Consider this scenario with the following assumptions:
The database is used for a non-critical webapp.
Query speed is of vital importance.
The read/write patterns are roughly >95 % reads and <5 % writes.
The database is backuped up daily using mysqldump.
The is no need for transactions or advanced crash recovery. If the database crashes I'll simply import last night's mysqldump. This is good enough in this scenario.
No need for full-text searching.
Pros of MyISAM under said assumptions:
It's very fast (with one exception - see below).
It's light-weight and has an easy-to-understand mapping between database/table to physical files in file system (.MYD/.MYI/.frm).
Easy backup (mysqldump).
All-in-all I'm very happy with MyISAM with one major exception. MyISAM has one major shortcoming under said assumptions and that is table level locking. When UPDATEs are running towards a frequently read table all reads are blocked. Needless to say this causes major performance problems which must be solved.
My questions are:
Is there some way to get rid of table level locking without switching away from MyISAM?
If I must switch to InnoDB - how do I configure InnoDB so that it behaves as similar to MyISAM as possible (think no transactions, logical file structure, etc.). How do I configure a InnoDB to be "just like MyISAM but without table level locking"?
No, MyISAM means table level locking.
You can't get it "just like", but you can get it "a lot more like" by turning on the innodb_file_per_table option. InnoDB will still store critical information in its system-level data file, however, and you can't do things like casually rename a database by renaming the directory it lives in like you can with MyISAM.
Have you actually taken performance metrics using myisam and innodb tables? In my experience the differences in speed is not really that much when you consider all the ACID benefits you get from innodb. Just the table locking alone will affect speed such that innodb would be overall faster.
Also notice that myisam is much faster on inserts, not so much on selects. You are inserting only 5% of the time... do the math.
You can always do mysqldump using an innodb, so your backup rocess is the same.
I know some projects use a mirror DB for searching. It tends to be optimized for the searches and sometimes even run on a different machine, just to isolate the overhead.
The only drawback here is that keeping them in sync is a bit of a hassle. If stale data in your search table isn't too troubling, it might be the best bet. If performance is an issue that is.
It isn't my favorite solution, but it is pretty simple in theory.
When it comes to backup InnoDB doesn't prevent you from using mysqldump.
Are you sure that you really need to maintain the mapping between database tables and files on disk? Manual operations on database files are rarely a good idea.
With InnoDB you don't have to use transactions, by default it works in "autocommit" mode (every query will be commited automatically).
"InnoDB is slower" is mostly myth these days, but of course it depends on your workload.
In other words I think you should definitely give InnoDB a try and benchmark the performance of your application. Migration is extremely simple, so I don't see a reason not to try. For me InnoDB is a default choice for a long time.
Related
How is this possible? What is it about NoSQL that gives it a higher write throughput than some RDBMS? Does it boil down to scalability?
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.
There are many NoSQL solutions around, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses, so the following must be taken with a grain of salt.
But essentially, what many NoSQL databases do is rely on denormalization and try to optimize for the denormalized case. For instance, say you are reading a blog post together with its comments in a document-oriented database. Often, the comments will be saved together with the post itself. This means that it will be faster to retrieve all of them together, as they are stored in the same place and you do not have to perform a join.
Of course, you can do the same in SQL, and denormalizing is a common practice when one needs performance. It is just that many NoSQL solutions are engineered from the start to be always used this way. You then get the usual tradeoffs: for instance, adding a comment in the above example will be slower because you have to save the whole document with it. And once you have denormalized, you have to take care of preserving data integrity in your application.
Moreover, in many NoSQL solutions, it is impossible to do arbitrary joins, hence arbitrary queries. Some databases, like CouchDB, require you to think ahead of the queries you will need and prepare them inside the DB.
All in all, it boils down to expecting a denormalized schema and optimizing reads for that situation, and this works well for data that is not highly relational and that requires much more reads than writes.
This link explains a lot moreover where:
RDBMS -> data integrity is a key feature (which can slow down some operations like writing)
NoSQL -> Speed and horizontal scalability are imperative (So speed is really high with this imperatve)
AAAND... The thing about NoSQL is that NoSQl cannot be compared to SQL in any way. NoSQL is name of all persistence technologies that are not SQL. Document DBs, Key-Value DBs, Event DBs are all NoSQL. They are all different in almost all aspects, be it structure of saved data, querying, performance and available tools.
