I am seeking a way to find bottlenecks in SQL server and it seems that more than 32GB ram and more than 32 spindels on 8 cores are not enough. Are there any metrics, best practices or HW comparations (i.e. transactions per sec)? Our daily closure takes hours and I want it in minutes or realtime if possible. I was not able to merge more than 12k rows/sec. For now, I had to split the traffic to more than one server, but is it a proper solution for ~50GB database?
Merge is enclosed in SP and keeped as simple as it can be - deduplicate input, insert new rows, update existing rows. I found that the more rows we put into single merge the more rows per sec we get. Application server runs in more threads, and uses all the memory and processor on its dedicated server.
Follow a methodology like Waits and Queues to identify the bottlenecks. That's exactly what is designed for. Once you identified the bottleneck, you can also judge whether is a hardware provisioning and calibration issue (and if so, which hardware is the bottleneck), or if is something else.
The basic idea is to avoid having to do random access to a disk, both reading and writing. Without doing any analysis, a 50 GB database needs at least 50GB of ram. Then you have to make sure indexes are on a separate spindle from the data and the transaction logs, you write as late as possible, and critical tables are split over multiple spindles. Are you doing all that?
Related
The task is to filter and analyze a huge amount of logfiles (around 8TB) from a finished research project. The idea is to fill a database with the data to be able to run different analysis tasks later.
The values are stored comma separated. In principle the values are tuples of up to 5 values:
id, timestamp, type, v1, v2, v3, v4, v5
In a first try using MySQL I used one table with one log entry per row. So there is no direct relation between the log values. The downside here is slow querying of subsets.
Because there is no relation I looked into alternatives like NoSQL databases, and column based tables like hbase or cassandra seemed to be a perfect fit for this kind of data. But these systems are made for huge distributed systems, which we not have. In our case the analysis will run on a single machine or perhaps some VMs.
Which kind of database would fit this task? Is it worth to setup a single machine instance with hadoop+hbase... or is this all a bit over-sized?
What database would you choose to do high-performance logfile analysis?
EDIT: Maybe out of my question it is not clear that we cannot spend money for cloud services or new hardware. The Question is if there are benefits in using noSQL approaches instead of mySQL (especially for this data). If there are none, or if they are so small that the effort of setting up a noSQL system is not worth the benefit we can use our ESXi infrastructure and MySQL.
EDIT2: I'm still having the Problem here. I did further experiments with MySQL and just inserted a quarter of all available data. The insert is now running for over 2 days and is not yet finished. Currently there are 2,147,483,647 rows in my single table db. With indeces this takes 211,2 GiB of disk space. And this is just a quarter of all logging data...
A query of the form
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE `timestamp`>=1342105200000 AND `timestamp`<=1342126800000 AND `logid`=123456 AND `unit`="UNIT40";
takes 761 seconds to complete, in this case returning one row.
There is a combined index on timestamp, logid, unit.
So I think this is not the way to go, because later in analysis I will have to get all entries in a time range and compare the datapoints.
I read bout MongoDB and Redis, but the problem with them is, that they are in Memory databases.
In the later analyzing process there will a very small amount of concurrent database access. In fact the analyzing will be run from one single machine.
I do not need redundancy. I would be able to regenerate the database in case of a failure.
When the database is once completely written, there would also be no need to update or add further row.
What do you think about alternatives like Redis, MongoDB and so on. When I get this right, i would need RAM in the dimension of my data...
Is this task even somehow possible with a single node system or with maybe two nodes?
well i personally would prefer the faster solution, as you said you need a high-perfomance analysis. the problem is, if you have to setup a whole new system to do so and the performance-improvement would be minor in relation to the additional effort you'd need, then stay with SQL.
in our company, we have a quite small Database containing not even half a GB of Data on the VM. the problem now is, as soon as you use a VM, you will have major performance issues, when opening the Database on VM you can go for a coffee in the meantime ;)
But if the time until the Database is loaded to cache is not so important it doesn't matter. It all depends on how much faster you think the new System will be, and how much effort you will have to put in it, but as i said i'd prefer the faster solution if you have to go for "high-performance analysis"
Me got 15 x 100 million 32-byte records. Only sequential access and appends needed. The key is a Long. The value is a tuple - (Date, Double, Double). Is there something in this universe which can do this? I am willing to have 15 seperate databases (sql/nosql) or files for each of those 100 million records. I only have a i7 core and 8 GB RAM and 2 TB hard disk.
