I have a website backed by a relational database comprised of the usual e-commerce related tables (Order, OrderItem, ShoppingCart, CreditCard, Payment, Customer, Address, etc...).
The stored proc. which returns order history is painfully slow due to the amount of data + the numerous joins which must occur, and depending on the search parameters it sometimes times out (despite the indexing that is in place).
The DB schema is pretty well normalized and I believe I can achieve better performance by moving toward something like a data warehouse. DW projects aren't trivial and then there's the issue of keeping the data in sync so I was wondering if anyone knows of a shortcut. Perhaps an out-of the box solution that will create the DW schema and keep the data in sync (via triggers perhaps). I've heard of Lucene but it seems geared more toward text searches and document management. Does anyone have other suggestions?
How big is your database?
There's not really any shortcuts, but dimensional modelling is really NOT that hard. You first determine a grain and then need to identify your facts and the dimensions associated with the facts. Then you divide the dimensions into tables which allow you to have the dimensions only grow slowly over time. The choice of dimensions is completely practical and based on the data behavior.
I recommend you have a look at Kimball's books.
For a database of a few GB, it's certainly possible to update a reporting database from scratch several times a day (no history, just repopulating from a 3NF for a different model of the same data). There are certain realtime data warehousing techniques which just apply changes continuously throughout the day.
So while DW projects might not be trivial, the denormalization techniques are very approachable and usable without necessarily building a complete time-invariant data warehouse.
Materialized Views are what you might use in Oracle. They give you the "keeping the data in sync" feature you are looking for combined with fast access of aggregate data. Since you didn't mention any specifics (platform, server specs, number of rows, number of hits/second, etc) of your platform, I can't really help much more than that.
Of course, we are assuming you've already checked that all your SQL is written properly and optimally, that your indexing is correct, that you are properly using caching in all levels of your app, that your DB server has enough RAM, fast hard drives, etc.
Also, have you considered denormalizing your schema, just enough to serve up your most common queries faster? that's better than implementing an entire data warehouse, which might not even be what you want anyway. Usually a data warehouse is for reporting purposes, not for serving interactive apps.
Related
I've been tasked with coming up with a recommendation of how to proceed with a EDW and am looking for clarification on what I'm seeing. Everything that I am learning about states that Kimball's approach will bring value quicker to business vs Inmon's. I get that Kimball's approach is a dimensional model from the getgo and different data marts (star schema) are integrated through conformed dimensions... thus the theory is I can simply come up with my immediate DM to solve business need and go on from there.
What I'm learning states that Inmon's model suggests that I have a EDW designed in 3NF. The EDW is not defined by source system but instead the structure of the business, Corporate Factory (Orders, HR, etc.). So data from disparate systems map into this structure. Once the data is in this form, ETLs are then created to produce DMs.
Personally I feel Inmon's approach is a better way. I believe this way is going to ensure that data is going to be consistent and it feels like you can do more with this data. What holds me back with this approach though is everything I'm reading says it's going to take much more time to deliver something but I'm not seeing how that is true. From my narrow view, it feels like no matter what the end result is we need a DM. Regardless of using Kimball's or Inmon's approach the end result is the same.
So then the question becomes how do we get there? In Kimballs approach we will create ETLs to some staging location and generally from there create a DM. In Inmon's approach I feel we just add in another layer... that is from the staging area we load this data into another database in 3NF organized by function. What I'm missing is how this step adds so much time.
I feel I can look at the end DM that needs to be made. Map those back to a DW in 3NF and then as more DMs are requested keep building up the DW in 3NF with more and more data. However if I create a DM in Kimballs model that DM is going to be built around the level of grain decided for that DM and what if the next DM requested wants reporting at even a deeper grain (to me it feels like Kimballs methodology would take more work) and with Inmon's it doesn't matter. I have everything at the transnational level so DMs of varying grains are requested, well I have the data, just ETL it to a DM and all DMs will report the same since they are sourced from the same data.
