When working with the in memory version of HSQLDB with JDBC, is it possible to measure the size that the database (all tables + indexes) takes?
I would ideally want to access the sizes of the tables and indexes independently.
Is there a query suitable for this task or any other way that this can be measured?
You can calculate a rough estimate of memory use for each table based on the documentation: http://hsqldb.org/doc/2.0/guide/deployment-chapt.html#dec_table_mem_use
Use the CARDINALITY column of the INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SYSTEM_TABLESTATS view for the row count of each table.
Related
I'm new to alasql (which is amazing). While the documentation shows you how, it doesn't provide a lot information on best practices.
To date I have simply been running queries against an array of arrays (of js objects). i haven't created a database object or table objects.
Are there performance (speed, memory, other) benefits of using database and table objects over an array of arrays?
Here is a real world example. I have 2 sets of data that I am loading: Employees (10 columns) and Employee Sales (5 columns), that are joined on an EmployeeID column. Employees will be relatively small (say, 100 rows), whereas Employee Sales will have 10,000 records. My current approach is to simply run a query where I join those 2 set of data together and end up with one big result set: 10,000 rows of data with 14 columns per row (repeating every column in the Employee data set), which I then pull data from using dynamic filters, interactivity, etc.
This big data set is stored in memory the whole time, but this has the advantage that I don't need to rerun that query over and over. Alternatively, I could simply run the join against the 2 data sets each time I need it, then remove it from memory after.
Also, if I am joining together multiple tables, can I create indexes on the join columns to speed up performance? I see in examples where indexes are created, but there is nothing else in the documentation. (Nothing on this page: https://github.com/agershun/alasql/wiki/Sql). What is the memory impact of indexes? What are the performance impacts of insertions?
Primary keys are supported, but there is no documentation. Does this create an index?
Are there performance (speed, memory, other) benefits of using database and table objects over an array of arrays?
If you put indexes on your tables then - Yes - you get performance benefits. How much depends on your data.
if I am joining together multiple tables, can I create indexes on the join columns to speed up performance?
Yes. And all other column your put into a "where" condition.
First things first, I am an amateur, self-taught ruby programmer who came of age as a novice engineer in the age of super-fast computers where program efficiency was not an issue in the early stages of my primary GIS software development project. This technical debt is starting to tax my project and I want to speed up access to this lumbering GIS database.
Its a postgresql database with a postgis extension, controlled inside of rails, which immediately creates efficiency issues via the object-ification of database columns when accessing and/or manipulating database records with one or many columns containing text or spatial data easily in excess of 1 megabyte per column.
Its extremely slow now, and it didn't used to be like this.
One strategy: I'm considering building child tables of my large spatial data tables (state, county, census tract, etc) so that when I access the tables I don't have to load the massive spatial columns every time I access the objects. But then doing spatial queries might be difficult on a parent table's children. Not sure exactly how I would do that but I think its possible.
Maybe I have too many indexes. I have a lot of spatial indexes. Do additional spatial indexes from tables I'm not currently using slow down my queries? How about having too many for one table?
These tables have a massive amount of columns. Maybe I should remove some columns, or create parent tables for the columns with massive serialized hashes?
There are A LOT of tables I don't use anymore. Is there a reason other than tidiness to remove these unused tables? Are they slowing down my queries? Simply doing a #count method on some of these tables takes TIME.
PS:
- Looking back at this 8 hours later, I think what I'm equally trying to understand is how many of the above techniques are completely USELESS when it comes to optimizing (rails) database performance?
You don't have to read all of the columns of the table. Just read the ones you need.
You can:
MyObject.select(:id, :col1, :col2).where(...)
... and the omitted columns are not read.
If you try to use a method that needs one of the columns you've omitted then you'll get an ActiveModel::MissingAttributeError (Rails 4), but you presumably know when you're going to need them or not.
The inclusion of large data sets in the table is going to be a noticeable problem from the database side if you have full table scans, and then you might consider moving these data to other tables.
If you only use Rails to read and write the large data columns, and don't use PostgreSQL functions on them, you might be able to compress the data on write and decompress on read. Override the getter and setter methods by using write_attribute and read_attribute, compressing and decompressing (respectively of course) the data.
Indexing. If you are using postgres to store such large chucks of data in single fields consider storing it as Array, JSON or Hstore fields. If you index it using the gin index types so you can search effectively within a given field.
I have to develop a system for tracking/monitoring performance in a cellular network.
The domain includes a set of hierarchical elements, and each one has an associated set of counters that are reported periodically (every 15 minutes). The system should collect these counter values (available as large XML files) and periodically aggregate them on two dimensions: Time (from 15 to hour and from hour to day) and Hierarchy (lower level to higher level elements). The aggregation is most often a simple SUM but sometime requires average/min/max etc. Of course for the element dimension aggregation it needs to group by the hierarchy (group all children to one parent record). The user should be able to define and view KPIs (Key Performance Indicator) - that is, some calculations on the various counters. The KPI could be required for just one element, for several elements (producing a data-series for each) or as an aggregation for several elements (resulting in one data series of aggregated data.
