I built an analytics engine that pulls 50-100 rows of raw data from my database (lets call it raw_table), runs a bunch statistical measurements on it in PHP and then comes up with exactly 140 datapoints that I then need to store in another table (lets call it results_table). All of these data points are very small ints ("40","2.23","-1024" are good examples of the types of data).
I know the maximum # of columns for mysql is quite high (4000+) but there appears to be a lot of grey area as far as when performance really starts to degrade.
So a few questions here on best performance practices:
1) The 140 datapoints could be, if it is better, broken up into 20 rows of 7 data points all with the same 'experiment_id' if fewer columns is better. HOWEVER I would always need to pull ALL 20 rows (with 7 columns each, plus id, etc) so I wouldn't think this would be better performance than pulling 1 row of 140 columns. So the question: is it better to store 20 rows of 7-9 columns (that would all need to be pulled at once) or 1 row of 140-143 columns?
2) Given my data examples ("40","2.23","-1024" are good examples of what will be stored) I'm thinking smallint for the structure type. Any feedback there, performance-wise or otherwise?
3) Any other feedback on mysql performance issues or tips is welcome.
Thanks in advance for your input.
I think the advantage to storing as more rows (i.e. normalized) depends on design and maintenance considerations in the face of change.
Also, if the 140 columns have the same meaning or if it differs per experiment - properly modeling the data according to normalization rules - i.e. how is data related to a candidate key.
As far as performance, if all the columns are used it makes very little difference. Sometimes a pivot/unpivot operation can be expensive over a large amount of data, but it makes little difference on a single key access pattern. Sometimes a pivot in the database can make your frontend code a lot simpler and backend code more flexible in the face of change.
If you have a lot of NULLs, it might be possible to eliminate rows in a normalized design and this would save space. I don't know if MySQL has support for a sparse table concept, which could come into play there.
You have a 140 data items to return every time, each of type double.
It makes no practical difference whether this is 1x140 or 20x7 or 7x20 or 4x35 etc. It could be infinitesimally quicker for one shape of course but then have you considered the extra complexity in the PHP code to deal with a different shape.
Do you have a verified bottleneck, or is this just random premature optimisation?
You've made no suggestion that you intend to store big data in the database, but for the purposes of this argument, I will assume that you have 1 billion (10^9) data points.
If you store them in 140 columns, you'll have a mere 7 millon rows, however, if you want to retrieve a single data point from lots of experiments, then it will have to fetch a large number of very wide rows.
These very wide rows will take up more space in your innodb_buffer_pool, hence you won't be able to cache so many; this will potentially slow you down when you access them again.
If you store one datapoint per row, in a table with very few columns (experiment_id, datapoint_id, value) then you'll need to pull out the same number of smaller rows.
However, the size of rows makes little difference to the number of IO operations required. If we assume that your 1 billion datapoints doesn't fit in ram (which is NOT a safe assumption nowadays), maybe the resulting performance will be approximately the same.
It is probably better database design to use few columns; but it will use less disc space and perhaps be faster to populate, if you use lots of columns.
Related
Is it possible to get the amount of space on disk that a particular table uses? Let's say I have a million users stored in my table and I want to know how much space it's required to store all users and/or one of them.
Update:
I'm planning to use redis to cache some fields from one particular table in memory to quickly retrieve the needed data after. So I need to calculate how much space approximately will it take and thus will it fit in the memory or not. Definitely it depends on the data types that I use inside my table but if a table consists of several dozens of fields it would take too much time to count this one by one.
There is exactly such answer for the MySQL though it's not suitable for SQL Server: How can you determine how much disk space a particular MySQL table is taking up? You can check it to see what I mean.
If you have SSMS, you can right-click on the table in the Object Explorer, go to Properties, and then look at the Storage page. The field, Data space, is the size of the data in that table, but it probably does not include some of the overhead costs of the table.
This is really an extended comment, because it does not directly answer the question.
For most purposes, you just use the size of the columns, add them together, and multiply by the number of rows. This lowballs the estimate, but it is reasonable. And (depending on how you handle the types) might be a reasonable estimate of the size of exporting the data.
That said, the storage of tables is a difficult matter. Here are some of the factors you need to take into account:
The size of individuals fields. This is made slightly more difficult because some types have varying sizes, so those are entirely data dependent.
The number of pages occupied by a table (or equivalently how full each data page is). Note that this can vary, depending on how full each table is.
The number of pages occupied by "overflow" data types, such as varchar(max).
Whether or not the data pages are compressed or encrypted.
The indexes for the table.
How full each index page is.
And, no doubt, I've left out a bunch of other relevant internal details (here is a place to start on page layouts).
