How can I in constant time (or closest possible) find the maximum or minimum value on an indexed column in an Mnesia table?
I would do it outside the Mnesia database. Keep an explicit-min and explicit-max by having a process which learns about these values whenever there is an insert into the table. This gives you awfully fast constant time lookup on the values.
If you can do with O(lg n) time then you can make the table an ordered_set. From there, first/1 and last/1 should give you what you want, given that the key contains the thing you are ordering by. But this also slows down other queries in general to O(lg n).
A third trick is to go by an approximate value. Once in a while you scan the table and note the max and min values. This then materializes into what you want, but the value might not be up to do date if it was a long time since you last scanned.
Good question but I don't think it is possible. A quick look through mnesia and qlc documentation did not give me any clues on the subject.
It seems for me that secondary keys facility in mnesia is incomplete and thus is very limited in features. Not to mention horrible mnesia startup times while loading indexed tables.
I think the most reliable solution in your case would be to do explicit indexing. E.g. creating and keeping in sync alongside table with ordering on primary keys which are in fact the values you have wanted to index by.
Related
I have a lot of analytics data which I'm looking to aggregate every so often (let's say one minute.) The data is being sent to a process which stores it in an ETS table, and every so often a timer sends it a message to process the table and remove old data.
The problem is that the amount of data that comes in varies wildly, and I basically need to do two things to it:
If the amount of data coming in is too big, drop the oldest data and push the new data in. This could be viewed as a fixed size queue, where if the amount of data hits the limit, the queue would start dropping things from the front as new data comes to the back.
If the queue isn't full, but the data has been sitting there for a while, automatically discard it (after a fixed timeout.)
If these two conditions are kept, I could basically assume the table has a constant size, and everything in it is newer than X.
The problem is that I haven't found an efficient way to do these two things together. I know I could use match specs to delete all entires older than X, which should be pretty fast if the index is the timestamp. Though I'm not sure if this is the best way to periodically trim the table.
The second problem is keeping the total table size under a certain limit, which I'm not really sure how to do. One solution comes to mind is to use an auto-increment field wich each insert, and when the table is being trimmed, look at the first and the last index, calculate the difference and again, use match specs to delete everything below the threshold.
Having said all this, it feels that I might be using the ETS table for something it wasn't designed to do. Is there a better way to store data like this, or am I approaching the problem correctly?
You can determine the amount of data occupied using ets:info(Tab, memory). The result is in number of words. But there is a catch. If you are storing binaries only heap binaries are included. So if you are storing mostly normal Erlang terms you can use it and with a timestamp as you described, it is a way to go. For size in bytes just multiply by erlang:system_info(wordsize).
I haven't used ETS for anything like this, but in other NoSQL DBs (DynamoDB) an easy solution is to use multiple tables: If you're keeping 24 hours of data, then keep 24 tables, one for each hour of the day. When you want to drop data, drop one whole table.
I would do the following: Create a server responsible for
receiving all the data storage messages. This messages should be time stamped by the client process (so it doesn't matter if it waits a little in the message queue). The server will then store then in the ETS, configured as ordered_set and using the timestamp, converted in an integer, as key (if the timestamps are delivered by the function erlang:now in one single VM they will be different, if you are using several nodes, then you will need to add some information such as the node name to guarantee uniqueness).
receiving a tick (using for example timer:send_interval) and then processes the message received in the last N µsec (using the Key = current time - N) and looking for ets:next(Table,Key), and continue to the last message. Finally you can discard all the messages via ets:delete_all_objects(Table). If you had to add an information such as a node name, it is still possible to use the next function (for example the keys are {TimeStamp:int(),Node:atom()} you can compare to {Time:int(),0} since a number is smaller than any atom)
I am looking at a rather large database.. Lets say I have an exported flag on the product records.
If I want an estimate of how many products I have with the flag set to false, I can do a call something like this
Product.where(:exported => false).count.. .
The problem I have is even the count takes a long time, because the table of 1 million products is being written to. More specifically exports are happening, and the value I'm interested in counting is ever changing.
So I'd like to do a dirty read on the table... Not a dirty read always. And I 100% don't want all subsequent calls to the database on this connection to be dirty.
But for this one call, dirty is what I'd like.
Oh.. I should mention ruby 1.9.3 heroku and postgresql.
Now.. if I'm missing another way to get the count, I'd be excited to try that.
OH SNOT one last thing.. this example is contrived.
PostgreSQL doesn't support dirty reads.
You might want to use triggers to maintain a materialized view of the count - but doing so will mean that only one transaction at a time can insert a product, because they'll contend for the lock on the product count in the summary table.
Alternately, use system statistics to get a fast approximation.
Or, on PostgreSQL 9.2 and above, ensure there's a primary key (and thus a unique index) and make sure vacuum runs regularly. Then you should be able to do quite a fast count, as PostgreSQL should choose an index-only scan on the primary key.
Note that even if Pg did support dirty reads, the read would still not return perfectly up to date results because rows would sometimes inserted behind the read pointer in a sequential scan. The only way to get a perfectly up to date count is to prevent concurrent inserts: LOCK TABLE thetable IN EXCLUSIVE MODE.
As soon as a query begins to execute it's against a frozen read-only state because that's what MVCC is all about. The values are not changing in that snapshot, only in subsequent amendments to that state. It doesn't matter if your query takes an hour to run, it is operating on data that's locked in time.
