MongoDB uses ObjectId type for _id.
Will it be bad if I make _id an incrementing integer?
(With this gem, if you're interested)
No it isn't bad at all and in fact the built in ObjectId is quite sizeable within the index so if you believe you have something better then you are more than welcome to change the default value of the _id field to whatever.
But, and this is a big but, there are some considerations when deciding to move away from the default formulated ObjectId, especially when using the auto incrementing _ids as shown here: https://docs.mongodb.com/v3.0/tutorial/create-an-auto-incrementing-field
Multi threading isn't such a big problem because findAndModify and the atomic locks can actually take care of that, but then you just hit into your first problem. findAndModify is not the fastest function nor the lightest and there have been significant performance drops noticed when using it regularly.
You also have to consider the overhead of doing this yourself anyway, even without findAndModify. For every insert you will need an extra query. Imagine having a unique id that you have to query the uniqueness of every time you want to insert. Eventually your insert rate will drop to a crawl and your lock time will build up.
Of course the ObjectId is really good at being unique without having to check or formulate its own uniqueness by touching the database prior to insertion, hence it doesn't have this overhead.
If you still feel an integer _id suites your scenario, then go for it, but bare in mind the overhead described above.
You can do it, but you are responsible to make sure that the integers are unique.
MongoDB doesn't support auto-increment fields like most SQL databases. When you have a distributed or multithreaded application which has multiple processes and/or threads which create new database entries, you have to make sure that they use the same counter. Otherwise it could happen that two threads try to store a document with the same _id in the database.
When that happens, one of them will fail. That means you have to wait for the database to return a success or error (by calling GetLastError or by setting the write concerns to acknowledged), which takes longer than just sending data in a fire-and-forget manner.
I had a use case for this: replacing _id with a 64 bit integer that represented a simhash of a document index for searching.
Since I intended to "Get or create", providing the initial simhash, and creating a new record if one didn't exist was perfect. Also, for anyone Googling, MongoDB support explained to me that simhashes are absolutely perfect for sharding and scaling, and even better than the more generic ObjectId, because they will divide up the data across shards perfectly and intrinsically, and you get the key stored for negative space (a uint64 is much smaller than an objectId and would need to be stored anyway).
Also, for you Googlers, replacing a MongoDB _id with something other than an objectId is absolutely simple: Just create an object with the _id being defined; use an integer if you like. That's it: Mongo will simply use it. If you try to create a document with the same _id you'll get an error (E11000/Duplicate key). So like me, if you're using simhashing, this is ideal in all respects.
Related
There is a Java Swing application which uses an Informix database. I have user rights granted for the Swing application (i.e. no source code), and read only access to a mirror of the database.
Sometimes I need to find a database column, which is backing a GUI element (TextBox, TableField, Label...). What would be best approach to find out which database column and table is holding the data shown e.g. in a TextBox?
My general approach is to capture the state of the database. Commit a change using the GUI and then capture the state of the database again. Then I need to examine the difference. I've already tried:
Use the nrows field of systables: Didn't work, because the number in nrows does not seem to be a realtime representation of the row count.
Create a script with SELECT COUNT(*) ... for all tables: didn't work because too many tables (> 5000). Also tried to optimize by removing empty tables, but there are still too many left.
Is there a simple solution that I'm missing?
Please look at the Change Data Capture API and check if this suits your needs
There probably isn't a simple solution.
You probably need to build yourself a map of the database, or a data dictionary for it. It sounds as though you can eliminate many of the tables from consideration since they're empty — at least for a preliminary pass. If you're dealing with information in a text box, the chances are it is some sort of character data; you can analyze which (non-empty) tables which contain longer character strings, and they'd be the primary targets of your searches. If the schema is badly designed with lots of VARCHAR(255) columns even though the columns normally only hold short strings, life is more difficult. Over time, you can begin to classify tables and columns so that you end up knowing where to look for parts of the application.
One problem to beware of: the tabid in informix.systables isn't necessarily as stable as you'd like. Your data dictionary needs to record its own dd_tabid for the table it describes, and can store the last known tabid from informix.systables, but it needs to be ready to find a new tabid value on occasion. You should probably only mark data in your dictionary for logical deletion.
To some extent, this assumes you can create a database in which to record this information. If you can't create an Informix database, you may have to use something else (MySQL, or SQLite, perhaps) to store the data dictionary. Alternatively, go to your DBA team and ask them for the information. Unless you're trying something self-evidently untoward, they're likely to help (but politics can get in the way — I've no idea how collegial your teams are).
