I'm using SQL Server 2008 R2 on my development machine (not a server box).
I have a table with 12.5 million records. It has 126 columns, half of which are int. Most columns in most rows are NULL. I've also tested with an EAV design which seems 3-4 times faster to return the same records (but that means pivoting data to make it presentable in a table).
I have a website that paginates the data. When the user tries to go to the last page of records (last 25 records), the resulting query is something like this:
select * from (
select
A.Id, part_id as PartObjectId,
Year_formatted 'year', Make_formatted 'Make',
Model_formatted 'Model',
row_number() over ( order by A.id ) as RowNum
FROM vehicles A
) as innerQuery where innerQuery.RowNum between 775176 and 775200
... but this takes nearly 3 minutes to run. That seems excessive? Is there a better way to structure this query? In the browser front-end I'm using jqGrid to display the data. The user can navigate to the next, previous, first, or last page. They can also filter and order data (example: show all records whose Make is "Bugatti").
vehicles.Id is int and is the primary key (clustered ASC). part_id is int, Make and Model are varchar(100) and typically only contain 20 - 30 characters.
Table vehicles is updated ~100 times per day in individual transactions, and 20 - 30 users use the webpage to view, search, and edit/add vehicles 8 hours/day. It gets read from and updated a lot.
Would it be wise to shard the vehicles table into multiple tables only containing say 3 million records each? Would that have much impact on performance?
I see lots of videos and websites talking about people having tables with 100+ million rows that are read from and updated often without issue.
Note that the performance issues I observe are on my own development computer. The database has a dedicated 16GB of RAM. I'm not using SSD or even SCSI for that matter. So I know hardware would help, but 3 minutes to retrieve the last 25 records seems a bit excessive no?
Though I'm running these tests on SQL Server 2008 R2, I could also use 2012 if there is much to be gained from doing so.
Yes there is a better way, even on older releases of MsSQL But it is involved. First, this process should be done in a stored procedure. The stored procedure should take as 2 of it's input parameters, the page requested (#page)and the page size (number of records per page - #pgSiz).
In the stored procedure,
Create a temporary table variable and put into it a sorted list of the integer Primary Keys for all the records, with a rowNumber column that is itself an indexed, integer, Primary Key for the temp table
Declare #PKs table
(rowNo integer primary key Identity not null,
vehicleId integer not null)
Insert #PKS (vehicleId)
Select vehicleId from Vehicles
Order By --[Here put sort criteria as you want pages sorted]
--[Try to only include columns that are in an index]
then, based on which page (and the page size), (#page, #pgSiz) the user requested, the stored proc selects the actual data for that page by joining to this temp table variable:
Select [The data columns you want]
From #PKS p join Vehicles v
on v.VehicleId = p.VehicleId
Where rowNo between #page*#pgSiz+1 and (#page+1)*#pgSiz
order by rowNo -- if you want to sort page of records on server
assuming #page is 0-based. Also, the Stored proc will need some input argument validation to ensure that the #page, #pgSize values are reasonable (do not take the code pas the end of the records.)
Related
I have a requirement to transfer data from 2 tables (Table A and Table B) into a new table.
I am using a query to join both A and B tables using an ID column.
Table A and B are archive tables without any indexes. (Millions of records)
Table X and Y are a replica of A and B with good indexes. (Some thousands of records)
Below is the code for my project.
with data as
(
SELECT a.*, b.* FROM A_archive a
join B_archive b where a.transaction_id = b.transaction_id
UNION
SELECT x.*, y.* FROM X x
join Y y where x.transaction_id = y.transaction_id
)
INSERT INTO
Another_Table
(
columns
)
select * from data
On Conflict(transaction_id)
do udpate ...
The above whole thing is running in production environment and has nearly 140 million records.
Due to this production database is taking almost 10 hours to process the data and failing.
I am also having a distributed job scheduler in AWS to schedule this query inside a function and retrieve the latest records every 5 hours. The archive tables store closed invoice data. Pega UI will be using this table for retrieving data about closed invoices and showing to the customer.
Please suggest something that is a bit more performant.
UNION removes duplicate rows. On big unindexed tables that is an expensive operation. Try UNION ALL if you don't need deduplication. It will save the s**tton of data shuffling and comparisons required for deduplication.
Without indexes on your archival tables your JOIN operation will be grossly inefficient. Index, at a minimum, the transaction_id columns you use in your ON clause.