There will be about 10-15 users to the system with probably 20-30 queries an hour. The query response time should be a few seconds (up to 10-15 for very large reports including many elements and long time period).
In high level, this is the flow:
Parse and Input Counter Data - there is a set of XML files which contains a periodical update of counters data for the elements. The size of all files is about 4GB / 15 minutes (so roughly 400GB/day).
Hourly Aggregation - once an hour all the collected counters, for all the elements should be aggregated - every 4 records related to an element are aggregated into one hourly record which should be stored.
Daily Aggregation - once a day, 2 all collected counters, for all elements should be aggregated - every 24 records related to an element are aggregated into one daily record.
Element Aggregation - with each one of the time-dimension aggregation it is possibly required to aggregate along the hierarchy of the elements - all records of child elements are aggregated into one record for the parent element.
KPI Definitions - there should be some way for the user to define a KPI. The KPI is a definition of a calculation based on counters from the same granularity (Time dimension). The calculation could (and will) involved more than one element level (e.g. p1.counter1 + sum(c1.counter1) where p1 is a parent of one or more records in c1).
User Interaction - the user can select one or more elements and one or more counters/KPIs, the granularity to use, the time period to view and whether or not to aggregate the selected data.
In case of aggregation, the results is one data-series that include the "added up" values for all the selected elements for each relevant point in time. In "SQL":
SELECT p1.time SUM(p1.counter1) / SUM(p1.counter2) * SUM(c1.counter1)
FROM p1_hour p1, c1_hour c1
WHERE p1.time > :minTime and p1.time < :maxTime AND p1.id in :id_list and join
GROUP BY p1.time
In case there is no aggregation need to keep the identifiers from p1 and have a data-series for each selected element
SELECT p1.time, p1.id, SUM(p1.counter1) / SUM(p1.counter2) * SUM(c1.counter1)
FROM p1_hour p1, c1_hour c1
WHERE p1.time > :minTime and p1.time < :maxTime AND p1.id in :id_list and join
The system has to keep data for 10, 100 and 1000 days for 15-min, hour and daily records. Following is a size estimate considering integer only columns at 4 bytes for storage with 400 counters for elements of type P, 50 for elements of type C and 400 for type GP:
As it adds up, I assume the based on DDL (in reality, DBs optimize storage) to 3.5-4 TB of data plus probably about 20-30% extra which will be required for indexes. For the child "tables", can get close to 2 billion records per table.
It is worth noting that from time to time I would like to add counters (maybe every 2-3 month) as the network evolves.
I once implemented a very similar system (though probably with less data) using Oracle. This time around I may not use a commercial DB and must revert to open source solutions. Also with the increase popularity of no-SQL and dedicated time-series DBs, maybe relational is not the way to go?
How would you approach such development? What are the products that could be used?
From a few days of research, I came up with the following
Use MySQL / PostGres
InfluxDB (or a similar product)
Cassandra + Spark
Others?
How could each solution would be used and what would be the advantages/disadvantages for each approach? If you can, elaborate or suggest also the overall (hardware) architecture to support this kind of development.
Comments and suggestions are welcome - preferably from people with hands on experience with similar project.
Going with Open Source RDBMS:
Using MySQL or Postgres
The table structure would be (imaginary SQL):
CREATE TABLE LEVEL_GRANULARITY (
TIMESTAMP DATE,
PARENT_ID INT,
ELEMENT_ID INT,
COUNTER_1 INT
...
COUNTER_N INT
PRIMARY_KEY (TIMESTAMP, PARENT_ID, ELEMENT_ID)
)
For example we will have P1_HOUR, GP_HOUR, P_DAY, GP_DAY etc.
The tables could be partitions by date to enhance query time and ease data management (can remove whole partitions).
To facilitate fast load, use loaders provided with the DB - these loaders are usually faster and insert data in bulks.
Aggregation could be done quite easily with `SELECT ... INTO ...' query (since the scope of the aggregation is limited, I don't think it will be a problem).
Queries are straight forward as aggregation, grouping and joining is built in. I am not sure about the query performance considering how large the tables are.
Since it is a write intensive I don't think the clustering could help here.
Pros:
Simple configuration (assuming no clusters etc).
SQL query capabilities - flexible
Cons:
Query performance - will it work?
Management overhead
Rigid Schema
Scaling?
Using InfluxDB (or something like that):
I have not used this DB and writing from playing around with it some
The model would be to create a time-series for every element in every level and granularity.
The data series name will include the identifiers of the element and the granularity.
For example P.P_ElementID.G.15MIN or P.P_ElementID.C.C1_ELEMENT_ID.G.60MIN
The data series will contain all the counters relevant for that level.
The input has to parse the XML and build the data series name before inserting the new data points.
InfluxDB has an SQL like query language. and allows to specify the calculation in an SQL like manner. It also supports grouping. To group by element would be possible by using regular expression, e.g. SELECT counter1/counter2 FROM /^P\.P_ElementID\.C1\..*G\.15MIN/ to get all children of ElementID.