I have tried PostgreSQL, MySQL, Kyoto Cabinet (with fine tuning) with Protostuff encoding.
SQL DBs (with indices) take forever to do the silliest query.
Kyoto Cabinet's B-Tree can handle upto 15-18 million records beyond which appends take forever.
I am fed up so much that I am thinking of falling back on awk + CSV which I remember used to work for this type of data.
If you scenario means always going through all records in sequence then it may be an overkill to use a database. If you start to need random lookups, replacing/deleting records or checking if a new record is not a duplicate of an older one, a database engine would make more sense.
For the sequential access, a couple of text files or hand-crafted binary files will be easier to handle. You sound like a developer - I would probably go for an own binary format and access it with help of memory-mapped files to improve the sequential read/append speed. No caching, just a sliding window to read the data. I think that it would perform better and even on usual hardware than any DB would; I did such data analysis once. It would also be faster than awking CSV files; however, I am not sure how much and if it satisfied the effort to develop the binary storage, first of all.
As soon as the database becomes interesting, you can have a look at MongoDB and CouchDB. They are used for storing and serving very large amounts of data. (There is a flattering evaluation that compares one of them to traditional DBs.). Databases usually need a reasonable hardware power to perform better; maybe you could check out how those two would do with your data.
--- Ferda
Ferdinand Prantl's answer is very good. Two points:
By your requirements I recommend that you create a very tight binary format. This will be easy to do because your records are fixed size.
If you understand your data well you might be able to compress it. For example, if your key is an increasing log value you don't need to store it entirely. Instead, store the difference to the previous value (which is almost always going to be one). Then, use a standard compression algorithm/library to save on data size big time.
For sequential reads and writes, leveldb will handle your dataset pretty well.
I think that's about 48 gigs of data in one table.
When you get into large databases, you have to look at things a little differently. With an ordinary database (say, tables less than a couple million rows), you can do just about anything as a proof of concept. Even if you're stone ignorant about SQL databases, server tuning, and hardware tuning, the answer you come up with will probably be right. (Although sometimes you might be right for the wrong reason.)
That's not usually the case for large databases.
Unfortunately, you can't just throw 1.5 billion rows straight at an untuned PostgreSQL server, run a couple of queries, and say, "PostgreSQL can't handle this." Most SQL dbms have ways of dealing with lots of data, and most people don't know that much about them.
Here are some of the things that I have to think about when I have to process a lot of data over the long term. (Short-term or one-off processing, it's usually not worth caring a lot about speed. A lot of companies won't invest in more RAM or a dozen high-speed disks--or even a couple of SSDs--for even a long-term solution, let alone a one-time job.)
Server CPU.
Server RAM.
Server disks.
RAID configuration. (RAID 3 might be worth looking at for you.)
Choice of operating system. (64-bit vs 32-bit, BSD v. AT&T derivatives)
Choice of DBMS. (Oracle will usually outperform PostgreSQL, but it costs.)
DBMS tuning. (Shared buffers, sort memory, cache size, etc.)
Choice of index and clustering. (Lots of different kinds nowadays.)
Normalization. (You'd be surprised how often 5NF outperforms lower NFs. Ditto for natural keys.)
Tablespaces. (Maybe putting an index on its own SSD.)
Partitioning.
I'm sure there are others, but I haven't had coffee yet.
But the point is that you can't determine whether, say, PostgreSQL can handle a 48 gig table unless you've accounted for the effect of all those optimizations. With large databases, you come to rely on the cumulative effect of small improvements. You have to do a lot of testing before you can defensibly conclude that a given dbms can't handle a 48 gig table.
Now, whether you can implement those optimizations is a different question--most companies won't invest in a new 64-bit server running Oracle and a dozen of the newest "I'm the fastest hard disk" hard drives to solve your problem.
But someone is going to pay either for optimal hardware and software, for dba tuning expertise, or for programmer time and waiting on suboptimal hardware. I've seen problems like this take months to solve. If it's going to take months, money on hardware is probably a wise investment.