You don't say what you want to do with the resulting table. In many cases you'll be able to use a VIEW rather than a table for your purposes. A VIEW removes the work of creating the derived table. Actually it defers the work to the time of SELECT operations using the derived structure. If your SELECT operations have highly selective WHERE clauses the savings can be astonishing. For this to work well you may need to put appropriate indexes on your archival tables.
You use SELECT * when you could enumerate the columns you need. That certainly puts one redundant column into your result: it generates two copies of transaction_id. It also may generate other redundant or unused data. Always avoid SELECT * in production software unless you know you need it.
Keep this in mind: SQL is declarative, not procedural. You declare (describe) the result you require, and you let the server work out the best way to get it. VIEWs let the server do this work for you in cases like your table combination. It will use the indexes you provide as best it can.
That UNION must be costly, it pretty much builds a temp-table in the background containing all the A-B + X-Y records, sorts it (over all fields) and then removes any doubles. If you say 100 million records are involved then that's a LOT of sorting going on that most likely will involve swapping out to disk.
Keep in mind that you only need to do this if there are expected duplicates
in the result from the JOIN between A and B
in the result from the JOIN between X and Y
in the combined result from the two above
IF neither of those are expected, just use UNION ALL
In fact, in that case, why not have 1 INSERT operation for A-B and another one for X-Y? Going by the description I'd say that whatever is in X-Y should overrule whatever is in A-B anyway, right?
Also, as mentioned by O.Jones, archive tables or not, they should come at least with a (preferably clustered) index on the transaction_id fields you're JOINing on. (same for the Another_Table btw)
All that said, processing 100M records in 1 transaction IS going to take some time, it's just a lot of data that's being moved around. But 10h does sound excessive indeed.
I have data source (postgres transactional system) like this (simplified, the actual tables has more fields than this) :
Then I need to create an ETL pipeline, where the required report is something like this :
order number (from sales_order_header)
item name (from sales_order_lines)
batch shift start & end (from receiving_batches)
delivered quantity, approved received quantity, rejected received quantity (from receiving_inventories)
My design for fact-dim tables is this (simplified).
What I don't know about, is the optimal ETL design.
Let's focus on how to insert the fact, and relationship between fact with dim_sales_orders
If I have staging tables like these:
The ETL runs daily. After 22:00, there will be no more receiving, so I can run the ETL at 23:00.
Then I can just fetch data from sales_order_header and sales_order_lines, so at 23:00, the script can runs, kind of :
INSERT
INTO
staging_sales_orders (
SELECT
order_number,
item_name
FROM
sales_order_header soh,
sales_order_lines sol
WHERE
soh.sales_order_id = sol.sales_order_header_id
and date_trunc('day', sol.created_timestamp) = date_trunc('day', now())
);
And for the fact table, can runs at 23:30, with query
SELECT
soh.order_number,
rb.batch_shift_start,
rb.batch_shift_end,
sol.item_name,
ri.delivered_quantity,
ri.approved_received_quantity,
ri.rejected_received_quantity
FROM
receiving_batches rb,
receiving_inventories ri,
sales_order_lines sol,
sales_order_header soh
WHERE
rb.batch_id = ri.batch_id
AND ri.sales_order_line_id = sol.sales_order_line_id
AND sol.sales_order_header_id = soh.sales_order_id
AND date_trunc('day', sol.created_timestamp) = date_trunc('day', now())
But how to optimally load the data into fact table, particulary the fact table?
My approach
select from staging_sales_orders and insert them into dim_sales_orders, using auto increment primary key.
before inserting into fact_receiving_inventories, I need to know the dim_sales_order_id. So in that case, I select :
SELECT
dim_sales_order_id
FROM
dim_sales_orders dso
WHERE
order_number = staging_row.order_number
AND item_name = staging_row.item_name
then insert to fact table.
Now what I doubt, is on point 2 (selecting from existing dim). In here, I select based on 2 varchar columns, which should be performance hit. Since in the normalized form, I'm thinking of modifying the staging tables, adding sales_order_line_id on both staging tables. Hence, during point 2 above, I can just do
SELECT
dim_sales_order_id
FROM
dim_sales_orders dso
WHERE
sales_order_line_id = staging_row.sales_order_line_id
But as consequences, I will need to add sales_order_line_id into dim_sales_orders, which I don't find common on tutorials. I mean, adding transactional table PK, is technically can be done since I can access the data source. But is it a good DW fact-dim dimension, to add such transactional field (especially since it is PK)?
