I am querying a CosmosDB with a huge list of ids, and i get an exception saying i have exceeded the permissible limit of 256 characters.
What is the best way to handle such huge queries ?
The only way i can think of is to split the list and execute in batches.
Any other suggestions ?
If you're querying data this way then your model is likely not optimal. I would look to remodel your data such that you can query on another property shared by the items you are looking for (in partition as well too).
Note that this could also be achieved by using Change Feed to copy the data into another container with a different partition key and a new property that groups the data together. whether you do this will depend on how often you run this query and whether this is cheaper than running this query in multiple batches.
Related
I have to process a file which has records with same ID and different dates. If a specific ID has multiple records with the different dates, it has to sum all of it. Currently, my solution is writing by one chunk and and letting SQL query to do the summation part because I don't have a way to know if multiple entries of same ID are in the same chunk. Is there a huge performance effect of doing it this way especially that I am working on 100k worth of data?
Is there a huge performance effect of doing it this way especially that I am working on 100k worth of data?
Yes, this could impact the performance of your step since each item will be processed in its own transaction. With 100k you would have 100k transactions, whereas if chunk-size=1000 for example, you would have only 100 transactions.
The chunk-oriented processing model is not really suitable to what you are trying to do, as items with the same ID could span different chunks. A common technique for this kind of requirement is to load your data in a temporary table (which could be a very fast step if done against sqlite for example) and then run your aggregation SQL query against that table.
I have a query for a collection. I am filtering by one field. I thought, I can speed up query, if based on this field I make many separate collections, which collection's name would contain that field name, in previous approach I filtered with. Practically I could remove filter component in a query, because I need only pick the right collection and return documents in it as response. But in this way ducoments will be stored redundantly, a document earlier was stored only once, now document might be stored in more collections. Is this approach worth to follow? I use Heroku as cloud provider. By increasing of the number of dynos, it is easy to serve more user request. As I know read operations in MongoDB are highly mutual, parallel executed. Locking occure on document level. Is it possible gain any advantage by increasing redundancy? Of course index exists for that field.
If it's still within the same server, I believe there may be little parallelization gain (from the database side) in doing it this way, because for a single server, it matters little how your document is logically structured.
All the server cares about is how many collection and indexes you have, since it stores those collections and associated indexes in a number of files. It will need to load these files as the collection is accessed.
What could potentially be an issue is if you have a massive number of collections as a result, where you could hit the open file limit. Note that the open file limit is also shared with connections, so with a lot of collections, you're indirectly reducing the number of possible connections.
For illustration, let's say you have a big collection with e.g. 5 indexes on them. The WiredTiger storage engine stores the collection as:
1 file containing the collection data
1 file containing the _id index
5 files containing the 5 secondary indexes
Total = 7 files.
Now you split this one collection across e.g. 100 collections. Assuming the collections also requires 5 secondary indexes, in total they will need 700 files in WiredTiger (vs. of the original 7). This may or may not be desirable from your ops point of view.
If you require more parallelization if you're hitting some ops limit, then sharding is the recommended method. Sharding the busy collection across many different shards (servers) will immediately give you better parallelization vs. a single server/replica set, given a properly chosen shard key designed to maximize parallelization.
Having said that, sharding also requires more infrastructure and may complicate your backup/restore process. It will also require considerable planning and testing to ensure your design is optimal for your use case, and will scale well into the future.
I have an application (built in Meteor) that provides some ad hoc reporting capabilities to the end user. I have built up that functionality by using the aggregation pipeline to produce the results for a given query. This makes it extremely fast and I was using $out to push the results right into a results table.
The results table included a queryID, which the client used to figure out which were the correct results.
Unfortunately, as you may know (and I discovered), that doesn't work so well once you have more than one user running reports at a time because $out deletes the whole results table before pushing the new query in.
I see three possible workarounds:
Run the aggregation, but manually push the results into the results collection
$out the results into a temporary collection (dynamically named to avoid conflicts) and then manually copy the results from there into results collection, immediately dropping the temporary one. This made some sense when I thought I could use copyTo(), but that doesn't appear possible within Meteor, so I think this option doesn't make much sense relative to #1 in this case.