Hope it is useful to understand
In summary, NoSQL databases are built to easily scale across a large number of servers (by sharding/horizontal partitioning of data items), and to be fault tolerant (through replication, write-ahead logging, and data repair mechanisms). Furthermore, NoSQL supports achieving high write throughput (by employing memory caches and append-only storage semantics), low read latencies (through caching and smart storage data models), and flexibility (with schema-less design and denormalization).
From:
Open Journal of Databases (OJDB)
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2014
www.ronpub.com/journals/ojdb
ISSN 2199-3459
https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/27748/1/Which%20NoSQL%20Database.pdf - page 19
A higher write throughput can also be credited to the internal data structures that power the database storage engine.
Even though B-tree implementations used by some RDBMS have stood the test of time, LSM-trees used in some key-value datastores are typically faster for writes:
1: When a write comes, you add it to the in-memory balanced tree, called memtable.
2: When the memtable grows big, it is flushed to the disk.
To understand this data structure better, please check this video and this answer.
Given a live table in SQL with some non-trivial number of columns/entries, with one or more applications actively querying it, what would be the effect of introducing a new index on some column of this table? What takes priority? Serving the query, or constructing the index? Put another way, would setting up the index be experienced by the querying applications as a delay in getting their responses?
It is possible to use the database while indexing is taking place, but it's effects on performance is nearly impossible for us to say. A great deal about the optimizer is magic to anyone who hasn't worked on it themselves, and the answer could change greatly depending on which RDMS you're using. On top of that, your own hardware will play a huge part in the answer.
That being said, if you're primarily reading from the table, there's a good chance you won't see a major performance hit, if your system has the IO/CPU capabilities of handling both tasks at the same time. Inserting however, will be slowed down considerably.
Whether this impact is problematic will depend on your current system load, size of your tables, and what exactly it is you're indexing. Generally speaking, if you have a decent server, a lowish load, and a table with only a few million rows or less, I wouldn't expect to see a performance hit at all.
I am switching to PostgreSQL from SQLite for a typical Rails application.
The problem is that running specs became slow with PG.
On SQLite it took ~34 seconds, on PG it's ~76 seconds which is more than 2x slower.
So now I want to apply some techniques to bring the performance of the specs on par with SQLite with no code modifications (ideally just by setting the connection options, which is probably not possible).
Couple of obvious things from top of my head are:
RAM Disk (good setup with RSpec on OSX would be good to see)
Unlogged tables (can it be applied on the whole database so I don't have change all the scripts?)
As you may have understood I don't care about reliability and the rest (the DB is just a throwaway thingy here).
I need to get the most out of the PG and make it as fast as it can possibly be.
Best answer would ideally describe the tricks for doing just that, setup and the drawbacks of those tricks.
UPDATE: fsync = off + full_page_writes = off only decreased time to ~65 seconds (~-16 secs). Good start, but far from the target of 34.
UPDATE 2: I tried to use RAM disk but the performance gain was within an error margin. So doesn't seem to be worth it.
UPDATE 3:*
I found the biggest bottleneck and now my specs run as fast as the SQLite ones.
The issue was the database cleanup that did the truncation. Apparently SQLite is way too fast there.
To "fix" it I open a transaction before each test and roll it back at the end.
Some numbers for ~700 tests.
Truncation: SQLite - 34s, PG - 76s.
Transaction: SQLite - 17s, PG - 18s.
2x speed increase for SQLite.
4x speed increase for PG.
First, always use the latest version of PostgreSQL. Performance improvements are always coming, so you're probably wasting your time if you're tuning an old version. For example, PostgreSQL 9.2 significantly improves the speed of TRUNCATE and of course adds index-only scans. Even minor releases should always be followed; see the version policy.
Don'ts
Do NOT put a tablespace on a RAMdisk or other non-durable storage.
If you lose a tablespace the whole database may be damaged and hard to use without significant work. There's very little advantage to this compared to just using UNLOGGED tables and having lots of RAM for cache anyway.
If you truly want a ramdisk based system, initdb a whole new cluster on the ramdisk by initdbing a new PostgreSQL instance on the ramdisk, so you have a completely disposable PostgreSQL instance.
PostgreSQL server configuration
When testing, you can configure your server for non-durable but faster operation.
This is one of the only acceptable uses for the fsync=off setting in PostgreSQL. This setting pretty much tells PostgreSQL not to bother with ordered writes or any of that other nasty data-integrity-protection and crash-safety stuff, giving it permission to totally trash your data if you lose power or have an OS crash.
