professional pride, exposes the ignorance or the fraud. I do not know which one it is, but it is one of them; I am just stating facts, which are easy to confirm.
A. Responses to Comments
A.1 Attribution
I do not have personal or private or special definitions. All statements regarding the definition (such as imperatives) of:
Normalisation,
Normal Forms, and
the Relational Model.
.
refer to the many original texts By EF Codd and CJ Date (not available free on the web)
.
The latest being Temporal Data and The Relational Model by CJ Date, Hugh Darwen, Nikos A Lorentzos
.
and nothing but those texts
.
"I stand on the shoulders of giants"
.
The essence, the body, all statements regarding the implementation (eg. subjective, and first person) of the above are based on experience; implementing the above principles and concepts, as a commercial organisation (salaried consultant or running a consultancy), in large financial institutions in America and Australia, over 32 years.
This includes scores of large assignments correcting or replacing sub-standard or non-relational implementations.
.
The Null Problem vis-a-vis Sixth Normal Form
A freely available White Paper relating to the title (it does not define The Null Problem alone) can be found at:
http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~hugh/TTM/Missing-info-without-nulls.pdf.
.
A 'nutshell' definition of 6NF (meaningful to those experienced with the other NFs), can be found on p6
A.2 Supporting Evidence
As stated at the outset, the purpose of this post is to counter the misinformation that is rife in this community, as a service to the community.
Evidence supporting statements made re the implementation of the above principles, can be provided, if and when specific statements are identified; and to the same degree that the incorrect statements posted by others, to which this post is a response, is likewise evidenced. If there is going to be a bun fight, let's make sure the playing field is level
Here are a few docs that I can lay my hands on immediately.
a. Large Bank
This is the best example, as it was undertaken for explicitly the reasons in this post, and goals were realised. They had a budget for Sybase IQ (DW product) but the reports were so fast when we finished the project, they did not need it. The trade analytical stats were my 5NF plus pivoting extensions which turned out to be 6NF, described above. I think all the questions asked in the comments have been answered in the doc, except:
- number of rows:
- old database is unknown, but it can be extrapolated from the other stats
- new database = 20 tables over 100M, 4 tables over 10B.
b. Small Financial Institute Part A
Part B - The meat
Part C - Referenced Diagrams
Part D - Appendix, Audit of Indices Before/After (1 line per Index)
Note four docs; the fourth only for those who wish to inspect detailed Index changes. They were running a 3rd party app that could not be changed because the local supplier was out of business, plus 120% extensions which they could, but did not want to, change. We were called in because they upgraded to a new version of Sybase, which was much faster, which shifted the various performance thresholds, which caused large no of deadlocks. Here we Normalised absolutely everything in the server except the db model, with the goal (guaranteed beforehand) of eliminating deadlocks (sorry, I am not going to explain that here: people who argue about the "denormalisation" issue, will be in a pink fit about this one). It included a reversal of "splitting tables into an archive db for performance", which is the subject of another post (yes, the new single table performed faster than the two spilt ones). This exercise applies to MS SQL Server [insert rewrite version] as well.
c. Yale New Haven Hospital
That's Yale School of Medicine, their teaching hospital. This is a third-party app on top of Sybase. The problem with stats is, 80% of the time they were collecting snapshots at nominated test times only, but no consistent history, so there is no "before image" to compare our new consistent stats with. I do not know of any other company who can get Unix and Sybase internal stats on the same graphs, in an automated manner. Now the network is the threshold (which is a Good Thing).
Perhaps you should look this question
The accepted answer from Bill Karwin goes into specific arguments against the key/value table usually know as Entity Attribute Value (EAV)
.. Although many people seem to favor
EAV, I don't. It seems like the most
flexible solution, and therefore the
best. However, keep in mind the adage
TANSTAAFL. Here are some of the
disadvantages of EAV:
No way to make a column mandatory (equivalent of NOT NULL).
No way to use SQL data types to validate entries.
No way to ensure that attribute names are spelled consistently.
No way to put a foreign key on the values of any given attribute, e.g.
for a lookup table.
Fetching results in a conventional tabular layout is complex and
expensive, because to get attributes
from multiple rows you need to do
JOIN for each attribute.
The degree of flexibility EAV gives
you requires sacrifices in other
areas, probably making your code as
complex (or worse) than it would have
been to solve the original problem in
a more conventional way.
And in most cases, it's an unnecessary
to have that degree of flexibility.