Or there is any other approach, rather than selecting the existing dim based on 2 varchars?
How to optimally select dimension id for fact tables?
Thanks
It is practically mandatory to include the source PK/BK in a dimension.
The standard process is to load your Dims and then load your facts. For the fact loads you translate the source data to the appropriate Dim SKs with lookups to the Dims using the PK/BK
I wanted to load the table which is having a table size of more than 1 TB size from S3 to Redshift.
I cannot use DISTSTYLE as ALL because it is a big table.
I cannot use DISTSTYLE as EVEN because I want to use this table in joins which are making performance issue.
Columns on my table are
id INTEGER, name VARCHAR(10), another_id INTEGER, workday INTEGER, workhour INTEGER, worktime_number INTEGER
Our redshift cluster has 20 nodes.
So, I tried distribution key on a workday but the table is badly skewed.
There are 7 unique work days and 24 unique work hours.
How to avoid the skew in such cases?
How we avoid skewing of the table in case of an uneven number of row counts for the unique key (let's say hour1 have 1million rows, hour2 have 1.5million rows, hour3 have 2million rows, and so on)?
Distribute your table using DISTSTYLE EVEN and use either SORTKEY or COMPOUND SORTKEY. Sort Key will help your query performance. Try this first.
DISTSTYLE/DISTKEY determines how your data is distributed. From the columns used in your queries, it is advised choose a column that causes the least amount of skew as the DISTKEY. A column which has many distinct values, such as timestamp, would be a good first choice. Avoid columns with few distinct values, such as credit card types, or days of week.
You might need to recreate your table with different DISTKEY / SORTKEY combinations and try out which one will work best based on your typical queries.
For more info https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_best-practices-sort-key.html
Here is the architecture that I recommend
1) load to a staging table with dist even and sort by something that is sorted on your loaded s3 data - this means you will not have to vacuum the staging table
2) set up a production table with the sort / dist you need for your queries. after each copy from s3, load that new data into the production table and vacuum.
3) you may wish to have 2 mirror production tables and flip flop between them using a late binding view.
its a bit complex to do this you need may need some professional help. There may be specifics to your use case.
As of writing this(Just after Re-invent 2018), Redshift has Automatic Distribution available, which is a good starter.
The following utilities will come in handy:
https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-redshift-utils/tree/master/src/AdminScripts
As indicated in Answers POSTED earlier try a few combinations by replicating the same table with different DIST keys ,if you don't like what Automatic DIST is doing. After the tables are created run the admin utility from the git repos (preferably create a view on the SQL script in the Redshift DB).
Also, if you have good clarity on query usage pattern then you can use the following queries to check how well the sort key are performing using the below SQLs.
/**Queries on tables that are not utilizing SORT KEYs**/
SELECT t.database, t.table_id,t.schema, t.schema || '.' || t.table AS "table", t.size, nvl(s.num_qs,0) num_qs
FROM svv_table_info t
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT tbl, COUNT(distinct query) num_qs
FROM stl_scan s
WHERE s.userid > 1
AND s.perm_table_name NOT IN ('Internal Worktable','S3')
GROUP BY tbl) s ON s.tbl = t.table_id
WHERE t.sortkey1 IS NULL
ORDER BY 5 desc;
/**INTERLEAVED SORT KEY**/
--check skew
select tbl as tbl_id, stv_tbl_perm.name as table_name,
col, interleaved_skew, last_reindex
from svv_interleaved_columns, stv_tbl_perm
where svv_interleaved_columns.tbl = stv_tbl_perm.id
and interleaved_skew is not null;
of course , there is always room for improvement in the SQLs above, depending on specific stats that you may want to look at or drill down to.
Hope this helps.
I am solving an performance issue on PostgreSQL 9.6 dbo based system. Intro:
12yo system, similar to banking system, with most queried primary table called transactions.
CREATE TABLE jrn.transactions (
ID BIGSERIAL,
type_id VARCHAR(200),
account_id INT NOT NULL,
date_issued DATE,
date_accounted DATE,
amount NUMERIC,
..
)
In the table transactions we store all transactions within a bank account. Field type_id determines the type of a transaction. Servers also as C# EntityFramework Discriminator column. Values are like:
card_payment, cash_withdrawl, cash_in, ...
14 types of transaction are known.
