I have a device I'm polling for lots of different fields, every x milliseconds
the device returns a list of ids and values which I need to store with a time stamp in a DB of sorts.
Users of the system need to be able to query this DB for historic logs to create graphs, or query the last timestamp for each value.
A simple approach would be to define a MySQL table with
id,value_id,timestamp,value
and let users select
Select value form t where value_id=x order by timestamp desc limit 1
and just push everything there with index on timestamp and id, But my question is what's the best approach performance / size wise for designing the schema? or using nosql? can anyone comment on possible design trade offs. Will such a design scale with millions of records?
When you say "... or query the last timestamp for each value" is this what you had in mind?
select max(timestamp) from T where value = ?
If you have millions of records, and the above is what you meant (i.e. value is alone in the WHERE clause), then you'd need an index on the value column, otherwise you'd have to do a full table scan. But if queries will ALWAYS have [timestamp] column in the WHERE clause, you do not need an index on [value] column if there's an index on timestamp.
You need an index on the timestamp column if your users will issue queries where the timestamp column appears alone in the WHERE clause:
select * from T where timestamp > x and timestamp < y
You could index all three columns, but you want to make sure the writes do not slow down because of the indexing overhead.
The rule of thumb when you have a very large database is that every query should be able to make use of an index, so you can avoid a full table scan.
EDIT:
Adding some additional remarks after your clarification.
I am wondering how you will know the id? Is [id] perhaps a product code?
A single simple index on id might not scale very well if there are not many different product codes, i.e. if it's a low-cardinality index. The rebalancing of the trees could slow down the batch inserts that are happening every x milliseconds. A composite index on (id,timestamp) would be better than a simple index.
If you rarely need to sort multiple products but are most often selecting based on a single product-code, then a non-traditional DBMS that uses a hashed-key sparse-table rather than a b-tree might be a very viable even a superior alternative for you. In such a database, all of the records for a given key would be found physically on the same set of contiguous "pages"; the hashing algorithm looks at the key and returns the page number where the record will be found. There is no need to rebalance an index as there isn't an index, and so you completely avoid the related scaling worries.
However, while hashed-file databases excel at low-overhead nearly instant retrieval based on a key value, they tend to be poor performers at sorting large groups of records on an attribute, because the data are not stored physically in any meaningful order, and gathering the records can involve much thrashing. In your case, timestamp would be that attribute. If I were in your shoes, I would base my decision on the cardinality of the id: in a dataset of a million records, how many DISTINCT ids would be found?
YET ANOTHER EDIT SINCE THE SITE IS NOT LETTING ME ADD ANOTHER ANSWER:
Simplest way is to have two tables, one with the ongoing history, which is always having new values inserted, and the other, containing only 250 records, one per part, where the latest value overwrites/replaces the previous one.
Update latest
set value = x
where id = ?
You have a choice of
indexes (composite; covering value_id, timestamp and value, or some combination of them): you should test performance with different indexes; composite and non-composite, also be aware that there are quite a few significantly different ways to get 'max per group' (search so, especially mysql version with variables)
triggers - you might use triggers to maintain max row values in another table (best performance of further selects; this is redundant and could be kept in memory)
lazy statistics/triggers, since your database is updated quite often you can save cycles if you update your statistics periodically (if you can allow the stats to be y seconds old and if you poll 1000 / x times a second, then you potentially save y * 100 / x potential updates; and this can be noticeable, especially in terms of scalability)
The above is true if you are looking for last bit of performance, if not keep it simple.
Related
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.
I'm having some performance problems where a SQL query calculating the average of a column is progressively getting slower as the number of records grows. Is there an index type that I can add to the column that will allow for faster average calculations?
The DB in question is PostgreSQL and I'm aware that particular index type might not be available, but I'm also interested in the theoretical answer, weather this is even possible without some sort of caching solution.
To be more specific, the data in question is essentially a log with this sort of definition:
table log {
int duration
date time
string event
}
I'm doing queries like
SELECT average(duration) FROM log WHERE event = 'finished'; # gets average time to completion
SELECT average(duration) FROM log WHERE event = 'finished' and date > $yesterday; # average today
The second one is always fairly fast since it has a more restrictive WHERE clause, but the total average duration one is the type of query that is causing the problem. I understand that I could cache the values, using OLAP or something, my question is weather there is a way I can do this entirely by DB side optimisations such as indices.
The performance of calculating an average will always get slower the more records you have, at it always has to use values from every record in the result.