I am currently addressing a situation where our web application receives at least a Million requests per 30 seconds. So these requests will lead to generating 3-5 Million row inserts between 5 tables. This is pretty heavy load to handle. Currently we are using multi threading to handle this situation (which is a bit faster but unable to get a better CPU throughput). However the load will definitely increase in future and we will have to account for that too. After 6 months from now we are looking at double the load size we are currently receiving and I am currently looking at a possible new solution that is scalable and should be easy enough to accommodate any further increase to this load.
Currently with multi threading we are making the whole debugging scenario quite complicated and sometimes we are having problem with tracing issues.
FYI we are already utilizing the SQL Builk Insert/Copy that is mentioned in this previous post
Sql server 2008 - performance tuning features for insert large amount of data
However I am looking for a more capable solution (which I think there should be one) that will address this situation.
Note: I am not looking for any code snippets or code examples. I am just looking for a big picture of a concept that I could possibly use and I am sure that I can take that further to an elegant solution :)
Also the solution should have a better utilization of the threads and processes. And I do not want my threads/processes to even wait to execute something because of some other resource.
Any suggestions will be deeply appreciated.
Update: Not every request will lead to an insert...however most of them will lead to some sql operation. The appliciation performs different types of transactions and these will lead to a lot of bulk sql operations. I am more concerned towards inserts and updates.
and these operations need not be real time there can be a bit lag...however processing them real time will be much helpful.
I think your problem looks more towards getting a better CPU throughput which will lead to a better performance. So I would probably look at something like an Asynchronous Processing where in a thread will never sit idle and you will probably have to maintain a queue in the form of a linked list or any other data structure that will suit your programming model.
The way this would work is your threads will try to perform a given job immediately and if there is anything that would stop them from doing it then they will push that job into the queue and these pushed items will be processed based on how it stores the items in the container/queue.
In your case since you are already using bulk sql operations you should be good to go with this strategy.
lemme know if this helps you.
Can you partition the database so that the inserts are spread around? How is this data used after insert? Is there a natural partion to the data by client or geography or some other factor?
Since you are using SQL server, I would suggest you get several of the books on high availability and high performance for SQL Server. The internals book muight help as well. Amazon has a bunch of these. This is a complex subject and requires too much depth for a simple answer on a bulletin board. But basically there are several keys to high performance design including hardware choices, partitioning, correct indexing, correct queries, etc. To do this effectively, you have to understand in depth what SQL Server does under the hood and how changes can make a big difference in performance.
Since you do not need to have your inserts/updates real time you might consider having two databases; one for reads and one for writes. Similar to having a OLTP db and an OLAP db:
Read Database:
Indexed as much as needed to maximize read performance.
Possibly denormalized if performance requires it.
Not always up to date.
Insert/Update database:
No indexes at all. This will help maximize insert/update performance
Try to normalize as much as possible.
Always up to date.
You would basically direct all insert/update actions to the Insert/Update db. You would then create a publication process that would move data over to the read database at certain time intervals. When I have seen this in the past the data is usually moved over on a nightly bases when few people will be using the site. There are a number of options for moving the data over, but I would start by looking at SSIS.
This will depend on your ability to do a few things:
have read data be up to one day out of date
complete your nightly Read db update process in a reasonable amount of time.
I have a problem with a large database I am working with which resides on a single drive - this Database contains around a dozen tables with the two main ones are around 1GB each which cannot be made smaller. My problem is the disk queue for the database drive is around 96% to 100% even when the website that uses the DB is idle. What optimisation could be done or what is the source of the problem the DB on Disk is 16GB in total and almost all the data is required - transactions data, customer information and stock details.
What are the reasons why the disk queue is always high no matter the website traffic?
What can be done to help improve performance on a database this size?
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
The database is an MS SQL 2000 Database running on Windows Server 2003 and as stated 16GB in size (Data File on Disk size).
Thanks
Well, how much memory do you have on the machine? If you can't store the pages in memory, SQL Server is going to have to go to the disk to get it's information. If your memory is low, you might want to consider upgrading it.
Since the database is so big, you might want to consider adding two separate physical drives and then putting the transaction log on one drive and partitioning some of the other tables onto the other drive (you have to do some analysis to see what the best split between tables is).