In other words, there isn't a simple answer. Equivalent tables on two different systems could occupy very different amounts of space. This is true of the "same" table on the same system at different times.
The general answer when working with databases is that you need a lot more space than number of rows * row size -- I seem to recall using a factor of 3 at one point in time. In general, storage is pretty cheap, so this is not the limiting factor using a database.
We would need to see your full database schema, with tables and columns and all fields' data types. Without those pieces of information it's just a lucky guess. Here is a helpful cheat sheet of the sizes of each data type: https://www.connectionstrings.com/sql-server-2012-data-types-reference/
Then you just have to do the Math and calculate the space needed for X, which is your number of records
I have a table that has 50 fields:
10 Fields that are almost always needed.
40 Fields that are very rarely needed.
I would roughly say that the fields in (1) are needed to be accessed 1000 times more frequently than the fields in (2).
Should I split them to two tables with one-to-one relation, or keep all in the same table?
The process that you are describing is sometimes referred to as "vertical partitioning". Taken to an extreme (one column per vertical partition), this is how columnar databases store data. Unfortunately (to the best of my knowledge), Postgres does not currently have direct support for vertical partitioning.
Your idea of splitting the data into two tables is fine. I would note the following:
You will need to modify queries that use the extra columns to use the second table. (You can wrap the join into a view which you use when you want the extra columns.)
If both tables have a clustered primary key that connects them, then the join should be really fast.
If you are inserting/updating/deleting data, then you need to be careful about synchronization. I think you can handle this with an INSTEAD OF trigger on a view combining the tables.
If some records do not have extra columns, this can be a big win on the space side.
If all records and all columns are going to be loaded into the cache, then this probably is not a big win.
This can be a big performance win, under some circumstances. But there is additional manual work to keep the tables synchronized.
There's really not nearly enough information here to estimate (never mind actually quantify) what the benefits might be, but the costs are very clear -- more complex code, a more complex schema, probably greater overall space usage, and a performance overhead when adding and removing rows.
A performance improvement might come from scanning a smaller amount of data when performing a full table scan, or from an increased likelihood in finding data blocks in memory when required, and an overall smaller memory footprint, but without specific information on the types of operation commonly performed, and whether the server is under memory pressure, no reliable advice can be given.
Be very wary of making your system more complex as a side-effect of uncertain performance gains.
Suppose I have text such as "Win", "Lose", "Incomplete", "Forfeit" etc. I can directly store the text in the database. Instead if use numbers such as 0 = Win, 1 = Lose etc would I get a material improvement in database performance? Specifically on queries where the field is part of my WHERE clause
At the CPU level, comparing two fixed-size integers takes just one instruction, whereas comparing variable-length strings usually involves looping through each character. So for a very large dataset there should be a significant performance gain with using integers.
Moreover, a fixed-size integer will generally take less space and can allow the database engine to perform faster algorithms based on random seeking.
Most database systems however have an enum type which is meant for cases like yours - in the query you can compare the field value against a fixed set of literals while it is internally stored as an integer.
There might be significant performance gains if the column is used in an index.
It could range anywhere from negligible to extremely beneficial depending on the table size, the number of possible values being enumerated and the database engine / configuration.
That said, it almost certainly will never perform worse to use a number to represent an enumerated type.
Don't guess. Measure.
Performance depends on how selective the index is (how many distinct values are in it), whether critical information is available in the natural key, how long the natural key is, and so on. You really need to test with representative data.
When I was designing the database for my employer's operational data store, I built a testbed with tables designed around natural keys and with tables designed around id numbers. Both those schemas have more than 13 million rows of computer-generated sample data. In a few cases, queries on the id number schema outperformed the natural key schema by 50%. (So a complex query that took 20 seconds with id numbers took 30 seconds with natural keys.) But 80% of the test queries had faster SELECT performance against the natural key schema. And sometimes it was staggeringly faster--a difference of 30 to 1.
The reason, of course, is that lots of the queries on the natural key schema need no joins at all--the most commonly needed information is naturally carried in the natural key. (I know that sounds odd, but it happens surprisingly often. How often is probably application-dependent.) But zero joins is often going to be faster than three joins, even if you join on integers.
Clearly if your data structures are shorter, they are faster to compare AND faster to store and retrieve.
How much faster 1, 2, 1000. It all depends on the size of the table and so on.
For example: say you have a table with a productId and a varchar text column.
Each row will roughly take 4 bytes for the int and then another 3-> 24 bytes for the text in your example (depending on if the column is nullable or is unicode)
Compare that to 5 bytes per row for the same data with a byte status column.
This huge space saving means more rows fit in a page, more data fits in the cache, less writes happen when you load store data, and so on.
Also, comparing strings at the best case is as fast as comparing bytes and worst case much slower.