I am using Ruby on Rails and have a situation that I am wondering if is appropriate for using some sort of Key Value Store instead of MySQL. I have users that have_many lists and each list has_many words. Some lists have hundreds of words and I want users to be able to copy a list. This is a heavy MySQL task b/c it is going to have to create these hundreds of word objects at one time.
As an alternative, I am considering using some sort of key value store where the key would just be the word. A list of words could be stored in a text field in mysql. Each list could be a new key value db? It seems like it would be faster to copy a key value db this way rather than have to go through the database. It also seems like this might be faster in general. Thoughts?
The general way to solve this using a relational database would be to have a list table, a word table, and a table-words table relating the two. You are correct that there would be some overhead, but don't overestimate it; because table structure is defined, there is very little actual storage overhead for each record, and records can be inserted very quickly.
If you want very fast copies, you could allow lists to be copied-on-write. Meaning a single list could be referred to by multiple users, or multiple times by the same user. You only actually duplicate the list when the user tries to add, remove, or change an entry. Of course, this is premature optimization, start simple and only add complications like this if you find they are necessary.
You could use a key-value store as you suggest. I would avoid trying to build one on top of a MySQL text field in less you have a very good reason, it will make any sort of searching by key very slow, as it would require string searching. A key-value data store like CouchDB or Tokyo Cabinet could do this very well, but it would most likely take up more space (as each record has to have it's own structure defined and each word has to be recorded separately in each list). The only dimension of performance I would think would be better is if you need massively scalable reads and writes, but that's only relevant for the largest of systems.
I would use MySQL naively, and only make changes such as this if you need the performance and can prove that this method will actually be faster.
Is there an equivalent to an identity Seed in SimpleDB?
If the answer is no, how do you handle creating something like a customer number or order number that will prevent the creation duplicate numbers?
My experience is mainly from SQL Server in which I would either create a primary key with an identity seed or use transactions in a stored procedure to increment the number.
Thanks for your help!
You can create unique keys using conditional writes. Just do a PutAttributes with the next customer number you want to use and the data you want to store. You can't add a condition for the actual item name, but you can use an attribute that always exists, (like creation date or user group).
Set the conditions:
Expected.1.Name=creation_date
Expected.1.Exists=false
The call will succeed only if there is no creation_date in an item with that item name. If you always write the creation_date, then you get the effect of optimistic locking on the new item name. Of course you can use any attribute you want, so long you always include it in that first conditional put.
The performance of the conditional write is the same as a normal write in most situations but when SimpleDB is under heavy load or high internal network latencies, these calls will take longer, compared to normal writes. During rare failure scenarios inside SimpleDB, the conditional writes will fail completely for a period of time.
If you can't tolerate this, you will have to code some sort of alternate way to get your unique keys during outages. A different SimpleDB region could be used for key generation only, since SimpleDB will still accept the normal writes (non-conditional PutAttributes) during outages.
If you don't already have something unique that will work, using a GUID for the Item is probably the typical solution.
I've been seeing a lot of commentary (from an NHibernate perspective) about using Guid as opposed to an int (and presumably auto-id in the database), with the conclusion that using auto-identity breaks the UoW pattern.
This post has a short description of the issue, but it doesn't really tell me "why" it breaks the pattern (unless I'm misunderstanding which is likely the case.
Can someone enlighten me?
There are a few major reasons.
Using a Guid gives you the ability to identify a single entity across many databases, including six relational databases with the same schema but different data, a document database, etc. This becomes important any time you have more than one single place where data goes - and that means your case too: you have a dev database and a prod database, right?
Using a Guid gives NHibernate the ability to batch more statements together, perform more database work at the very end of the unit of work / transaction, and reduce the total number of roundtrips to the database, increasing performance as well as conferring other benefits.
Comment:
Random Guids do not create poor indexes - natively, they create poor clustered indexes. There are two solutions.
Use a partially sequential Guid. With NHibernate, this means using the guid.comb id generator rather than the guid id generator. guid.comb is partially sequential for good performance, but retains a very high degree of randomness.
Have your Guid primary key be a nonclustered index, and put a clustered index on another auto-incrementing column. You may decide to map this column, in which case you lose the benefit of better batching and fewer roundtrips, but you regain all the benefits of short numbers that fit easily in a URL. Or you may decide not to map this column and have it remain completely within the database, in which case you gain better performance for Guids as primary keys as well as better performance for NHibernate doing fewer roundtrips.
My take would be that the key breaking factor is that getting the auto-incremented value requires an actual write to the database, which nHibernate would have deferred or possibly never performed.