I dunno... just looking for others views. Everything I read says Kimball's is quicker... I say sure maybe a little bit but there is certainly a cost attributed by going to quicker route. And for sake of argument... let's say it takes a week to get a DM up and running through Kimballs methodology... to me it feels like it should only take 10% maybe 20% longer utilizing Inmon's.
If anyone has any real world experience with the different models and if one really takes so much longer then the other... please share. Or if I have this so backwards tell me that too!
For context; I look after a 3 billion record data warehouse, for a large multi-national. Our data makes its way from the various source systems through staging and into a 3NF db. From here our ELT processes move the data into a dimensionally modelled, star schema db.
If I could start again I would definitely drop the 3NF step. When I first built that layer I thought it would add real value. I felt sure that normalisation would protect the integrity of my data. I was equally confident the 3NF db would be the best place to run large/complex queries.
But in practice, it has slowed our development. Most changes require an update to the stage, 3NF and star schema db.
The extra layer also increases the amount of time it takes to publish our data. The additional transformations, checks and reconciliations all add up.
The promised improvement in integrity never materialised. I realise now that because I control the ETL, and the validation processes within, I can ensure my data is both denormalised and accurate. In reporting data we control every cell in every table. The more I think about that, the more I see it as a real opportunity.
Large and complex queries was another myth that has been busted by experience. I now see the need to write complex reporting queries as a failing of my star db. When this occurs I always ask myself: why isn't this question easy to answer? The answer is most often bad table design. The heavy lifting is best carried out when transforming the data.
Running a 3NF and star also creates an opportunity for the two systems to disagree. When this happens it is often a very subtle difference. Neither is wrong, per se. Instead, it is possible the 3NF and star query are asking slightly different questions, and therefore returning different results. Although technically correct, this can be hard to explain. Even minor and explainable differences can erode confidence, over time.
In defence of our 3NF db, it does make loading into the star easier. But I would happily trade more complex SSIS packages for one less layer.
Having said all of this; it is very hard to recommend an approach to anyone without a deep understanding of their systems, requirements, culture, skills, etc. Having read your question I am sure you have wrestled with all these issues, and many more no doubt! In the end, only you can decide what the best approach for your situation is. Once you've made your mind up, stick with it. Consistency, clarity and a well-defined methodology are more important that anything else.
Dimensions and measures are a well proven method for presenting and simplifying data to end users.
If you present a schema based on the source system (3nf) to an end user, vs a dimensionally modelled star schema (Kimball) to an end user, they will be able to make much more sense of the dimensionally modelled one
I've never really looked into an Inmon decision support system but to me it seems to be just the ODS portion of a full datawarehouse.
You are right in saying "The EDW is not defined by source system but instead the structure of the business". A star schema reflects this but an ODS (a copy of the source system) doesn't
A star schema takes longer to build than just an ODS but gives many benefits including
Slowly changing dimensions can track changes over time
Denormalisation simplifies joins and improves performance
Surrogate keys allow you to disconnect from source systems
Conformed dimensions let you report across business units (i.e. Profit per headcount)
If your Inmon 3NF database is not just an ODS (replica of source systems), but some kind of actual business model then you have two layers to model: the 3NF layer and the star schema layer.
It's difficult nowadays to sell the benefit of even one layer of data modelling when everyone thinks they can just do it all in a 'self service' tool! (which I believe is a fallacy). Your system should be no more complicated than it needs to be because all that complexity adds up to maintenance and that's the real issue - introducing changes 12 months into the build when you have to change many layers
To paraphrase #destination-data: your source system to star schema transformation (and seperation) is already achieved through ETL so the 3nf seems redundant to me. You design your star schema to be independent from source systems by correctly implementing surrogate keys and business keys, and modelling it on the business, not on the source system
With ETL and back-end data wrangling taking up about 70% of the project time for this kind of endeavour, an extra layer makes a big difference. Its an extra layer of transforming from source to target, to agree with the business and to test. It all adds up.
Whilst I'm not saying that dimensional models (the Kimball kind) are always easy to change, you've got a whole lot more inflexibility should you have to always change lots of layers when you want to change your BI.