In generally, there are 4 types of queries (no. 3 and .4 are by far most frequent):
select single transaction like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions WHERE id = 3748734
select single transaction with JOIN to other transaction like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions AS m INNER JOIN jrn.transactions AS r ON m.refund_id = r.id WHERE m.id = 3748734
select 0-100, 100-200, .. transactions of given type like: SELECT * FROM jrn.transactions WHERE account_id = 43784 AND type_id = 'card_payment' LIMIT 100
several aggregate queries, like: SELECT SUM(amount), MIN(date_issued), MAX(date_issued) FROM jrn.transactions WHERE account_id = 3748734 AND date_issued >= '2017-01-01'
In last few month we had unexpected row count growth, now 120M.
We are thinking of table partitioning, following to PostgreSQL doc: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html
Options:
partition table by type_id into 14 partitions
add column year and partition table by year (or year_month) into 12 (or 144) partitions.
I am now restoring data into out test environment, I am going to test both options.
What do you consider the most appropriate partitioning rule for such situation? Any other options?
Thanks for any feedback / advice etc.
Partitioning won't be very helpful with these queries, since they won't perform a sequential scan, unless you forgot an index.
The only good reason I see for partitioning would be if you want to delete old rows efficiently; then partitioning by date would be best.
Based on your queries, you should have these indexes (apart from the primary key index):
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (account_id, date_issued);
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (refund_id);
The following index might be a good idea if you can sacrifice some insert performance to make the third query as fast as possible (you might want to test):
CREATE INDEX ON jrn.transactions (account_id, type_id);
What you have here is almost a perfect case for column-based storage as you may get it using a SAP HANA Database. However, as you explicitly have asked for a Postgres answer and I doubt that a HANA database will be within the budget limit, we will have to stick with Postgres.
Your two queries no. 3 and 4 go quite into different directions, so there won't be "the single answer" to your problem - you will always have to balance somehow between these two use cases. Yet, I would try to use two different techniques to approach each of them individually.
From my perspective, the biggest problem is the query no. 4, which creates quite a high load on your postgres server just because it is summing up values. Moreover, you are just summing up values over and over again, which most likely won't change often (or even at all), as you have said that UPDATEs nearly do not happen at all. I furthermore assume two more things:
transactions is INSERT-only, i.e. DELETE statements almost never happen (besides perhaps in cases of some exceptional administrative intervention).
The values of column date_issued when INSERTing typically are somewhere "close to today" - so you usually won't INSERT stuff way in the past.
Out of this, to prevent aggregating values over and over again unnecessarily, I would introduce yet another table: let's call it transactions_aggr, which is built up like this:
create table transactions_aggr (
account_id INT NOT NULL,
date_issued DATE,
sumamount NUMERIC,
primary key (account_id, date_issued)
)
which will give you a table of per-day preaggregated values.
To determine which values are already preaggregated, I would add another boolean-typed column to transactions, which indicates to me, which of the rows are contained in transactions_aggr and which are not (yet). The query no. 4 then would have to be changed in such a way that it reads only non-preaggregated rows from transactions, whilst the rest could come from transactions_aggr. To facilitate that you could define a view like this:
select account_id, date_issued, sum(amount) as sumamount from
(
select account_id, date_issued, sumamount as amount from transactions_aggr as aggr
union all
select account_id, date_issued, sum(amount) as amount from transactions as t where t.aggregated = false
)
group by account_id, date_issued
Needless to say that putting an index on transactions.aggregated (perhaps in conjunction with the account_id) could greatly help to improve the performance here.
Updating transactions_aggr can be done using multiple approaches:
You could use this as a one-time activity and only pre-aggregate the current set of ~120m rows once. This would at least reduce the load on your machine doing aggregations significantly. However, over time you will run into the same problem again. Then you may just re-execute the entire procedure, simply dropping transactions_aggr as a whole and re-create it from scratch (all the original data still is there in transactions).
You have a nice period somewhere during the week/month/in the night, where you have little or no queries are coming in. Then you can open a transaction, read all transactions WHERE aggregated = false and add them with UPDATEs to transactions_aggr. Keep in mind to then toggle aggregated to true (should be done in the same transaction). The tricky part of this, however, is that you must pay attention to what reading queries will "see" of this transaction: Depending on your requirements of accuracy during that timeframe of this "update job", you may have to consider switching the transaction isolation level to "READ_COMMITED" to prevent ghost reads.