An index can still help, if the index contains less data than the table itself. Creating an index for the field that you want the average for generally isn't helpful as you don't want to do a lookup, you just want to get to all the data as efficiently as possible. Typically you would add the field as an output field in an index that is already used by the query.
Depends what you are doing? If you aren't filtering the data then beyond having the clustered index in order, how else is the database to calculate an average of the column?
There are systems which perform online analytical processing (OLAP) which will do things like keeping running sums and averages down the information you wish to examine. It all depends one what you are doing and your definition of "slow".
If you have a web based program for instance, perhaps you can generate an average once a minute and then cache it, serving the cached value out to users over and over again.
Speeding up aggregates is usually done by keeping additional tables.
Assuming sizeable table detail(id, dimA, dimB, dimC, value) if you would like to make the performance of AVG (or other aggregate functions) be nearly constant time regardless of number of records you could introduce a new table
dimAavg(dimA, avgValue)
The size of this table will depend only on the number of distinct values of dimA (furthermore this table could make sense in your design as it can hold the domain of the values available for dimA in detail (and other attributes related to the domain values; you might/should already have such table)
This table is only helpful if you will anlayze by dimA only, once you'll need AVG(value) according to dimA and dimB it becomes useless. So, you need to know by which attributes you will want to do fast analysis on. The number of rows required for keeping aggregates on multiple attributes is n(dimA) x n(dimB) x n(dimC) x ... which may or may not grow pretty quickly.
Maintaining this table increases the costs of updates (incl. inserts and deletes), but there are further optimizations that you can employ...
For example let us assume that system predominantly does inserts and only occasionally updates and deletes.
Lets further assume that you want to analyze by dimA only and that ids are increasing. Then having structure such as
dimA_agg(dimA, Total, Count, LastID)
can help without a big impact on the system.
This is because you could have triggers that would not fire on every insert, but lets say on ever 100 inserts.
This way you can still get accurate aggregates from this table and the details table with
SELECT a.dimA, (SUM(d.value)+MAX(a.Total))/(COUNT(d.id)+MAX(a.Count)) as avgDimA
FROM details d INNER JOIN
dimA_agg a ON a.dimA = d.dimA AND d.id > a.LastID
GROUP BY a.dimA
The above query with proper indexes would get one row from dimA_agg and only less then 100 rows from detail - this would perform in near constant time (~logfanoutn) and would not require update to dimA_agg for every insert (reducing update penalties).
The value of 100 was just given as an example, you should find optimal value yourself (or even keep it variable, though triggers only will not be enough in that case).
Maintaining deletes and updates must fire on each operation but you can still inspect if the id of the record to be deleted or updated is in the stats already or not to avoid the unnecessary updates (will save some I/O).
Note: The analysis is done for the domain with discreet attributes; when dealing with time series the situation gets more complicated - you have to decide the granularity of the domain in which you want to keep the summary.
EDIT
There are also materialized views, 2, 3
Just a guess, but indexes won't help much since average must read all the record (in any order), indexes are usefull the find subsets of rows, ubt if you have to iterate on all rows with no special ordering indexes are not helping...
This might not be what you're looking for, but if your table has some way to order the data (e.g. by date), then you can just do incremental computations and store the results.
For example, if your data has a date column, you could compute the average for records 1 - Date1 then store the average for that batch along with Date1 and the #records you averaged. The next time you compute, you restrict your query to results Date1..Date2, and add the # of records, and update the last date queried. You have all the information you need to compute the new average.
When doing this, it would obviously be helpful to have an index on the date, or whatever column(s) you are using for the ordering.
I am trying to see if using a custom index for a specific type of data might reduce fragmentation in my database.
[Edit: we are using MS SQL Server 2008 R2]
I have an SQL database containing timestamped measurement data. Lots of data is inserted all the time, but once inserted it practically never needs to be updated. These timestamps are, however, not unique, as several devices (around 50 of them) measure the data at the same time.
This means that every 50 rows in the table contain equal timestamp values. This data is received more or less simultaneously, although I could take additional care to ensure that rows are written as sequentially as possible (if that would help), perhaps by keeping them in memory for some time and then writing only when I get the data from all the devices for a single timestamp.
We are using NHibernate with Guid.Comb to avoid index lookups we would have with plain bigint IDs. As opposed to plain GUIDs, this should reduce fragmentation, but for so many inserts, fragmentation nevertheless happens very soon.
Since my data is timestamped, and data is inserted almost sequentially (increasing timestamps), I am wondering if there is a more clever way to create a primary key with a unique clustered index for this table. Timestamp column is basically a bigint number (.NET DateTime ticks).