Using identity and in a parent-child scenario the database has round trip the database to get the ID of a parent so that it can associate the child correctly. This means that the parent has to be committed at this time. Should there be a problem with the child you would then need to delete the parent in order to exit the UoW correctly.
In my present Rails application, I am resolving scheduling conflicts by sorting the models by the "created_at" field. However, I realized that when inserting multiple models from a form that allows this, all of the created_at times are exactly the same!
This is more a question of best programming practices: Can your application rely on your ID column in your database to increment greater and greater with each INSERT to get their order of creation? To put it another way, can I sort a group of rows I pull out of my database by their ID column and be assured this is an accurate sort based on creation order? And is this a good practice in my application?
The generated identification numbers will be unique.
Regardless of whether you use Sequences, like in PostgreSQL and Oracle or if you use another mechanism like auto-increment of MySQL.
However, Sequences are most often acquired in bulks of, for example 20 numbers.
So with PostgreSQL you can not determine which field was inserted first. There might even be gaps in the id's of inserted records.
Therefore you shouldn't use a generated id field for a task like that in order to not rely on database implementation details.
Generating a created or updated field during command execution is much better for sorting by creation-, or update-time later on.
For example:
INSERT INTO A (data, created) VALUES (smething, DATE())
UPDATE A SET data=something, updated=DATE()
That depends on your database vendor.
MySQL I believe absolutely orders auto increment keys. SQL Server I don't know for sure that it does or not but I believe that it does.
Where you'll run into problems is with databases that don't support this functionality, most notably Oracle that uses sequences, which are roughly but not absolutely ordered.
An alternative might be to go for created time and then ID.
I believe the answer to your question is yes...if I read between the lines, I think you are concerned that the system may re-use ID's numbers that are 'missing' in the sequence, and therefore if you had used 1,2,3,5,6,7 as ID numbers, in all the implementations I know of, the next ID number will always be 8 (or possibly higher), but I don't know of any DB that would try and figure out that record Id #4 is missing, so attempt to re-use that ID number.
Though I am most familiar with SQL Server, I don't know why any vendor who try and fill the gaps in a sequence - think of the overhead of keeping that list of unused ID's, as opposed to just always keeping track of the last I number used, and adding 1.
I'd say you could safely rely on the next ID assigned number always being higher than the last - not just unique.
Yes the id will be unique and no, you can not and should not rely on it for sorting - it is there to guarantee row uniqueness only. The best approach is, as emktas indicated, to use a separate "updated" or "created" field for just this information.
For setting the creation time, you can just use a default value like this
CREATE TABLE foo (
id INTEGER UNSIGNED AUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL;
created TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW();
updated TIMESTAMP;
PRIMARY KEY(id);
) engine=InnoDB; ## whatever :P
Now, that takes care of creation time. with update time I would suggest an AFTER UPDATE trigger like this one (of course you can do it in a separate query, but the trigger, in my opinion, is a better solution - more transparent):
DELIMITER $$
CREATE TRIGGER foo_a_upd AFTER UPDATE ON foo
FOR EACH ROW BEGIN
SET NEW.updated = NOW();
END;
$$
DELIMITER ;
And that should do it.
EDIT:
Woe is me. Foolishly I've not specified, that this is for mysql, there might be some differences in the function names (namely, 'NOW') and other subtle itty-bitty.
One caveat to EJB's answer:
SQL does not give any guarantee of ordering if you don't specify an order by column. E.g. if you delete some early rows, then insert 'em, the new ones may end up living in the same place in the db the old ones did (albeit with new IDs), and that's what it may use as its default sort.
FWIW, I typically use order by ID as an effective version of order by created_at. It's cheaper in that it doesn't require adding an index to a datetime field (which is bigger and therefore slower than a simple integer primary key index), guaranteed to be different, and I don't really care if a few rows that were added at about the same time sort in some slightly different order.
This is probably DB engine depended. I would check how your DB implements sequences and if there are no documented problems then I would decide to rely on ID.
E.g. Postgresql sequence is OK unless you play with the sequence cache parameters.
There is a possibility that other programmer will manually create or copy records from different DB with wrong ID column. However I would simplify the problem. Do not bother with low probability cases where someone will manually destroy data integrity. You cannot protect against everything.
My advice is to rely on sequence generated IDs and move your project forward.
In theory yes the highest id number is the last created. Remember though that databases do have the ability to temporaily turn off the insert of the autogenerated value , insert some records manaully and then turn it back on. These inserts are no typically used on a production system but can happen occasionally when moving a large chunk of data from another system.