In fact, where I've been consulting in places that have data warehouses that are considered to be inflexible and expensive to develop for, and not keeping pace with changes to the business, they have without exception included the 3NF layer prior to the DMs. As Nick mentioned, it is hard nowadays to sell the idea of a 'proper' data warehouse as opposed to a Data Discovery Bi tool- and the appeal of these is often driven by DWs being seen to be slow and expensive to develop.
Kimball isn't against having a 3NF layer prior to his DW if it makes sense for a situation, he just doesn't agree with Inmon that there's a point.
One common misunderstanding is that Kimball proposes distinct data marts, so that you'd have to change it each time there is a different reporting request. Instead, Kimball's DMs are based on real life business processes and modelled accordingly. Although its true you will then try and make them suitable for reporting, you try and make them so they can answer forseaable queries. You don't aggregate and store just the aggregates: you work with the transactional data in a Kimball dimensional model.
So no need to be reluctant from that perspective.
If an ODS works for you, then go for it- but a Kimball DW will meet the majority of requirements.
I've been developing a very basic core data application for over a year now (Toy Collector, http://bit.ly/tocapp), and I'm looking at doing a redesign so that I can build in iCloud support. I figured while I'm doing that, I might as well update my core data model (if needed), and I'm having a heck of a time tracking down "best practices" for the following:
Currently, I have 2 entities:
Toy, Keywords
Toy has all the information about the object: Name, Year, Set, imageName, Owned, Wanted, Manufacturer, etc, (18 attributes in all)
Keywords has the normalized words to help speed up the search
My question is whether or not there is any advantage to breaking out some of the Toy attributes into their own entities. For example, I could have a manufacturer entity that stores the dozen or so manufacturers, instead of keeping that information in the Toy object. My gut tells me this could reduce the memory footprint (instead of 50,000 objects storing a manufacturer string, there would simple be 12 manufacturer strings in an entity with a relationship to the main Toy entity). Does that kind of organization really matter? Am I trying to overcomplicate things? I just feel like my entity has a lot of attributes, and I'm not sure if taking the time to break it apart into multiple entities would make a difference.
Any advice or pointers would be appreciated!
Zack
Your question is pretty broad, since it addresses the topic of database design. Let me say upfront that it is almost impossible to give you any sensible suggestions, since I would need to know a lot more about your app, use cases, etc. than it is possible through a S.O. question.
Coming to your concrete questions, I would say that you correctly identify one of advantages of splitting a table into multiple ones; actually, the advantage of doing that is not just reducing the database footprint, rather keep data redundancy to a minimum. Redundancy not only affects memory footprint but also manageability and modifiability of your data, and lack of redundancy could even cause anomalies or corruption. There is even a whole database theory topic which is known as database normalisation that addresses this king of concerns.
On the other hand, as it is always the case, redundancy can help performance, and this is actually the case when you can fetch your data through a simple query instead of multiple queries or table joins. There is a technique to improving a database performance which is known as database denormalization and is the exact opposite to normalisation. Your current scheme is fully denormalized.
Using Core Data, which is a relational object graph manager running often on top of SQLite, which is a relational database manager, you have also to take into account the fact that Core Data will automatically build your object graph and fetch into memory the data when you need it. This means that if you can take a smaller memory footprint on disk for granted, this might not be the case when it comes to RAM footprint of your query results (Core Data will "explode", so to say, at some moment your data from multiple tables into one object plus its attributes).
In your specific case, you should also possibly take into account the cost of migrating your existing user base (if the database is not read-only).
All in all, I would say that if your app does not have any database footprint issues at the moment; if you do not feel that creating new tables might be useful, e.g., in order to add new functionality, such as listing all manufacturers; and, finally, if you do not foresee tasks like renaming a manufacturer or such at some point, then maybe refactoring your database will not add much benefit. But, as I say, without knowing your app in detail and your roadmap for it, it is difficult to say anything really on spot. In any case, I hope this general considerations will help you take a decision.
EDIT:
If you want to investigate your core data performance and try to understand where the bottlenecks are, give a try to Instruments/Core Data tool (Product/Profile menu). There are a lot of things that can go bad.