I have also noticed that a non-clustered index over that same timestamp column also gets pretty fragmented. So what index strategy would you recommend to reduce heap fragmentation in this case?
Maybe take a look at this answer, HiLo looks interesting.
Also, maybe your fragmentation is not result of the discrepancy between the ordering of the index values and the order in which they are added, but natural file growth effect (as explained here)?
A seperate column for a key doesn't make a lot of sense for this table since you won't be updating any of the data. I imagine you'll be doing a lot of queries though, probably based on that timestamp column.
You could try making the primary key a combination of the timestamp column and a device id column. You could try making that clustered. That should allow you to write nearly as fast as possible. If you query by device however, you may need another index on device id and timestamp (the reverse). I wouldn't make the reverse the clustered one though, as that will make the writes happen all over the table rather than on the trailing pages. And if most queries involve a date range and more than one device, clustering on timestamp first should give you the best performance.
Assume a table named 'log', there are huge records in it.
The application usually retrieves data by simple SQL:
SELECT *
FROM log
WHERE logLevel=2 AND (creationData BETWEEN ? AND ?)
logLevel and creationData have indexes, but the number of records makes it take longer to retrieve data.
How do we fix this?
Look at your execution plan / "EXPLAIN PLAN" result - if you are retrieving large amounts of data then there is very little that you can do to improve performance - you could try changing your SELECT statement to only include columns you are interested in, however it won't change the number of logical reads that you are doing and so I suspect it will only have a neglible effect on performance.
If you are only retrieving small numbers of records then an index of LogLevel and an index on CreationDate should do the trick.
UPDATE: SQL server is mostly geared around querying small subsets of massive databases (e.g. returning a single customer record out of a database of millions). Its not really geared up for returning truly large data sets. If the amount of data that you are returning is genuinely large then there is only a certain amount that you will be able to do and so I'd have to ask:
What is it that you are actually trying to achieve?
If you are displaying log messages to a user, then they are only going to be interested in a small subset at a time, and so you might also want to look into efficient methods of paging SQL data - if you are only returning even say 500 or so records at a time it should still be very fast.
If you are trying to do some sort of statistical analysis then you might want to replicate your data into a data store more suited to statistical analysis. (Not sure what however, that isn't my area of expertise)
1: Never use Select *
2: make sure your indexes are correct, and your statistics are up-to-date
3: (Optional) If you find you're not looking at log data past a certain time (in my experience, if it happened more than a week ago, I'm probably not going to need the log for it) set up a job to archive that to some back-up, and then remove unused records. That will keep the table size down reducing the amount of time it takes search the table.
Depending on what kinda of SQL database you're using, you might look into Horizaontal Partitioning. Oftentimes, this can be done entirely on the database side of things so you won't need to change your code.
Do you need all columns? First step should be to select only those you actually need to retrieve.
Another aspect is what you do with the data after it arrives to your application (populate a data set/read it sequentially/?).
There can be some potential for improvement on the side of the processing application.
You should answer yourself these questions:
Do you need to hold all the returned data in memory at once? How much memory do you allocate per row on the retrieving side? How much memory do you need at once? Can you reuse some memory?
A couple of things
do you need all the columns, people usually do SELECT * because they are too lazy to list 5 columns of the 15 that the table has.
Get more RAM, themore RAM you have the more data can live in cache which is 1000 times faster than reading from disk
For me there are two things that you can do,
Partition the table horizontally based on the date column
Use the concept of pre-aggregation.
Pre-aggregation:
In preagg you would have a "logs" table, "logs_temp" table, a "logs_summary" table and a "logs_archive" table. The structure of logs and logs_temp table is identical. The flow of application would be in this way, all logs are logged in the logs table, then every hour a cron job runs that does the following things:
a. Copy the data from the logs table to "logs_temp" table and empty the logs table. This can be done using the Shadow Table trick.
b. Aggregate the logs for that particular hour from the logs_temp table
c. Save the aggregated results in the summary table
d. Copy the records from the logs_temp table to the logs_archive table and then empty the logs_temp table.
This way results are pre-aggregated in the summary table.
Whenever you wish to select the result, you would select it from the summary table.
This way the selects are very fast, because the number of records are far less as the data has been pre-aggregated per hour. You could even increase the threshold from an hour to a day. It all depends on your needs.
Now the inserts would be fast too, because the amount of data is not much in the logs table as it holds the data only for the last hour, so index regeneration on inserts would take very less time as compared to very large data-set hence making the inserts fast.