$out the results into a temporary collection (dynamically named to avoid conflicts) and have the client pull its results directly from there. I would then periodically drop the extra collections after say 24 hours (like I do with specific query results in the main collection today).
#3 would be the fastest by far - the time it takes to manually copy rows dwarfs the time it takes the queries to run. But I'm concerned about the impact of creating and dropping so many collections.
We're not talking millions of users here, but if an average of 500 users a day were each running 10-20 reports, there could be an additional 5-10k collections in the database at any one time. That seems like a lot. Perhaps I could be smarter about cleaning them up somehow, though I can't just immediately remove them because a user might want to have multiple tabs open with different reports. Even still, we're potentially talking about hundreds to thousands of collections.
Is that going to be a problem?
Are there other approaches I should consider instead?
Other recommendations?
Thanks!
Dropping a collection in mongoDB is very efficient operation, anyway much more efficient than deleting some documents in a larger collection.
Maximum number of collections is quite high, only limited by namespace namespace in MMAPv1 while no hard limit exists in wiretiger engine.
So I would favor your solution #3.
Some improvements/alternatives you can think:
Consider creating the collections in a separated database (say per day) then you can drop the entire database in a single operation without having to drop individual collections.
Use an endpoint for the result set, cash the results then drop the $out collection. Let cache handle user requirements and only rerun the aggregation if cache has expired or something.
This kind of activity is done very easily in relational databases such as mysql or pgsql. You might consider synchronising your data to a separate relational database for the purposes of reporting.
There is a package https://github.com/perak/mysql-shadow which claims to provide synchronisation. I played with it and it didn't work perfectly, although doing just one way sync is more likely to succeed.
The other option is to use Graphql over a mongo/mysql hybrid database which can be done with the Apollo stack http://www.apollodata.com/
I am trying to run a simple query to find number of all records with a particular value using:
db.ColName.find({id_c:1201}).count()
I have 200GB of data. When I run this query, mongodb takes up all the RAM and my system starts lagging. After an hour of futile waiting, I give up without getting any results.
What can be the issue here and how can I solve it?
I believe the right approach in the NoSQL world isn't trying to perform a full query like that, but accumulate stats overtime.
For example, you should have a collection stats with arbitrary objects which should own a kind or id property that can take a value like "totalUserCount". Whenever you add an user, you also update this count.
This way you'll get instant results. It's just getting a property value in a small collection of stats.
BTW, this slowness should be originated by querying objects by a non-indexed property in your collection. Try to index id_c and probably you'll get quicker results.
That amount of data can easily be managed by MySQL, MSSQL or Oracle with the given hardware specification. You don't need a NoSQL database for that, NoSQL databases are made for much larger storing needs which actually require lots of hardware (RAM, harddisks) to be efficient.
You need to define an index to read that id and use a normal SQL database.
We are using morphia 0.99 and java driver 2.7.3 I would like to learn is there any difference between fetching records one by one using fetch and retrieving results by asList (assume that there is enough memory to retrieve records through asList).
We iterate over a large collection, while using fetch I sometimes encounter cursor not found exception on the server during the fetch operation, so I need to execute another command to continue, what could be the reason for this?
1-)fetch the record
2-)do some calculation on it
3-)+save it back to database again
4-)fetch another record and repeat the steps until there isn't any more records.
So which one would be faster? Fetching records one by one or retrieving bulks of results using asList, or isn't there any difference between them using morphia implementation?
Thanks for the answers
As far as I understand the implementation, fetch() streams results from the DB while asList() will load all query results into memory. So they will both get every object that matches the query, but asList() will load them all into memory while fetch() leaves it up to you.
For your use case, it neither would be faster in terms of CPU, but fetch() should use less memory and not blow up in case you have a lot of DB records.
Judging from the source-code, asList() uses fetch() and aggregates the results for you, so I can't see much difference between the two.
One very useful difference would be if the following two conditions applied to your scenario:
You were using offset and limit in the query.
You were changing values on the object such that it would no longer be returned in the query.
So say you were doing a query on awesome=true, and you were using offset and limit to do multiple queries, returning 100 records at a time to make sure you didn't use up too much memory. If, in your iteration loop, you set awesome=false on an object and saved it, it would cause you to miss updating some records.
In a case like this, fetch() would be a better approach.