If your queries are taking a very long time it sounds like you need an index on your exported column, or whatever values you use in your conditions, as a COUNT against an indexed an column is usually very fast.
I have nodes with multiple "sourceIds" in one array-valued property called "sourceIds", just because there could be multiple resources a node could be derived from (I'm assembling multiple databases into one Neo4j model).
I want to be able to look up nodes by any of their source IDs. With legacy indexing this was no problem, I would just add a node to the index associated with each element of the sourceIds property array.
Now I wanted to switch to indexing with labels and I'm wondering how that kind of index works here. I can do
CREATE INDEX ON :<label>(sourceIds)
but what does that actually do? I hoped it would just create index entries for each array element, but that doesn't seem to be the case. With
MATCH n:<label> WHERE "testid" in n.sourceIds RETURN n
the query takes between 300ms and 500ms which is too long for an index lookup (other schema indexes work three to five times faster). With
MATCH n:<label> WHERE n.sourceIds="testid" RETURN n
I don't get a result. That's clear because it's an array property but I just gave it a try since it would make sense if array properties would be broken down to their elements for indexing purposes.
So, is there a way to handle array properties with schema indexing or are there plans or will I just have to stick to legacy indexing here? My problem with the legacy Lucene index was that I hit the max number of boolean clauses (1024). Another question thus would be: Can I raise this number? Lucene allows that, but can I do this with the Lucene index used by Neo4j?
Thanks and best regards!
Edit: A bit more elaboration on why I hit the boolean clauses max limit: I need to export specific parts of the database into custom file formats for text processing pipelines. These pipelines use components I cannot (be it for the sake of accessibility or time) change to query Neo4j directly, so I'd rather stay with the defined required file format(s). I do the export via the pattern "give me all IDs in the DB; now, for batches of IDs, query the desired information (e.g. specific paths) from Neo4j and store the results to file". Why I use batches at all? Well, if I don't, things are slowed down significantly via the connection overhead. Thus, large batches are a kind of optimization here.
Schema indexes can only do exact matches right now. Your "testid" in n.sourceIds does not use the index (as shown by your query times). I think there are plans to make this behave better, but I'm waiting for them just as eagerly as you are.
I've actually hit a lower max in the lucene query: 512. If there is a way to increase it I'd love to hear of it. The way I got around it is just doing more than one query if I have one of the rare cases that actually goes over 512 ids. What query are you doing where you need more?
Intro
I am trying to decide how best to set up my database schema for a (Rails) model. I have a model related to money which indicates whether the value is an income (positive cash value) or an expense (negative cash value).
I would like separate column(s) to indicate whether it is an income or an expense, rather than relying on whether the value stored is positive or negative.
Question:
How would you store these values, and why?
Have a single column, say Income,
and store 1 if it's an income, 0
if it's an expense, null if not
known.
Have two columns, Income and
Expense, setting their values to 1 or 0 as
appropriate.
Something else?
I figure the question is similar to storing a person's gender in a database (ignoring aliens/transgender/etc) hence my title.
My thoughts so far
Lookup might be easier with a single column, but there is a risk of mistaking 0 (false, expense) for null (unknown).
Having seperate columns might be more difficult to maintain (what happens if we end up with a 1 in both columns?
Maybe it's not that big a deal which way I go, but it would be great to have any concerns/thoughts raised before I get too far down the line and have to change my code-base because I missed something that should have been obvious!
Thanks,
Philip
How would you store these values, and why?
I would store them as a single column. Despite your desire to separate the data into multiple columns, anyone who understands accounting or bookkeeping will know that the dollar value of a transaction is one thing, not two separate things based on whether it's income or expense (or asset, liablity, equity and so forth).
As someone who's actually written fully balanced double-entry accounting applications and less formal budgeting applications, I suggest you rethink your decision. It will make future work on this endeavour a lot easier.
I'm sorry, that's probably not what you want to hear and may well result in ngative rep for me but I can't, in all honesty, let this go without telling you what a mistake it will be.
Your "thoughts so far" are an indication of the problems already appearing.
1/ "Having seperate columns might be more difficult to maintain (what happens if we end up with a 1 in both columns?" - well, this shouldn't happen. Data is supposed to be internally consistent to the data model. You would be best advised preventing it with an insert/update trigger or, say, a single column that didn't allow it to happen :-)
2/ "Lookup might be easier with a single column, but there is a risk of mistaking 0 (false, expense) for null (unknown)." - no mistake possible if the sign is stored with the magnitude of the value. And the whole idea of not knowing whether an item is expense or income is abhorrent to accountants. That knowledge exists when the transaction is created, it's not something that is nebulous until some point after a transaction happens.
Sometimes I use a character. For example, I have a column gender in my database that stores m or f.
And I usually choose to have just one column.
I would typically implement a flag as an nchar(1) and use some meaningful abbreviations. I think that's the easiest thing to work with. You could use 'I' for income and 'E' for expense, for example.
That said, I don't think that's a good way to do this system.
I would probably put incomes and expenses in separate tables, since they appear to be different sorts of things. The only advantages I can think of for putting them in the same table are lost once the meanings are differentiated by flags rather than postitive and negative values.
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.