I'm working on my app and I just ran into a dilemma regarding what's the best way to handle indexes for firestore.
I have a query that search for publication in a specify community that contains at least one of the tag and in a geohash range. The index for that query looks like this:
community Ascending tag Ascending location.geohash Ascending
Now if my user doesnt need to filter by tag, I run the query without the arrayContains(tag) which prompt me to create another index:
community Ascending location.geohash Ascending
My question is, is it better to create that second index or, to just use the first one and specifying all possible tags in arrayContains in the query if the user want no filters on tag ?
Neither is pertinently better, but it's a typical space vs time tradeoff.
Adding the extra tags in the query adds some overhead there, but it saves you the (storage) cost for the additional index. So you're trading some small amount of runtime performance for a small amount of space/cost savings.
One thing to check is whether the query with tags can actually run on just the second index, as Firestore may be able to do a zigzag merge join. In that case you could only keep the second, smaller index and save the runtime performance of adding additional clauses, but then get a (similarly small) performance difference on the query where you do specify one or more tags.
Related
I have MongoDB collection with ~100,000,000 records.
On the website, users search for these records with "Refinement search" functionality, where they can filter by multiple criteria:
by country, state, region;
by price range;
by industry;
Also, they can review search results sorted:
by title (asc/desc),
by price (asc/desc),
by bestMatch field.
I need to create indexes to avoid full scan for any of combination above (because users use most of the combinations). Following Equality-Sort-Range rule for creating indexes, I have to create a lot of indexes:
All filter combination × All sortings × All range filters, like the following:
country_title
state_title
region_title
title_price
industry_title
country_title_price
country_industry_title
state_industry_title
...
country_price
state_price
region_price
...
country_bestMatch
state_bestMatch
region_bestMatch
...
In reality, I have more criteria (including equality & range), and more sortings. For example, I have multiple price fields and users can sort by any of that prices, so I have to create all filtering indexes for each price field in case if the user will sort by that price.
We use MongoDB 4.0.9, only one server yet.
Until I had sorting, it was easier, at least I could have one compound index like country_state_region and always include country & state in the query when one searches for a region. But with sorting field at the end, I cannot do it anymore - I have to create all different indexes even for location (country/state/region) with all sorting combinations.
Also, not all products have a price, so I cannot just sort by price field. Instead, I have to create two indexes: {hasPrice: -1, price: 1}, and {hasPrice: -1, price: -1} (here, hasPrice is -1, to have records with hasPrice=true always first, no matter price sort direction).
Currently, I use the NodeJS code to generate indexes similar to the following (that's simplified example):
for (const filterFields of getAllCombinationsOf(['country', 'state', 'region', 'industry', 'price'])) {
for (const sortingField of ['name', 'price', 'bestMatch']) {
const index = {
...(_.fromPairs(filterFields.map(x => [x, 1]))),
[sortingField]: 1
};
await collection.ensureIndex(index);
}
}
So, the code above generates more than 90 indexes. And in my real task, this number is even more.
Is it possible somehow to decrease the number of indexes without reducing the query performance?
Thanks!
Firstly, in MongoDB (Refer: https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/limits/), a single collection can have no more than 64 indexes. Also, you should never create 64 indexes unless there will be no writes or very minimal.
Is it possible somehow to decrease the number of indexes without reducing the query performance?
Without sacrificing either of functionality and query performance, you can't.
Few things you can do: (assuming you are using pagination to show results)
Create a separate (not compound) index on each column and let MongoDB execution planner choose index based on meta-information (cardinality, number, etc) it has. Of course, there will be a performance hit.
Based on your judgment and some analytics create compound indexes only for combinations which will be used most frequently.
Most important - While creating compound indexes you can let off sort column. Say you are filtering based on industry and sorting based on price. If you have a compound index (industry, price) then everything will work fine. But if you have index only on the industry (assuming paginated results), then for first few pages query will be quite fast, but will keep degrading as you move on to next pages. Generally, users don't navigate after 5-6 pages. Also, you have to keep in mind for larger skip values, the query will start to fail because of the 32mb memory limit for sorting. This can be overcome with aggregation (instead of the query) with allowDiskUse enable.
Check for keyset pagination (also called seek method) if that can be used in your use-case.
I am running tests against my MongoDB and for some reason find has the same performance as count.
Stats:
orders collection size: ~20M,
orders with product_id 6: ~5K
product_id is indexed for improved performance.
Query: db.orders.find({product_id: 6}) vs db.orders.find({product_id: 6}).count()
result the orders for the product vs 5K after 0.08ms
Why count isn't dramatically faster? it can find the first and last elements position with the product_id index
As Mongo documentation for count states, calling count is same as calling find, but instead of returning the docs, it just counts them. In order to perform this count, it iterates over the cursor. It can't just read the index and determine the number of documents based on first and last value of some ID, especially since you can have index on some other field that's not ID (and Mongo IDs are not auto-incrementing). So basically find and count is the same operation, but instead of getting the documents, it just goes over them and sums their number and return it to you.
Also, if you want a faster result, you could use estimatedDocumentsCount (docs) which would go straight to collection's metadata. This results in loss of the ability to ask "What number of documents can I expect if I trigger this query?". If you need to find a count of docs for a query in a faster way, then you could use countDocuments (docs) which is a wrapper around an aggregate query. From my knowledge of Mongo, the provided query looks like a fastest way to count query results without calling count. I guess that this should be preferred way regarding performances for counting the docs from now on (since it's introduced in version 4.0.3).
