I have data that correspond to 400 millions of rows in a table and it will certainly keep increasing, I would like to know what can I do to have such a table in PostgreSQL in a way that it would still be posible to make complex queries using it. In other words what should I do to have all the data in the most performative way?
Try to find a way to split your data into partitons (e.g. by day/month/week/year).
In Postgres, it is implemented using inheritance.
This way, if your queries are able to just use certain partitions, you'll have to handle less data at a time (e.g. read less data from disk).
You'll have to design your tables/indexes/partitions together with your queries - their struture will depend on how you want to use them.
Also, you could have overnight jobs preparing materialised views based on historical data. This way you don't have to delete you old data and you can deal with an aggregated view and most recent data only.
Related
I am trying to create dimensional model on a flat OLTP tables (not in 3NF).
There are people who are thinking dimensional model table is not required because most of the data for the report present single table. But that table contains more than what we need like 300 columns. Should I still separate flat table into dimensions and facts or just use the flat tables directly in the reports.
You've asked a generic question about database modelling for data warehouses, which is going to get you generic answers that may not apply to the database platform you're working with - if you want answers that you're going to be able to use then I'd suggest being more specific.
The question tags indicate you're using Amazon Redshift, and the answer for that database is different from traditional relational databases like SQL Server and Oracle.
Firstly you need to understand how Redshift differs from regular relational databases:
1) It is a Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) system, which consists of one or more nodes that the data is distributed across and each node typically does a portion of the work required to answer each query. There for the way data is distributed across the nodes becomes important, the aim is usually to have the data distributed in a fairly even manner so that each node does about equal amounts of work for each query.
2) Data is stored in a columnar format. This is completely different from the row-based format of SQL Server or Oracle. In a columnar database data is stored in a way that makes large aggregation type queries much more efficient. This type of storage partially negates the reason for dimension tables, because storing repeating data (attibutes) in rows is relatively efficient.
Redshift tables are typically distributed across the nodes using the values of one column (the distribution key). Alternatively they can be randomly but evenly distributed or Redshift can make a full copy of the data on each node (typically only done with very small tables).
So when deciding whether to create dimensions you need to think about whether this is actually going to bring much benefit. If there are columns in the data that regularly get updated then it will be better to put those in another, smaller table rather than update one large table. However if the data is largely append-only (unchanging) then there's no benefit in creating dimensions. Queries grouping and aggregating the data will be efficient over a single table.
JOINs can become very expensive on Redshift unless both tables are distributed on the same value (e.g. a user id) - if they aren't Redshift will have to physically copy data around the nodes to be able to run the query. So if you have to have dimensions, then you'll want to distribute the largest dimension table on the same key as the fact table (remembering that each table can only be distributed on one column), then any other dimensions may need to be distributed as ALL (copied to every node).
My advice would be to stick with a single table unless you have a pressing need to create dimensions (e.g. if there are columns being frequently updated).
When creating tables purely for reporting purposes (as is typical in a Data Warehouse), it is customary to create wide, flat tables with non-normalized data because:
It is easier to query
It avoids JOINs that can be confusing and error-prone for causal users
Queries run faster (especially for Data Warehouse systems that use columnar data storage)
This data format is great for reporting, but is not suitable for normal data storage for applications — a database being used for OLTP should use normalized tables.
Do not be worried about having a large number of columns — this is quite normal for a Data Warehouse. However, 300 columns does sound rather large and suggests that they aren't necessarily being used wisely. So, you might want to check whether they are required.
A great example of many columns is to have flags that make it easy to write WHERE clauses, such as WHERE customer_is_active rather than having to join to another table and figuring out whether they have used the service in the past 30 days. These columns would need to be recalculated daily, but are very convenient for querying data.
Bottom line: You should put ease of use above performance when using Data Warehousing. Then, figure out how to optimize access by using a Data Warehousing system such as Amazon Redshift that is designed to handle this type of data very efficiently.
I am using postgresql db.
my application manages many objects of the same type.
for each object my application performs intense db writing - each object has a line inserted to db at least once every 30 seconds. I also need to retrieve the data by object id.
my question is how it's best to design the database? use one huge table for all the objects (slower inserts) or use table for each object (more complicated retrievals)?
Tables are meant to hold a huge number of objects of the same type. So, your second option, that is one table per object, doesn't seem to look right. But of course, more information is needed.
My tip: start with one table. If you run into problems - mainly performance - try to split it up. It's not that hard.
Logically, you should use one table.
However, so called "write amplification" problem exhibited by PostgreSQL seems to have been one of the main reasons why Uber switeched from PostgreSQL to MySQL. Quote:
"For tables with a large number of secondary indexes, these
superfluous steps can cause enormous inefficiencies. For instance, if
we have a table with a dozen indexes defined on it, an update to a
field that is only covered by a single index must be propagated into
all 12 indexes to reflect the ctid for the new row."
Whether this is a problem for your workload, only measurement can tell - I'd recommend starting with one table, measuring performance, and then switching to multi-table (or partitioning, or perhaps switching the DBMS altogether) only if the measurements justify it.
A single table is probably the best solution if you are certain that all objects will continue to have the same attributes.
INSERT does not get significantly slower as the table grows – it is the number of indexes that slows down data modification.
I'd rather be worried about data growth. Do you have a design for getting rid of old data? Big DELETEs can be painful; sometimes partitioning helps.
I have a analytic table that contains 10 million records and for producing charts i have to fetch records from analytic table. several other tables are also joined to this table and data is fetched currently But it takes around 10 minutes even though i have indexed the joined column and i have used Materialized views in Postgres.But still performance is very low it takes 5 mins for executing the select query from Materialized view.