On the other hand, it is really hard to help you further without having more details about the type of searches your app allows to do. One thing that is not clear to me is if your searches are slow only when they return a lot of results or they are slow even when returning a few results.
Normalizing might help performance if you only use (say, after doing a search) just one normalized entity (e.g., to display the toy name in a table). In this case all of the attributes referring to other entities would be faults (hence would not occupy memory nor take) and this might speed up things. But, if you do a search and then display the information from the other tables as well, then there might not be any advantage, quite the opposite, since the faults would have to be resolved immediately and this would produce more accesses to the database.
Also it is true that depending on how you use it, core data could not be the best way to handle your data. Have a look at this Brent Simmons' post relating his experience.
We have to create rather large Ruby on Rails application based on large database. This database is updated daily, each table has about 500 000 records (or more) and this number will grow over time. We will also have to provide proper versioning of all data along with referential integrity. It must be possible for user to move from version to version, which are kind of "snapshots" of main database at different points of time. In addition some portions of data need to be served to other external applications with and API.
Considering large amounts of data we thought of splitting database into pieces:
State of the data at present time
Versioned attributes of each table
Snapshots of the first database at specific, historical points in time
Each of those would have it's own application, creating a service with API to interact with the data. It's needed as we don't want to create multiple applications connecting to multiple databases directly.
The question is: is this the proper approach? If not, what would you suggest?
We've never had any experience with project of this magnitude and we're trying to find the best possible solution. We don't know if this kind of data separation has any sense. If so, how to provide proper communication of different applications with individual services and between services themselves, as this will be also required.
In general the amount of data in the tables should not be your first concern. In PostgreSQL you have a very large number of options to optimize queries against large tables. The larger question has to do with what exactly you are querying, when, and why. Your query loads are always larger concerns than the amount of data. It's one thing to have ten years of financial data amounting to 4M rows. It's something different to have to aggregate those ten years of data to determine what the balance of the checking account is.
In general it sounds to me like you are trying to create a system that will rely on such aggregates. In that case I recommend the following approach, which I call log-aggregate-snapshot. In this, you have essentially three complementary models which work together to provide up-to-date well-performing solution. However the restrictions on this are important to recognize and understand.
Event model. This is append-only, with no updates. In this model inserts occur, and updates to some metadata used for some queries only as absolutely needed. For a financial application this would be the tables representing the journal entries and lines.
The aggregate closing model. This is append-only (though deletes are allowed for purposes of re-opening periods). This provides roll-forward information for specific purposes. Once a closing entry is in, no entries can be made for a closed period. In a financial application, this would represent closing balances. New balances can be calculated by starting at an aggregation point and rolling forward. You can also use partial indexes to make it easier to pull just the data you need.
Auxiliary data model. This consists of smaller tables which do allow updates, inserts, and deletes provided that integrity to the other models is not impinged. In a financial application this might be things like customer or vendor data, employee data, and the like.
In a Rails app, I am wondering how to build a reporting solution. I heard that I should use a separated database for reporting purposes but knowing that I will need to store a huge amount of data, I have a lot of questions :
What kind of DBMS should I choose?
When should I store data in the reporting database?
Should the database schema of the production db and reporting db be identical?
I am storing basic data (information about users, about result of operations) and I will need for example to run a report to know how many user failed an operation during the previous month.
In now that it is a vague question, but any hint would be highly appreciated.
Thanks!
Work Backwards
Start from what the end-users want for reporting or how they want to/should visualize data. Once you have some concepts in mind, then start working backwards to how to achieve those goals. Starting with the assumption that it should be a replicated copy in an RBDMS excludes several reasonable possibilities.
Making a Real-time Interface
If users are looking to aggregate values (counts, averages, etc.) on the fly (per web request), it would be worthwhile looking into replicating the master down to a reporting database if the SQL performance is acceptable (and stays acceptable if you were to double the input data). SQL engines usually do a great job aggregation and scale pretty far. This would also give you the capability to join data results together and return complex results as the users request it.
Just remember, replication isn't easy or without it's own set of problems.