I could not reach any conclusive answers reading some of the existing posts on this topic.
I have certain data at 100 locations the for past 10 years. The table has about 800 million rows. I need to primarily generate yearly statistics for each location. Some times I need to generate monthly variation statistics and hourly variation statistics as well. I'm wondering if I should generate two indexes - one for location and another for year or generate one index on both location and year. My primary key currently is a serial number (Probably I could use location and timestamp as the primary key).
Thanks.
Regardless of how many indices have you created on relation, only one of them will be used in a certain query (which one depends on query, statistics etc). So in your case you wouldn't get a cumulative advantage from creating two single column indices. To get most performance from index I would suggest to use composite index on (location, timestamp).
Note, that queries like ... WHERE timestamp BETWEEN smth AND smth will not use the index above while queries like ... WHERE location = 'smth' or ... WHERE location = 'smth' AND timestamp BETWEEN smth AND smth will. It's because the first attribute in index is crucial for searching and sorting.
Don't forget to perform
ANALYZE;
after index creation in order to collect statistics.
Update:
As #MondKin mentioned in comments certain queries can actually use several indexes on the same relation. For example, query with OR clauses like a = 123 OR b = 456 (assuming that there are indexes for both columns). In this case postgres would perform bitmap index scans for both indexes, build a union of resulting bitmaps and use it for bitmap heap scan. In certain conditions the same scheme may be used for AND queries but instead of union there would be an intersection.
There is no rule of thumb for situations like these, I suggest you experiment in a copy of your production DB to see what works best for you: a single multi-column index or 2 single-column indexes.
One nice feature of Postgres is you can have multiple indexes and use them in the same query. Check this chapter of the docs:
... PostgreSQL has the ability to combine multiple indexes ... to handle cases that cannot be implemented by single index scans ....
... Sometimes multicolumn indexes are best, but sometimes it's better to create separate indexes and rely on the index-combination feature ...
You can even experiment creating both the individual and combined indexes, and checking how big each one is and determine if it's worth having them at the same time.
Some things that you can also experiment with:
If your table is too large, consider partitioning it. It looks like you could partition either by location or by date. Partitioning splits your table's data in smaller tables, reducing the amount of places where a query needs to look.
If your data is laid out according to a date (like transaction date) check BRIN indexes.
If multiple queries will be processing your data in a similar fashion (like aggregating all transactions over the same period, check materialized views so you only need to do those costly aggregations once.
About the order in which to put your multi-column index, put first the column on which you will have an equality operation, and later the column in which you have a range, >= or <= operation.
An index on (location,timestamp) should work better that 2 separate indexes for you case. Note that the order of the columns is important.
How costly is it to index some fields in MongoDB,
I have a table where i want uniqueness combining two fields, Every where i search they suggested compound index with unique set to true. But what i was doing is " Appending both field1_field2 and making it a key, so that field2 will be always unique for field1.(and add Application logic) As i thought indexing is costly.
And also as MongoDB documentation advices us not to use Custom Object ID like auto incrementing number, I end up giving big numbers to Models like Classes, Students etc, (where i could have used easily used 1,2,3 in sql lite), I didn't think to add a new field for numbering and index that field for querying.
What are the best practices advice for production
The advantage of using compound indexes vs your own indexed field system is that compound indexes allows sorting quicker than regular indexed fields. It also lowers the size of every documents.
In your case, if you want to get the documents sorted with values in field1 ascending and in field2 descending, it is better to use a compound index. If you only want to get the documents that have some specific value contained in field1_field2, it does not really matter if you use compound indexes or a regular indexed field.
However, if you already have field1 and field2 in seperate fields in the documents, and you also have a field containing field1_field2, it could be better to use a compound index on field1 and field2, and simply delete the field containing field1_field2. This could lower the size of every document and ultimately reduce the size of your database.
Regarding the cost of the indexing, you almost have to index field1_field2 if you want to go down that route anyways. Queries based on unindexed fields in MongoDB are really slow. And it does not take much more time adding a document to a database when the document has an indexed field (we're talking 1 millisecond or so). Note that adding an index on many existing documents can take a few minutes. This is why you usually plan the indexing strategy before adding any documents.
TL;DR:
If you have limited disk space or need to sort the results, go with a compound index and delete field1_field2. Otherwise, use field1_field2, but it has to be indexed!
We have two types of high-volume queries. One looks for docs involving 5 attributes: a date (lte), a value stored in an array, a value stored in a second array, one integer (gte), and one float (gte).
The second includes these five attributes plus two more.
Should we create two compound indices, one for each query? Assume each attribute has a high cardinality.
If we do, because each query involves multiple arrays, it doesn't seem like we can create an index because of Mongo's restriction. How do people structure their Mongo databases in this case?
We're using MongoMapper.
Thanks!
Indexes for queries after the first ranges in the query the value of the additional index fields drops significantly.
Conceptually, I find it best to think of the addition fields in the index pruning ever smaller sub-trees from the query. The first range chops off a large branch, the second a smaller, the third smaller, etc. My general rule of thumb is only the first range from the query in the index is of value.
The caveat to that rule is that additional fields in the index can be useful to aid sorting returned results.
For the first query I would create a index on the two array values and then which ever of the ranges will exclude the most documents. The date field is unlikely to provide high exclusion unless you can close the range (lte and gte). The integer and float is hard to tell without knowing the domain.
If the second query's two additional attributes also use ranges in the query and do not have a significantly higher exclusion value then I would just work with the one index.
Rob.