On the matter of your query no. 3 you then could try to really go for the approach of partitioning based on type_id. However, I perceive your query as a little strange, as you are performing a LIMIT/OFFSET without ordering (e.g. there is no ORDER BY statement in place) having specified (NB: You are not saying that you would be using database cursors). This may lead to the effect that the implicit order, which is currently used, is changed, if you enable partitioning on the table. So be careful on side-effects which this may cause on your program.
And one more thing: Before really doing the partition split, I would first check on the data distribution concerning type_id by issuing
select type_id, count(*) from transactions group by type_id
Not that it turns out that, for example, 90% of your data is with card_payment - so that you will have a heavily uneven distribution amongst your partitions and the biggest performance hogging queries are those which would still go into this single "large partition".
Hope this helps a little - and good luck!
I'm currently working on a benchmark (which is part of my bachelor thesis) that compares SQL and NoSQL Databases based on an abstract data model an abstract queries to achieve fair implementation on all systems.
I'm currently working on the implementation of a query that is specified as follows:
I have a table in Cassandra that is specified as follows:
CREATE TABLE allocated(
partition_key int,
financial_institution varchar,
primary_uuid uuid,
report_name varchar,
view_name varchar,
row_name varchar,
col_name varchar,
amount float,
PRIMARY KEY (partition_key, report_name, primary_uuid));
This table contains about 100,000,000 records (~300GB).
We now need to calculate the sum for the field "amount" for every possible combination of report_name, view_name, col_name and row_name.
In SQL this would be quite easy, just select sum (amount) and group it by the fields you want.
However, since Cassandra does not support these operations (which is perfectly fine) I need to achieve this on another way.
Currently I achieve this by doing a full-table walk, processing each record and storing the sum in a HashMap in Java for each combination.
The prepared statement I use is as follows:
SELECT
partition_key,
financial_institution,
report_name,
view_name,
col_name,
row_name,
amount
FROM allocated;
That works partially on machines with lots on RAM for both, cassandra and the Java app, but crashes on smaller machines.
Now I'm wondering whether it's possible to achieve this on a faster way?
I could imagine using the partition_key, which serves also as the cassandra partition key and do this for every partition (I have 5 of them).
Also I though of doing this multithreaded by assigning every partition and report to a seperate thread and running it parallel. But I guess this would cause a lot of overhead on the application side.
Now to the actual question: Would you recommend another execution strategy to achieve this?
Maybe I still think too much in a SQL-like way.
Thank you for you support.
Here are two ideas that may help you.
1) You can efficiently scan rows in any table using the following approach. Consider a table with PRIMARY KEY (pk, sk, tk). Let's use a fetch size of 1000, but you can try other values.
First query (Q1):
select whatever_columns from allocated limit 1000;
Process these and then record the value of the three columns that form the primary key. Let's say these values are pk_val, sk_val, and tk_val. Here is your next query (Q2):
select whatever_columns from allocated where token(pk) = token(pk_val) and sk = sk_val and tk > tk_val limit 1000;
The above query will look for records for the same pk and sk, but for the next values of tk. Keep repeating as long as you keep getting 1000 records. When get anything less, you ignore the tk, and do greater on sk. Here is the query (Q3):
select whatever_columns from allocated where token(pk) = token(pk_val) and sk > sk_val limit 1000;
Again, keep doing this as long as you get 1000 rows. Once you are done, you run the following query (Q4):
select whatever_columns from allocated where token(pk) > token(pk_val) limit 1000;
Now, you again use the pk_val, sk_val, tk_val from the last record, and run Q2 with these values, then Q3, then Q4.....
You are done when Q4 returns less than 1000.
2) I am assuming that 'report_name, view_name, col_name and row_name' are not unique and that's why you maintain a hashmap to keep track of the total amount whenever you see the same combination again. Here is something that may work better. Create a table in cassandra where key is a combination of these four values (maybe delimited). If there were three, you could have simply used a composite key for those three. Now, you also need a column called amounts which is a list. As you are scanning the allocate table (using the approach above), for each row, you do the following:
update amounts_table set amounts = amounts + whatever_amount where my_primary_key = four_col_values_delimited;
Once you are done, you can scan this table and compute the sum of the list for each row you see and dump it wherever you want. Note that since there is only one key, you can scan using only token(primary_key) > token(last_value_of_primary_key).
Sorry if my description is confusing. Please let me know if this helps.