In doing this, you are allowing IO accesses to occur in parallel, instead of in serial, which should give you some more performance from your DB.
Before buying more disks and shifting things around, you might also update statistics and check your queries - if you are doing lots of table scans and so forth you will be creating unnecessary work for the hardware.
Your database isn't that big after all - I'd first look at tuning your queries. Have you profiled what sort of queries are hitting the database?
If you disk activity is that high while your site is idle, I would look for other processes that might be running that could be affecting it. For example, are you sure there aren't any scheduled backups running? Especially with a large db, these could be running for a long time.
As Mike W pointed out, there is usually a lot you can do with query optimization with existing hardware. Isolate your slow-running queries and find ways to optimize them first. In one of our applications, we spent literally 2 months doing this and managed to improve the performance of the application, and the hardware utilization, dramatically.
I wrote a Java program to add and retrieve data from an MS Access. At present it goes sequentially through ~200K insert queries in ~3 minutes, which I think is slow. I plan to rewrite it using threads with 3-4 threads handling different parts of the hundred thousands records. I have a compound question:
Will this help speed up the program because of the divided workload or would it be the same because the threads still have to access the database sequentially?
What strategy do you think would speed up this process (except for query optimization which I already did in addition to using Java's preparedStatement)
Don't know. Without knowing more about what the bottle neck is I can't comment if it will make it faster. If the database is the limiter then chances are more threads will slow it down.
I would dump the access database to a flat file and then bulk load that file. Bulk loading allows for optimzations which are far, far faster than running multiple insert queries.
First, don't use Access. Move your data anywhere else -- SQL/Server -- MySQL -- anything. The DB engine inside access (called Jet) is pitifully slow. It's not a real database; it's for personal projects that involve small amounts of data. It doesn't scale at all.
Second, threads rarely help.
The JDBC-to-Database connection is a process-wide resource. All threads share the one connection.
"But wait," you say, "I'll create a unique Connection object in each thread."
Noble, but sometimes doomed to failure. Why? Operating System processing between your JVM and the database may involve a socket that's a single, process-wide resource, shared by all your threads.
If you have a single OS-level I/O resource that's shared across all threads, you won't see much improvement. In this case, the ODBC connection is one bottleneck. And MS-Access is the other.
With MSAccess as the backend database, you'll probably get better insert performance if you do an import from within MSAccess. Another option (since you're using Java) is to directly manipulate the MDB file (if you're creating it from scratch and there are no other concurrent users - which MS Access doesn't handle very well) with a library like Jackess.
If none of these are solutions for you, then I'd recommend using a profiler on your Java application and see if it is spending most of its time waiting for the database (in which case adding threads probably won't help much) or if it is doing processing and parallelizing will help.
Stimms bulk load approach will probably be your best bet but everything is worth trying once. Note that your bottle neck is going to be disk IO and multiple threads may slow things down. MS access can also fall apart when multiple users are banging on the file and that is exactly what your multi-threaded approach will act like (make a backup!). If performance continues to be an issue consider upgrading to SQL express.
MS Access to SQL Server Migrations docs.
Good luck.
I would agree that dumping Access would be the best first step. Having said that...
In a .NET and SQL environment I have definitely seen threads aid in maximizing INSERT throughputs.
I have an application that accepts asynchronous file drops and then processes them into tables in a database.
I created a loader that parsed the file and placed the data into a queue. The queue was served by one or more threads whose max I could tune with a parameter. I found that even on a single core CPU with your typical 7200RPM drive, the ideal number of worker threads was 3. It shortened the load time an almost proportional amount. The key is to balance it such that the CPU bottleneck and the Disk I/O bottleneck are balanced.
So in cases where a bulk copy is not an option, threads should be considered.
On modern multi-core machines, using multiple threads to populate a database can make a difference. It depends on the database and its hardware. Try it and see.
Just try it and see if it helps. I would guess not because the bottleneck is likely to be in the disk access and locking of the tables, unless you can figure out a way to split the load across multiple tables and/or disks.
IIRC access don't allow for multiple connections to te same file because of the locking policy it uses.
And I agree totally about dumping access for sql.