This'll start to show signs of weakness in the hundreds of millions of rows range with normalized data, in my experience. At some point, inserts fight with selects on the same table enough that both become exceptionally slow (remember, replication is still a stream of inserts). Alternatively, indexes become so large that storage I/O is required for rekeying, so overall table performance diminishes.
Batching
On the other hand, if reporting falls under the scheme of sending standardized reports out with little interaction, I wouldn't necessarily recommend backing to an RBDMS. In this case, results are combined, aggregated, joined, etc. once. Paying the overhead of RBDMS indexing and storage bloat isn't worth it.
Batch engines like Hadoop will scale horizontally (many smaller machines instead of a few huge machines) so processing larger volumes of data is economical.
Batch to RBDMS or K/V Store
This is also a useful path if a lot of computation is needed to make the records more meaningful to a reporting engine. Alternatively, records could be denormalized before storing them in the reporting storage engine. The denormalized or simple results would then be shipped to a key/value store or RBDMS to make reporting easier and achieve higher performance at the cost of latency, compute, and possibly storage.
Personal Advice
Don't over-design it to start with. The decisions you make on the initial implementation will probably all change at some point. However, design it with the current and near-term problems in mind. Also, benchmarks done by others are not terribly useful if your usage model isn't exactly the same as theirs; benchmark your usage model.
I would recommend to to use some pre-build reporting services than to manually write out if you need a large set of reports.
You might want to look at Tableau http://www.tableausoftware.com/ and other available.
Database .. Yes it should be a separate seems safer , plus reporting is generally for old and consolidated data.. you live data might be too large to perform analysis on.
Database type -- > have to choose based on the reporting services used , though I think mongo is not supported by any of the reporting services , mysql is preferred.
If there are only one or two reports you could just build them on rails
I am developing a web-based application using Rails. I am debating between using a Graph Database, such as InfoGrid, or a Document Database, such as MongoDB.
My application will need to store both small sets of data, such as a URL, and very large sets of data, such as Virtual Machines. This data will be tied to a single user.
I am interested in learning about peoples experiences with either Graph or Document databases and why they would use either of the options.
Thank you
I don't feel enough experienced with both worlds to properly and fully answer your question, however I'm using a document database for some time and here are some personal hints.
The document databases are based on a concept of key,value, and static views and are pretty cool for finding a set of documents that have a particular value.
They don't conceptualize the relations between documents.
So if your software have to provide advanced "queries" where selection criteria act on several 'types of document' or if you simply need to perform a selection using several elements, the [key,value] concept is not appropriate.
There are also a number of other cases where document databases are inappropriate : presenting large datasets in "paged" tables, sortable on several columns is one of the cases where the performances are low and disk space usage is huge.
So in many cases you'll have to perform "server side" processing in order to pick up the pieces, and with rails, or any other ruby based framework, you might run into performance issues.
The graph database are based on the concept of tripplestore, meaning that they also conceptualize the relations between the entities.
The graph can be traversed using the relations (and entity roles), and might be more convenient when performing searches across relation-structured data.
As I have no experience with graph database, I'm not aware if the graph database can be easily queried/traversed with several criterias, however if an advised reader has such an information I'd really appreciate any examples of such queries/traversals.
I'm currently reading about InfoGrid and trying to figure if such databases could by handy in order to perform complex requests on a very large set of data, relations included ....
From what I can read, the InfoGrah should be considered as a "data federator" able to search/mine the data from several sources (Stores) wich can also be a NoSQL database such as Mongo.
Wich means that you could use a mongo store for updates and InfoGraph for data searching, and maybe spare a lot of cpu and disk when it comes to complex searches inside a nosql database.
Of course it might seem a little "overkill" if your app simply stores a large set of huge binary files in a database and all you need is to perform simple key queries and to retrieve the result. In that cas a nosql database such as mongo or couch would probably be handy.
Hope some of this helps ;)
When connecting related documents by edges, will you get a shallow or a deep graph? I think the answer to that question is important when deciding between graphdbs and documentdbs. See Square Pegs and Round Holes in the NOSQL World by Jim Webber for thoughts along these lines.