There is a notion of grouping by time in general it is made for this kind of data.
Pros:
Should be fast
Support queries etc very similar to SQL
Support Deleting by Date (but have to do it on every series...)
Flexible Schema
Cons:
* Currently, seems not to support clusters very easily (
* Clusters = more maintenance
* Can it support millions of data-series (and still work fast)
* Less common, less documented (currently)
I have an OLTP database, and am currently creating a data warehouse. There is a dimension table in the DW (DimStudents) that contains student data such as address details, email, notification settings.
In the OLTP database, this data is spread across several tables (as it is a standard OLTP database in 3rd normal form).
There are currently 10,390 records but this figure is expected to grow.
I want to use Type 2 ETL whereby if a record has changed in the OLTP database, a new record is added to the DW.
What is the best way to scan through 10,000 records in the DW and then compare the results with the results in several tables contained in the OLTP?
I'm thinking of creating a "snapshot" using a temporary table of the OLTP data and then comparing the results row by row with the data in the Dimension table in the DW.
I'm using SQL Server 2005. This doesn't seem like the most efficient way. Are there alternatives?
Introduce LastUpdated into source system (OLTP) tables. This way you have less to extract using:
WHERE LastUpdated >= some_time_here
You seem to be using SQL server, so you may also try rowversion type (8 byte db-scope-unique counter)
When importing your data into the DW, use ETL tool (SSIS, Pentaho, Talend). They all have a componenet (block, transformation) to handle SCD2 (slowly changing dimension type 2). For SSIS example see here. The transformation does exactly what you are trying to do -- all that you have to do is specify which columns to monitor and what to do when it detects the change.
It sounds like you are approaching this sort of backwards. The typical way for performing ETL (Extract, Test, Load) is:
"Extract" data from your OLTP database
Compare ("Test") your extracted data against the dimensional data to determine if there are changes or whatever other validation needs to be performed
Insert the data ("Load") in to your dimension table.
Effectively, in step #1, you'll create a physical record via a query against the multiple tables in your OLTP database, then compare that resulting record against your dimensional data to determine if a modification was made. This is the standard way of doing things. In addition, 10000 rows is pretty insignificant as far as volume goes. Any RDBMS and ETL process should be able to process through that in a matter of no more than few seconds at most. I know SQL Server has DTS, although I'm not sure if the name has changed in more recent versions. That is the perfect tool for doing something like this.
Does you OLTP database have an audit trail?
If so, then you can query the audit trail for just the records that have been touched since the last ETL.
I currently have a Postgres DB filled with approx. 300.000 data-sets of moving vehicles all over the world. My very frequently repeated query is: Give me all vehicles in a 5/10/20mile radius. Currently I spend around 600 to 1200 ms in the DB to prepare the set of located vehicle-objects.
I am looking to vastly improve this time by ideally one or two orders of magnitude if possible. I am working in a Ruby on Rails 3.0beta environment if this is relevant.
Any ideas how to architect the whole system to accelerate this query? Any NoSQL database able to deliver this kind of geolocation performance? I know of MongoDB working on an extension to facilitate this scenario but haven't tried it yet. Any intelligent use of Redis to achieve this?
One problem with SQL-DBs here seems to be that I can't possibly use indexes because my vehicles are mostly moving around, meaning I had to constantly created DB indexes which, by itself, is probably more expensive than just doing the searching without index.
Looking forward to your thoughs, Thanks!
If you use the right algorithm for organizing your data, you will be able to use a spatial index which can dramatically speed up your queries.
The best practice for the geolocation domain is to use a geohash, quad-tree, R-tree or similar data structure (R-trees are the most generic, but it sounds like you're querying point data, so that may not matter). In each case, you can create a spatial index that uses a single, linear column where each value represents a bounding box of varying size and shape. This should let you answer most queries with a single range query in your database. Spatial indices can be implemented in SQL (PostGIS, MS SQL, MySQL all have spatial datatypes and spatial indices which use one of these techniques) or NoSQL (popular for its horizontal scalability; AppEngine has geomodel, SimpleGeo uses Cassandra, Foursquare uses MongoDB).
Using an index can be complicated by constantly moving points, but I would suspect that writes, even slightly heavier writes that update indices, wouldn't be your bottleneck.
Even though your vehicles are moving around all the time, I assume they have some kind of speed limit. What you can do is to create some kind of discrete coordinate system, one example would be the integer part of the lat/long coordinate. Then you put those values in separate columns, keeping the exact location in another column. You should then be able to index the integer columns, as the vehicles won't move so much that they change those values very often.
When doing a search, you first find out what "squares" are interesting, and restrict your query to the vechicles within those sqeares, using the indexed columns. Then you have to do a full search of all vehicles within each square. The number of vehicles you have to do a full search over should now only be a small fraction of all vechiles. The efficiency of this strategy of course depends on the distribution of your vechiles. If 50% of them are in a certain city somewhere this will not work, but assuming the largest group of vehicles in one place is 5-10% it should improve performance.