There is a second huge issue with storing text where you intended to have a enum. What happens when people start storing Incompete as opposed to Incomplete?
having a skinner column means that you can fit more rows per page.
it is a HUGE difference between a varchar(20) and an integer.
I think this is a pretty common scenario: I have a webpage that's returning links and excerpts to the 10 most recent blog entries.
If I just queried the entire table, I could use my ORM mapped object, but I'd be downloading all the blog text.
If I restricted the query to just the columns that I need, I'd be defining another class that'll hold just those required fields.
How bad is the performance hit if I were to query entire rows? Is it worth selecting just what I need?
The answer is "it depends".
There are two things that affect performance as far as column selection:
Are there covering indexes? E.g. if there is an index containing ALL of the columns in the smaller query, then a smaller column set would be extremely benefifical performance wise, since the index would be read without reading any rows themselves.
Size of columns. Basically, count how big the size of the entire row is, vs. size of only the columns in smaller query.
If the ratio is significant (e.g. full row is 3x bigger), then you might have significant savings in both IO (for retrieval) and network (for transmission) cost.
If the ratio is more like 10% benefit, it might not be worth it as far as DB performance gain.
It depends, but it will never be as efficient as returning only the columns you need (obviously). If there are few rows and the row sizes are small, then network bandwidth won't be affected too badly.
But, returning only the columns you need increases the chance that there is a covering index that can be used to satisfy the query, and that can make a big difference in the time a query takes to execute.
,Since you specify that it's for 10 records, the answer changes from "It Depends" to "Don't spend even a second worrying about this".
Unless your server is in another country on a dialup connection, wire time for 10 records will be zero, regardless of how many bytes you shave off each row. It's simply not something worth optimizing for.
So for this case, you get to set your ORM free to grab you those records in the least efficient manner it can come up with. If your situation changes, and you suddenly need more than, say, 1000 records at once, then you can come back and we'll make fun of you for not specifying columns, but for now you get a free pass.
For extra credit, once you start issuing this homepage query more than 10x per second, you can add caching on the server to avoid repeatedly hitting the database. That'll get you a lot more bang for your buck than optimizing the query.
I am creating a database schema to be used for technical analysis like top-volume gainers, top-price gainers etc.I have checked answers to questions here, like the design question. Having taken the hint from boe100 's answer there I have a schema modeled pretty much on it, thusly:
Symbol - char 6 //primary
Date - date //primary
Open - decimal 18, 4
High - decimal 18, 4
Low - decimal 18, 4
Close - decimal 18, 4
Volume - int
Right now this table containing End Of Day( EOD) data will be about 3 million rows for 3 years. Later when I get/need more data it could be 20 million rows.
The front end will be asking requests like "give me the top price gainers on date X over Y days". That request is one of the simpler ones, and as such is not too costly, time wise, I assume.
But a request like " give me top volume gainers for the last 10 days, with the previous 100 days acting as baseline", could prove 10-100 times costlier. The result of such a request would be a float which signifies how many times the volume as grown etc.
One option I have is adding a column for each such result. And if the user asks for volume gain in 10 days over 20 days, that would require another column. The total such columns could easily cross 100, specially if I start adding other results as columns, like MACD-10, MACD-100. each of which will require its own column.
Is this a feasible solution?
Another option being that I keep the result in cached html files and present them to the user. I dont have much experience in web-development, so to me it looks messy; but I could be wrong ( ofc!) . Is that a option too?
Let me add that I am/will be using mod_perl to present the response to the user. With much of the work on mysql database being done using perl. I would like to have a response time of 1-2 seconds.
You should keep your data normalised as much as possible, and let the RDBMS do its work: efficiently performing queries based on the normalised data.
Don't second-guess what will or will not be efficient; instead, only optimise in response to specific, measured inefficiencies as reported by the RDBMS's query explainer.
Valid tools for optimisation include, in rough order of preference:
Normalising the data further, to allow the RDBMS to decide for itself how best to answer the query.
Refactoring the specific query to remove the inefficiencies reported by the query explainer. This will give good feedback on how the application might be made more efficient, or might lead to a better normalisation of relations as above.
Creating indexes on attributes that turn out, in practice, to be used in a great many transactions. This can be quite effective, but it is a trade-off of slowdown on most write operations as indexes are maintained, to gain speed in some specific read operations when the indexes are used.
Creating supplementary tables to hold intermediary pre-computed results for use in future queries. This is rarely a good idea, not least because it totally breaks the DRY principle; you now have to come up with a strategy of keeping duplicate information (the original data and the derived data) in sync, when the RDBMS will do its job best when there is no duplicated data.
None of those involve messing around inside the tables that store the primary data.