Please suggest me some technique to get the result within 5sec. I dont want to change the DB storage structure as so much of code changes has to be done to support it. I would like to know if there is some in built methods for query speed improvement.
Thanks in Advance
In general you can take care of this issue by creating a better data structure(Most engines do this to an extent for you with keys).
But if you were to create a sorting column of sorts. and create a tree like structure then you'd be left to a search rate of (N(log[N]) rather then what you may be facing right now. This will ensure you always have a huge speed up in your searches.
This is in regards to binary tree's, Red-Black trees and so on.
Another implementation for a speedup may be to make use of something allong the lines of REDIS, ie - a nice database caching layer.
For analytical reasons in the past I have also chosen to make use of technologies related to hadoop. Though this may be a larger migration in your case at this point.
Hi i am building database, with couple tables (products, orders, costumers) and i am interested if it is possible to do such a trick, generate table every-day based on orders table with name of current day, because orders table will have about 1000 or more rows every-day and it will hurt application speed.
1000 rows is nothing. What database are you using? Most modern databases can handle millions of rows with no issue, as long as you put some effort into proper indexing of the table.
From your comment, I'm assuming you don't know about database table indexing.
A database index is a data structure that improves the speed of data
retrieval operations on a database table at the cost of slower writes
and increased storage space. Indices can be created using one or more
columns of a database table, providing the basis for both rapid random
lookups and efficient access of ordered records.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_index
You need to add indexes to your database tables to ensure they can be searched optimally.
What you are suggesting is a bad idea IMO, and it's going to make working with the application a pain. Instead, if you really fill this table with vast amounts of data you could consider periodically archiving old data, but don't do this until you really need to.
I have a solution that can be parallelized, but I don't (yet) have experience with hadoop/nosql, and I'm not sure which solution is best for my needs. In theory, if I had unlimited CPUs, my results should return back instantaneously. So, any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Here's what I have:
1000s of datasets
dataset keys:
all datasets have the same keys
1 million keys (this may later be 10 or 20 million)
dataset columns:
each dataset has the same columns
10 to 20 columns
most columns are numerical values for which we need to aggregate on (avg, stddev, and use R to calculate statistics)
a few columns are "type_id" columns, since in a particular query we may
want to only include certain type_ids
web application
user can choose which datasets they are interested in (anywhere from 15 to 1000)
application needs to present: key, and aggregated results (avg, stddev) of each column
updates of data:
an entire dataset can be added, dropped, or replaced/updated
would be cool to be able to add columns. But, if required, can just replace the entire dataset.
never add rows/keys to a dataset - so don't need a system with lots of fast writes
infrastructure:
currently two machines with 24 cores each
eventually, want ability to also run this on amazon
I can't precompute my aggregated values, but since each key is independent, this should be easily scalable. Currently, I have this data in a postgres database, where each dataset is in its own partition.
partitions are nice, since can easily add/drop/replace partitions
database is nice for filtering based on type_id
databases aren't easy for writing parallel queries
databases are good for structured data, and my data is not structured
As a proof of concept I tried out hadoop:
created a tab separated file per dataset for a particular type_id
uploaded to hdfs
map: retrieved a value/column for each key
reduce: computed average and standard deviation
From my crude proof-of-concept, I can see this will scale nicely, but I can see hadoop/hdfs has latency I've read that that it's generally not used for real time querying (even though I'm ok with returning results back to users in 5 seconds).
Any suggestion on how I should approach this? I was thinking of trying HBase next to get a feel for that. Should I instead look at Hive? Cassandra? Voldemort?
thanks!
Hive or Pig don't seem like they would help you. Essentially each of them compiles down to one or more map/reduce jobs, so the response cannot be within 5 seconds
HBase may work, although your infrastructure is a bit small for optimal performance. I don't understand why you can't pre-compute summary statistics for each column. You should look up computing running averages so that you don't have to do heavy weight reduces.
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
stddev(X) = sqrt(E[X^2]- (E[X])^2)
this implies that you can get the stddev of AB by doing
sqrt(E[AB^2]-(E[AB])^2). E[AB^2] is (sum(A^2) + sum(B^2))/(|A|+|B|)
Since your data seems to be pretty much homogeneous, I would definitely take a look at Google BigQuery - You can ingest and analyze the data without a MapReduce step (on your part), and the RESTful API will help you create a web application based on your queries. In fact, depending on how you want to design your application, you could create a fairly 'real time' application.
It is serious problem without immidiate good solution in the open source space. In commercial space MPP databases like greenplum/netezza should do.
Ideally you would need google's Dremel (engine behind BigQuery). We are developing open source clone, but it will take some time...
Regardless of the engine used I think solution should include holding the whole dataset in memory - it should give an idea what size of cluster you need.
If I understand you correctly and you only need to aggregate on single columns at a time
You can store your data differently for better results
in HBase that would look something like
table per data column in today's setup and another single table for the filtering fields (type_ids)
row for each key in today's setup - you may want to think how to incorporate your filter fields into the key for efficient filtering - otherwise you'd have to do a two phase read (
column for each table in today's setup (i.e. few thousands of columns)
HBase doesn't mind if you add new columns and is sparse in the sense that it doesn't store data for columns that don't exist.
When you read a row you'd get all the relevant value which you can do avg. etc. quite easily
You might want to use a plain old database for this. It doesn't sound like you have a transactional system. As a result you can probably use just one or two large tables. SQL has problems when you need to join over large data. But since your data set doesn't sound like you need to join, you should be fine. You can have the indexes setup to find the data set and the either do in SQL or in app math.