In the OP's question about product
types, it's much simpler to create a
table per product type for
product-specific attributes, so you
have some consistent structure
enforced at least for entries of the
same product type.
I'd use EAV only if every row must
be permitted to potentially have a
distinct set of attributes. When you
have a finite set of product types,
EAV is overkill. Class Table
Inheritance would be my first choice.
My #1 principle is not to redesign something for no reason. So I would go with option 1 because that's your current design and it has a proven track record of working.
Spend the redesign time on new features instead.
If I were designing from scratch I would go with number two. It gives you the flexibility you need. However with number 1 already in place and working and this being soemting rather central to your whole app, i would probably be wary of making a major design change without a good idea of exactly what queries, stored procs, views, UDFs, reports, imports etc you would have to change. If it was something I could do with a relatively low risk (and agood testing alrady in place.) I might go for the change to solution 2 otherwise you might beintroducing new worse bugs.
Under no circumstances would I use an EAV table for something like this. They are horrible for querying and performance and the flexibility is way overrated (ask users if they prefer to be able to add new types 3-4 times a year without a program change at the cost of everyday performance).
At first sight, I would go for option 2 (or 3): when possible, generalize.
Option 4 is not very Relational I think, and will make your queries complex.
When confronted to those question, I generally confront those options with "use cases":
-how is design 2/3 behaving when do this or this operation ?
I am thinking about a DB Design Problem.
For example, I am designing this stackoverflow website where I have a list of Questions.
Each Question contains certain meta data that will probably not change.
Each Question also contains certain data that will be consistently changing (Recently Viewed Date, Total Views...etc)
Would it be better to have a Main Table for reading the constant meta data and doing a join
and also keeping the changing values in a different table?
OR
Would it be better to keep everything all in one table.
I am not sure if this is the case, but when updating, does the ROW lock?
When designing a database structure, it's best to normalize first and change for performance after you've profiled and benchmarked your queries. Normalization aims to prevent data-duplication, increase integrity and define the correct relationships between your data.
Bear in mind that performing the join comes at a cost as well, so it's hard to say if your idea would help any. Proper indexing with a normalized structure would be much more helpful.
And regarding row-level locks, that depends on the storage engine - some use row-level locking and some use table-locks.
Your initial database design should be based on conceptual and relational considerations only, completely indepedent of physical considerations. Database software is designed and intended to support good relational design. You will hardly ever need to relax those considerations to deal with performance. Don't even think about the costs of joins, locking, and activity type at first. Then further along, put off these considerations until all other avenues have been explored.
Your rdbms is your friend, not your adversary.
You should have the two table separated out as you might want to record the history of the question. The main Question table is indexed by question ID then the Status table is indexed by query ID and date/time stamp and contains a row for each time the status changes.
Don't know that the updates are really significant unless you were using pessimistic locking where the row would be locked for a period of time.
I would look at caching your results either locally with Asp.net caching or using MemCached.
This would certainly be a bad idea if you were using Oracle. In Oracle, you can quite happily read records while other sessions are modifying them due to it's multi-version concurency control. You would incur extra performance penalty for the join for no savings.
A design patter that is useful, however, is to pre-join tables, pre-calculate aggregates or pre-apply where clauses using materialized views.
As already said, better start with a clean normalized design. It's just easier to denormalize later, than to go the other way around. The experience teaches that you will never denormalize that one big table! You will just throw more columns in as needed. And you will need more and more indexes and updates will go slower and slower.
You should also take a look at the expected loads: Will be there more new answers or just more querying? What other operations will you have? When it comes to optimization, you can use the features of your dbms system: indexing, views, ...
Eran Galperin already provided most of my answer. In addition, the structure you propose really wouldn't help you in terms of locking. If their are relatively static and dynamic attributes in the same row, breaking the static and dynamic into two tables isn't of much benefit. It doesn't matter if static data is being locked, since no one is trying to change it anyway.
In fact, you may actually do worse with this design. Some database engines use page locking. If a table has fewer/smaller columns, more rows will fit on a page. The more rows there are on a page, the more likely there will be a lock contention. By having the static data mixed in with the dynamic, the rows are bigger, therefore there are fewer rows in a page, and therefore fewer waits on page locks.
If you have two independent sets of dynamic attributes, and they are normally modified by different actors, then you might get some benefit by breaking them into different tables. This is a pretty unusual case, however.
I'd also point out that breaking the table into a static and dynamic portion may not be of benefit in a relatively small environment, but in a large distributed environment it may be useful to cache and replicate the dynamic data at different rates than the static data.