Needless to say, you should never enable fsync=off in production unless you're using Pg as a temporary database for data you can re-generate from elsewhere. If and only if you're doing to turn fsync off can also turn full_page_writes off, as it no longer does any good then. Beware that fsync=off and full_page_writes apply at the cluster level, so they affect all databases in your PostgreSQL instance.
For production use you can possibly use synchronous_commit=off and set a commit_delay, as you'll get many of the same benefits as fsync=off without the giant data corruption risk. You do have a small window of loss of recent data if you enable async commit - but that's it.
If you have the option of slightly altering the DDL, you can also use UNLOGGED tables in Pg 9.1+ to completely avoid WAL logging and gain a real speed boost at the cost of the tables getting erased if the server crashes. There is no configuration option to make all tables unlogged, it must be set during CREATE TABLE. In addition to being good for testing this is handy if you have tables full of generated or unimportant data in a database that otherwise contains stuff you need to be safe.
Check your logs and see if you're getting warnings about too many checkpoints. If you are, you should increase your checkpoint_segments. You may also want to tune your checkpoint_completion_target to smooth writes out.
Tune shared_buffers to fit your workload. This is OS-dependent, depends on what else is going on with your machine, and requires some trial and error. The defaults are extremely conservative. You may need to increase the OS's maximum shared memory limit if you increase shared_buffers on PostgreSQL 9.2 and below; 9.3 and above changed how they use shared memory to avoid that.
If you're using a just a couple of connections that do lots of work, increase work_mem to give them more RAM to play with for sorts etc. Beware that too high a work_mem setting can cause out-of-memory problems because it's per-sort not per-connection so one query can have many nested sorts. You only really have to increase work_mem if you can see sorts spilling to disk in EXPLAIN or logged with the log_temp_files setting (recommended), but a higher value may also let Pg pick smarter plans.
As said by another poster here it's wise to put the xlog and the main tables/indexes on separate HDDs if possible. Separate partitions is pretty pointless, you really want separate drives. This separation has much less benefit if you're running with fsync=off and almost none if you're using UNLOGGED tables.
Finally, tune your queries. Make sure that your random_page_cost and seq_page_cost reflect your system's performance, ensure your effective_cache_size is correct, etc. Use EXPLAIN (BUFFERS, ANALYZE) to examine individual query plans, and turn the auto_explain module on to report all slow queries. You can often improve query performance dramatically just by creating an appropriate index or tweaking the cost parameters.
AFAIK there's no way to set an entire database or cluster as UNLOGGED. It'd be interesting to be able to do so. Consider asking on the PostgreSQL mailing list.
Host OS tuning
There's some tuning you can do at the operating system level, too. The main thing you might want to do is convince the operating system not to flush writes to disk aggressively, since you really don't care when/if they make it to disk.
In Linux you can control this with the virtual memory subsystem's dirty_* settings, like dirty_writeback_centisecs.
The only issue with tuning writeback settings to be too slack is that a flush by some other program may cause all PostgreSQL's accumulated buffers to be flushed too, causing big stalls while everything blocks on writes. You may be able to alleviate this by running PostgreSQL on a different file system, but some flushes may be device-level or whole-host-level not filesystem-level, so you can't rely on that.
This tuning really requires playing around with the settings to see what works best for your workload.
On newer kernels, you may wish to ensure that vm.zone_reclaim_mode is set to zero, as it can cause severe performance issues with NUMA systems (most systems these days) due to interactions with how PostgreSQL manages shared_buffers.
Query and workload tuning
These are things that DO require code changes; they may not suit you. Some are things you might be able to apply.
If you're not batching work into larger transactions, start. Lots of small transactions are expensive, so you should batch stuff whenever it's possible and practical to do so. If you're using async commit this is less important, but still highly recommended.
Whenever possible use temporary tables. They don't generate WAL traffic, so they're lots faster for inserts and updates. Sometimes it's worth slurping a bunch of data into a temp table, manipulating it however you need to, then doing an INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... to copy it to the final table. Note that temporary tables are per-session; if your session ends or you lose your connection then the temp table goes away, and no other connection can see the contents of a session's temp table(s).
If you're using PostgreSQL 9.1 or newer you can use UNLOGGED tables for data you can afford to lose, like session state. These are visible across different sessions and preserved between connections. They get truncated if the server shuts down uncleanly so they can't be used for anything you can't re-create, but they're great for caches, materialized views, state tables, etc.
