I am doing some maintenance on a database for an application that uses the Bold for Delphi object persistence framework. This database has been been in production for several years and several of the tables have grown quite large. One of them is the BOLD_CLOCKLOG which has something to do with Bold's transaction management.
I want to trim this table (it is up to 1.2GB, with entries from Jan 2006).
Can anyone confirm the system does not need this old information?
From the bolds documentation:
BOLD_CLOCKLOG
To be able to map the transaction numbers used in the TimeStamp columns to the corresponding physical time (such as 2001-01-01 12:34) the persistence mapper will store a log with timestamps and times. Normally, this log is written for each database operation, but if the traffic to the database is very intensive, it is possible to restrict how often this log is written by setting the property ClockLogGranularity. The event OnGetCurrentTime should also be implemented to ensure that all clients have the same time.The usage of this table can be controlled with the tagged value: Model.UseClockLog
So I believe this is used for versioning Boldobjects, see Object Versioning Extension in bolds documentation. If your application don't need this you can drop this in the database.
In our Bold application we don't use that feature. Why don't simply test to turn off Bold_ClockLog in the model, drop that big table and try to use your application. I'm pretty sure if something is wrong then it say so at once.
I can also mention that we have an own custom objecthistoy. It is simply big string (as TStringList.DelimetedText) in a ObjectHistory class that have Time, user and a note about action. This suits our need better that Bolds builtin objecthistory. The disadvantage is of course that we need to add calls in the code when logging to history is done.
Bold_ClockLog is an optional table, it's purpose is to store mapping between integer timestamps and corresponding DateTime values.
This allows you to find out datetime of the last modification to any object.
If you don't need this feature feel free to empty the table, it won't cause any problems.
In addition to Bold_ClockLog, the Bold_XFiles is another optional table that tends to grow large. But unlike the Bold_ClockLog the Bold_XFiles can not be emptied.
Both of these tables can be turned on/off in the model tag values.
Related
Currently I'm thinking about adding a json array column (I'm using postgres) and just pumping log messages for the object into this attribute. I want to log progress (The object is an import report that does a lot of stuff and takes a while so it's useful to have a sense of what's currently happening - how many rows have been imported, how many rows have been normalized, etc -
The other option is to add one of the gems that allow you to see logs streamed in a view, but this I think isn't as useful since what I'm looking for is something where I can see the history of this specific object.
Using a json column or json[] (PostgreSQL array of json) is a very bad idea for logging.
Each time you update it, the whole column contents must be read, modified in memory, and written out again in their entirety.
Instead, create a table used for logs for objects of this kind, with a FK to the table being logged and a timestamp for each entry. Insert a row for each log entry.
BTW, if the report runs in a single transaction, other clients won't be able to see any of the log rows until the whole view commits, in which case it won't be good for progress monitoring, but neither will your original idea. You'll need to use NOTICE messages instead.
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).
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.
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.
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.