I have to update a field in the MySQL database on each HTTP request (number of page visits). Sometimes I have to do this for static files also. In the heavy-load environment this can potentially block responses because the MySQL database can perform a single update (per record) process at a time.
I was thinking of
appending to a file and parse it in the background every X minutes
writing log records to the MySQL database (special table) and do a
background processing
How would you optimize that?
I'm not convinced by what you've said about MySQL - more than one update can happen concurrently.
If you do reach mysql's concurrency limits, have you considered using a different data store for this information? For example mongodb is very well adapted to these sorts of upsert operations, as it has a wide range of "fire and forget" update operations known as modifiers
For example you can do something like
db.pagecounters.update({name: 'x'}, {$inc: {count: 1}}, true)
This would find the pagecounter object with name x and either increment count by 1 (if count exists) or set count to 1. If there was no such page counter, it would create one
Related
We have a scenario where we want to frequently change the tag of a (single) measurement value.
Our goal is to create a database which is storing prognosis values. But it should never loose data and track changes to already written data, like changes or overwriting.
Our current plan is to have an additional field "write_ts", which indicates at which point in time the measurement value was inserted or changed, and a tag "version" which is updated with each change.
Furthermore the version '0' should always contain the latest value.
name: temperature
-----------------
time write_ts (val) current_mA (val) version (tag) machine (tag)
2015-10-21T19:28:08Z 1445506564 25 0 injection_molding_1
So let's assume I have an updated prognosis value for this example value.
So, I do:
SELECT curr_measurement
INSERT curr_measurement with new tag (version = 1)
DROP curr_mesurement
//then
INSERT new_measurement with version = 0
Now my question:
If I loose the connection in between for whatever reason in between the SELECT, INSERT, DROP:
I would get double records.
(Or if I do SELECT, DROP, INSERT: I loose data)
Is there any method to prevent that?
Transactions don't exist in InfluxDB
InfluxDB is a time-series database, not a relational database. Its main use case is not one where users are editing old data.
In a relational database that supports transactions, you are protecting yourself against UPDATE and similar operations. Data comes in, existing data gets changed, you need to reliably read these updates.
The main use case in time-series databases is a lot of raw data coming in, followed by some filtering or transforming to other measurements or databases. Picture a one-way data stream. In this scenario, there isn't much need for transactions, because old data isn't getting updated much.
How you can use InfluxDB
In cases like yours, where there is additional data being calculated based on live data, it's common to place this new data in its own measurement rather than as a new field in a "live data" measurement.
As for version tracking and reliably getting updates:
1) Does the version number tell you anything the write_ts number doesn't? Consider not using it, if it's simply a proxy for write_ts. If version only ever increases, it might be duplicating the info given by write_ts, minus the usefulness of knowing when the change was made. If version is expected to decrease from time to time, then it makes sense to keep it.
2) Similarly, if you're keeping old records: does write_ts tell you anything that the time value doesn't?
3) Logging. Do you need to over-write (update) values? Or can you get what you need by adding new lines, increasing write_ts or version as appropriate. The latter is a more "InfluxDB-ish" approach.
4) Reading values. You can read all values as they change with updates. If a client app only needs to know the latest value of something that's being updated (and the time it was updated), querying becomes something like:
SELECT LAST(write_ts), current_mA, machine FROM temperature
You could also try grouping the machine values together:
SELECT LAST(*) FROM temperature GROUP BY machine
So what happens instead of transactions?
In InfluxDB, inserting a point with the same tag keys and timestamp over-writes any existing data with the same field keys, and adds new field keys. So when duplicate entries are written, the last write "wins".
So instead of the traditional SELECT, UPDATE approach, it's more like SELECT A, then calculate on A, and put the results in B, possibly with a new timestamp INSERT B.
Personally, I've found InfluxDB excellent for its ability to accept streams of data from all directions, and its simple protocol and schema-free storage means that new data sources are almost trivial to add. But if my use case has old data being regularly updated, I use a relational database.
Hope that clear up the differences.
Note - This question expands on an answer to another question here.
I'm importing a file into my DB by chunking it up into smaller groups and spawning background jobs to import each chunk (of 100 rows).
I want a way to track progress of how many chunks have been imported so far, so I had planned on each job incrementing a DB field by 1 when it's done so I know how many have processed so far.
This has a potential situation of two parallel jobs incrementing the DB field by 1 simultaneously and overwriting each other.
What's the best way to avoid this condition and ensure an atomic parallel operation? The linked post above suggests using Redis, which is one good approach. For the purposes of this question I'm curious if there is an alternate way to do it using persistent storage.
I'm using ActiveRecord in Rails with Postgres as my DB.
Thanks!
I suggest to NOT incrementing a DB field by 1, instead, create a DB record with for each job with a job id. There are two benefits:
You can count the number of records to let you know how many have processed without worrying about parallel operations.
You can also add some necessary logs into each job record and easily debug when any of the jobs fails when importing.
I suggest you use a postgresql sequence.
See CREATE SEQUENCE and Sequence Manipulation.
Especially nextval():
Advance the sequence object to its next value and return that value. This is done atomically: even if multiple sessions execute nextval concurrently, each will safely receive a distinct sequence value.
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 am working on an application which will generate unique random numbers and then store them into a database. I will check if a number exists through a HTTP request. Initially, for getting started, I would use around 10,000 numbers.
Is this the right approach?
Generate a random number, and, one by one, store them into an array and continue checking for array uniqueness, and when the array is complete, store the whole array to the database after sorting it.
Use the database and check to see if a number exists or not.
Which database should I use, as the application can scale up to 1 million numbers.
It may be more efficient, particularly if you want to generate 1000000 numbers, to make them one at a time and use validations in the model/database prevent duplicates.
As regards choosing a database, it will depend a little on you intended application. There is some info here: Which is the Best database for Rails application?
I can't comment on using a database directly from ruby without rails because I have not done that. One of the big pluses for rails for me is how easy it makes creating apps that use a database.
A couple thoughts:
If you are storing 10 or 10,000 "random" numbers, what difference does it make whether they are random going into the database, or if the database randomly picks one number of a range of 10,000 sequential numbers? Do you need doubly-random number selections? MySQL, PostgreSQL and other DBMs can generate random numbers, and you can use their random number generator to retrieve a row, so you could either have it return a value directly from its generator, or grab a row. Either way, you don't need to worry about Ruby creating a random value -- unless you really want "triplely"-random numbers. I'd just stick the values of a (1..10_000) range into the database and call that part done and work on a query to grab records randomly.
If you want truly random numbers, you can't guarantee uniqueness. If you're happy with pseudo-random, you still have a problem because you could end up returning duplicates from inside the range unless you track which numbers you've used previously for a particular session. How you track uniqueness across a bunch of sessions is going to be an interesting problem if your site gets popular.
If I was doing this, I'd reverse some of the process. I wouldn't store the "random" values in the database, I'd use Ruby's built-in random number generator, and then probably check the database to see if I'd previously generated that number for that particular session. Overall, fewer values would be stored in the database so lookups to determine uniqueness would happen faster.
That would still be an awkward system to code and would grow inefficient over time as the "unique" records for sessions grew.
To do this without a database I'd create the random/unique range using something like: array = (1..10_000).to_a.shuffle, then each time I needed a value I'd use pop to pull the last value from the randomized array. I'd be tempted to pull from that pool of values for all sessions until it was exhausted, then regenerate it. There'd be a possibility of duplicate "unique" values at that point, but there should be a pretty small chance of the same number reappearing twice in a row.