In general, don't DELETE FROM blah;. Use TRUNCATE TABLE blah; instead; it's a lot quicker when you're dumping all rows in a table. Truncate many tables in one TRUNCATE call if you can. There's a caveat if you're doing lots of TRUNCATES of small tables over and over again, though; see: Postgresql Truncation speed
If you don't have indexes on foreign keys, DELETEs involving the primary keys referenced by those foreign keys will be horribly slow. Make sure to create such indexes if you ever expect to DELETE from the referenced table(s). Indexes are not required for TRUNCATE.
Don't create indexes you don't need. Each index has a maintenance cost. Try to use a minimal set of indexes and let bitmap index scans combine them rather than maintaining too many huge, expensive multi-column indexes. Where indexes are required, try to populate the table first, then create indexes at the end.
Hardware
Having enough RAM to hold the entire database is a huge win if you can manage it.
If you don't have enough RAM, the faster storage you can get the better. Even a cheap SSD makes a massive difference over spinning rust. Don't trust cheap SSDs for production though, they're often not crashsafe and might eat your data.
Learning
Greg Smith's book, PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance remains relevant despite referring to a somewhat older version. It should be a useful reference.
Join the PostgreSQL general mailing list and follow it.
Reading:
Tuning your PostgreSQL server - PostgreSQL wiki
Number of database connections - PostgreSQL wiki
Use different disk layout:
different disk for $PGDATA
different disk for $PGDATA/pg_xlog
different disk for tem files (per database $PGDATA/base//pgsql_tmp) (see note about work_mem)
postgresql.conf tweaks:
shared_memory: 30% of available RAM but not more than 6 to 8GB. It seems to be better to have less shared memory (2GB - 4GB) for write intensive workloads
work_mem: mostly for select queries with sorts/aggregations. This is per connection setting and query can allocate that value multiple times. If data can't fit then disk is used (pgsql_tmp). Check "explain analyze" to see how much memory do you need
fsync and synchronous_commit: Default values are safe but If you can tolerate data lost then you can turn then off
random_page_cost: if you have SSD or fast RAID array you can lower this to 2.0 (RAID) or even lower (1.1) for SSD
checkpoint_segments: you can go higher 32 or 64 and change checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9. Lower value allows faster after-crash recovery
I have a simpleton question on Redis. If the key to it's performance is that it's in-memory, whey can't that be done on a regular SQL db?
Any DBMS can be run "in memory". Consider the use of a ramdisk. However, most DBMSs (those with SQL) are not designed to run entirely in memory and put alot of effort to minimize disk IO and paging: a DBMS works very hard to keep the "relevant data" hot (in memory and in cache) -- IO is slow, slow slow.
This is because database data is often [and has historically been] significantly larger than main memory. That and main-memory is volatile :-) [ACID DBMSs do lots of works with write-ahead logging -- to a non-volatile store -- and other techniques to ensure data is never corrupted, even in case of a unexpected shutdown.]
Some databases, like SQLite use the same format for the disk and memory stores even though they explicitly support an in-memory store. Support for other [in-memory] back-ends and memory usage tuning vary by provider.
Happy coding.
You may be interested in VoltDB
The key is not only is it in memory, but it also has simpler operations than a SQL DB. Redis has simple operations such as GET, SET (and so on) using hash tables, and other optimized data structures.
SQL Databases generally take longer to compute, however they are a ton more flexible and in most cases more powerful (in terms of what type of queries). You most certainly cannot run JOIN queries in Redis, for example
You may be interested in TimesTen (which is now Oracle).
In 11g its SQL has improved significantly, though still is not as powerful as that of Oracle.
You can do that natively with some SQL database management systems. But there are risks.
You stand to lose data if the server fails, for example. I don't think you can get ACID compliant transactions; any log file would have to be written to disk to survive a server failure. (I imagine it's possible for an in-memory SQL dbms to still write log files to disk, but I've never run across that myself. Not that I've looked much.)
On DB's in RAM: Traditional databases will eventually wind up in RAM:
Traditional database data — records of human transactional activity [...] — will not grow as fast as Moore’s Law makes computer chips cheaper.
And that point has a straightforward corollary, namely:
It will become ever more affordable to put traditional database data entirely into RAM.
I am interested to know the performance impacts of using MySQL as a key-value database vs. say Redis/MongoDB/CouchDB. I have used both Redis and CouchDB in the past so I'm very familiar with their use cases, and know that it's better to store key/value pairs in say NoSQL vs. MySQL.
But here's the situation:
the bulk of our applications already have lots of MySQL tables
We host everything on Heroku (which only has MongoDB and MySQL, and is basically 1-db-type per app)
we don't want to be using multiple different databases in this case.