You can read more about Shadow Table trick here
I employed the pre-aggregation method in a news website built on wordpress. I had to develop a plugin for the news website that would show recently popular (popular during the last 3 days) news items, and there are like 100K hits per day, and this pre-aggregation thing has really helped us a lot. The query time came down from more than 2 secs to under a second. I intend on making the plugin publically available soon.
As per other answers, do not use 'select *' unless you really need all the fields.
logLevel and creationData have indexes
You need a single index with both values, what order you put them in will affect performance, but assuming you have a small number of possible loglevel values (and the data is not skewed) you'll get better performance putting creationData first.
Note that optimally an index will reduce the cost of a query to log(N) i.e. it will still get slower as the number of records increases.
C.
I really hope that by creationData you mean creationDate.
First of all, it is not enough to have indexes on logLevel and creationData. If you have 2 separate indexes, Oracle will only be able to use 1.
What you need is a single index on both fields:
CREATE INDEX i_log_1 ON log (creationData, logLevel);
Note that I put creationData first. This way, if you only put that field in the WHERE clause, it will still be able to use the index. (Filtering on just date seems more likely scenario that on just log level).
Then, make sure the table is populated with data (as much data as you will use in production) and refresh the statistics on the table.
If the table is large (at least few hundred thousand rows), use the following code to refresh the statistics:
DECLARE
l_ownname VARCHAR2(255) := 'owner'; -- Owner (schema) of table to analyze
l_tabname VARCHAR2(255) := 'log'; -- Table to analyze
l_estimate_percent NUMBER(3) := 5; -- Percentage of rows to estimate (NULL means compute)
BEGIN
dbms_stats.gather_table_stats (
ownname => l_ownname ,
tabname => l_tabname,
estimate_percent => l_estimate_percent,
method_opt => 'FOR ALL INDEXED COLUMNS',
cascade => TRUE
);
END;
Otherwise, if the table is small, use
ANALYZE TABLE log COMPUTE STATISTICS FOR ALL INDEXED COLUMNS;
Additionally, if the table grows large, you shoud consider to partition it by range on creationDate column. See these links for the details:
Oracle Documentation: Range Partitioning
OraFAQ: Range partitions
How to Create and Manage Partition Tables in Oracle
INFORMIX-SE 7.32:
I have a transaction table with about 5,000 nrows. The transaction.ticket_number[INT] is a column which gets updated with the next available sequential ticket number every time a specific row is updated. The column is unique indexed. I'm currently using the following SELECT statement to locate the max(transaction.ticket_num):
SELECT MAX(transaction.ticket_number) FROM transaction;
Since the row being updated is clustered acording to the transaction.fk_id[INT], where it is joined to customer.pk_id[SERIAL],the row is not physically located at the end of the transaction table, rather it resides within the group of transaction rows belonging to each particular customer. I chose to cluster the transactions belonging to each customer because response time is faster when I scroll through each customers transaction. Is there a faster way of locating the max(transaction.ticket_number) with the above query?.. Would a 'unique index on transaction(ticket_number) descending' improve access or is the indexed fully traversed from begining to end irrelevantly?
On a table of only 5000 rows on a modern machine, you are unlikely to be able to measure the difference in performance of the various techniques, especially in the single-user scenario which I believe you are facing. Even if the 5000 rows were all at the maximum permissible size (just under 32 KB), you would be dealing with 160 MB of data, which could easily fit into the machine's caches. In practice, I'm sure your rows are far smaller, and you'd never need all the data in the cache.
Unless you have a demonstrable performance problem, go with the index on the ticket number column and rely on the server (Informix SE) to do its job. If you have a demonstrable problem, show the query plans from SET EXPLAIN output. However, there are major limits on how much you can tweak SE performance - it is install-and-go technology with minimal demands on tuning.
I'm not sure whether Informix SE supports the 'FIRST n' (aka 'TOP n') notation that Informix Dynamic Server supports; I believe not.
Due to NULLABLE columns and other factors, use of indexes, etc, you can often find the following would be faster, but normally only negligably...
SELECT TOP 1 ticket_number FROM transaction ORDER BY ticket_number DESCENDING
I'm also uncertain as to whether you actually have an Index on [ticket_number]? Or do you just have a UNIQUE constraint? A constraint won't help determine a MAX, but an INDEX will.
In the event that an INDEX exists with ticket_number as the first indexable column:
- An index seek/lookup would likely be used, not needing to scan the other values at all
In the event that an INDEX exists with ticket_number Not as the first indexable column:
- An index scan would likely occur, checking every single unique entry in the index
In the event that no usable INDEX exists:
- The whole table would be scanned