So basically, I'm looking for some info on the scalability of having a key/value table in MySQL. Maybe at three different arbitrary tiers:
1000 writes per day
1000 writes per hour
1000 writes per second
1000 reads per hour
1000 reads per second
A practical example is in building something like MixPanel's Real-time Web Analytics Tracker, which would require writing very often depending on traffic.
Wordpress and other popular software use this all the time: Post has "Meta" model which is just key/value, so you can add arbitrary properties to an object which can be searched over.
Another option is to store a serializable hash in a blob but that seems worse.
What is your take?
I'd say that you'll have to run your own benchmark because it is only you that knows the following important aspects:
the size of the data to be stored in this KV table
the level of parallelism you want to achieve
the number of existing queries reaching your MySQL instance
I'd also say that depending on the durability requirements for this data, you'll also want to test multiple engines: InnoDB, MyISAM.
While I do expect some NoSQL solutions to be faster, based on your constraints you may find out that MySQL will perform good enough for your requirements.
SQL databases are more and more used as a persistance layer, with computations and delivery cached in Key-Value repositories.
With this in mind, those guys have done quite a test here:
InnoDB inserts 43,000 records per second AT ITS PEAK*;
TokuDB inserts 34,000 records per second AT ITS PEAK*;
This KV inserts 100 millions of records per second (2,000+ times more).
To answer your question, a Key-Value repository is more than likely to outdo MySQL by several orders of magnitude:
Processing 100,000,000 items:
kv_add()....time:....978.32 ms
kv_get().....time:....297.07 ms
kv_free()....time:........0.00 ms
OK, your test was 1,000 ops per second, but it can't hurt to be able to do 1,000 times more!
See this for further details (they also compare it with Tokyo Cabinet).
There is no doubt that using a NOSQL solution is going to be faster, since it is simpler.
NOSQL and Relational do not compete with each other, they are different tools that can solve different problems.
That being said for 1000 writes/day or per hour, MySQL will have no problem.
For 1000 per second you will need some fancy hardware to get there. For the NOSQL solution you will probably still need some distributed file system.
It also depends on what you are storing.
Check out the series of blog posts here where the author runs tests comparing MongoDB and MySQL performance, and fights through the MySQL performance tuning mess. MongoDB was doing ~100K row reads per second, MySQL in c/s mode was doing 43K max, but with the embedded library he managed to get it up to 172K row reads per second.
It sounds a little complicated to get that high on a single node, so ymmv.
The writes/second question is a little harder, but this still might give you some ideas on configs to try.
You should first implement it in the simplest way then compare that. Always test things. This means:
Create a schema that's representative of your use case.
Create queries representative of your use case.
Create significant amounts of dummy data representive of your use case.
In a variety of loops, including both random access and sequential, bench mark it.
Ensure you use concurrency (run many processes randomly hammering the server with all kinds of queries representative of your use cases).
Once you have that, measure, test. There are different ways you can go about it. Some tests can be simple but might be less realistic. Measure throughput and latency.
Then try to optimise it.
MySQL has one particular limitation for KV which is the standard Engines with persistence use indexes optimised for range lookups, not for KV, which might introduce some overhead, though it's also difficult to have things such as hash work with persistent storage due to rehashing. Memory tables support a hash index.
Many people associate certain things with being slow such as SQL, RELATIONAL, JOINS, ACID, etc.
When using an ACID capable relational database, you don't have to necessarily use ACID or relations.
While joins have a bad reputation for being slow this is usually down to misconceptions about joins. Often people simply write bad queries. This is made more difficult as SQL is declarative, it can get things wrong, especially with JOINs where there are often multiple ways to perform the join. What people are actually getting out of NoSQL in this case is imperative. NoDeclaritive would be more accurate as that's the problem with SQL a lot of people are having. Quite often people simply lack indexes. That's not an argument in favour of joins but rather to illuminate where people can get it wrong on speed.
Traditional databases can be extremely fast if you do certain special things for that such as ignoring data integrity or handling it elsewhere. You don't have to wait for the harddrive to flush writes, you don't have to enforce relations, you don't have to enforce unique constraints, you don't have to use transactions but if you do replace safety with speed then you need to know what you're doing.
NoSQL solutions by comparison first and foremost tend to be designed to support various modes of scaling out of the box. The performance of an individual node might not be quite what you expect. NoSQL solutions also struggle for general use with many having quite unusual performance characteristics or limited feature sets.