I've got a PostgreSQL table with several millions of rows that need to be processed with the same algorithm.
I am using Python and SQLAlchemy.Core for this task.
This algorithm accepts one or several rows as input and returns the same amount of rows with some updated values.
id1, id2, NULL, NULL, NULL -> id1, id2, value1, value2, value3
id1, id3, NULL, NULL, NULL -> id1, id3, value4, value5, value6
id2, id3, NULL, NULL, NULL -> id2, id3, value7, value8, value9
...
id_n, id_m, NULL, NULL, NULL -> id_n, id_m, value_xxx, value_yyy, value_zzz
I am using a PC cluster to perform this task. This cluster runs dask.distributed scheduler and workers.
I think, that this task can be effectively implemented with the map function. My idea is that each worker queries data base, selects for processing some rows with NULL values, then updates them with results.
My question is: how to write the SQL query, that would allow to distribute pieces of the table among workers?
I've tried to define subsets of row for each worker with offset and limit in SQL queries, that each worker emits:
SQL:
select * from table where value1 is NULL offset N limit 100;
...
update table where id1 = ... and id2 = ...
set value1 = value...;
Python:
from sqlalchemy import create_engine, bindparam, select, func
from distributed import Executor, progress
def process(offset, limit):
engine = create_engine(...)
# get next piece of work
query = select(...).where(...).limit(limit).offset(offset)
rows = engine.execute([select]).fetchall()
# process rows
# submit values to table
update_stmt = table.update().where(...).where(...).values(...)
up_values = ...
engine.execute(update_stmt, up_values)
if __name__ == '__main__':
e = Executor('{address}:{port}'.format(address=config('SERVER_ADDR'),
port=config('SERVER_PORT')))
n_rows = count_rows_to_process()
chunk_size = 100
progress(e.map(process, range(0, n_rows, chunk_size)))
However, this didn't work.
The range function has returned list of offsets before calculations have started, and the map function has distributed them among workers before starting process function.
Then some workers have successfully finished processing their chunks of work, submitted their results to the table, and updated values.
Then new iteration begins, new SELECT ...WHERE value1 is NULL LIMIT 100 OFFSET ... query is sent to the data base, but the offset is now invalid, because it was calculated before the previous workers have updated the table. Amount of NULL values is now reduced, and a worker can receive empty set from the database.
I cannot use one SELECT query before starting calculations, because it will return huge table that doesn't fit in RAM.
SQLAlchemy manual also says that for distributed processing the engine instance should be created locally for each python process. Therefore, I cannot query the database once and send returned cursor to the process function.
Therefore, the solution is correct construction of SQL queries.
One option to consider is randomization:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE value1 IS NULL
ORDER BY random()
LIMIT 100;
In worst case scenario you will have several workers calculating the same thing in parallel. If it does not bother you this is one of the most simple ways.
The other option is dedicating individual rows to the particular worker:
UPDATE table
SET value1 = -9999
WHERE id IN (
SELECT id
FROM table
WHERE value1 IS NULL
ORDER BY random()
LIMIT 100
) RETURNING * ;
This way you "mark" the rows your particular worker has "taken" with -9999. All other workers will skip these rows as value1 IS NOT NULL any more. The risk here is that if the worker fails you will not have a simple way to get back to these rows - you would have to manually update them back to NULL.
Related
I have a composite type:
CREATE TYPE mydata_t AS
(
user_id integer,
value character(4)
);
Also, I have a table, uses this composite type as an array of mydata_t.
CREATE TABLE tbl
(
id serial NOT NULL,
data_list mydata_t[],
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
Here I want to update the mydata_t in data_list, where mydata_t.user_id is 100000
But I don't know which array element's user_id is equal to 100000
So I have to make a search first to find the element where its user_id is equal to 100000 ... that's my problem ... I don't know how to make the query .... in fact, I want to update the value of the array element, where it's user_id is equal to 100000 (Also where the id of tbl is for example 1) ... What will be my query?
Something like this (I know it's wrong !!!)
UPDATE "tbl" SET "data_list"[i]."value"='YYYY'
WHERE "id"=1 AND EXISTS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER() AS i
FROM unnest("data_list") "d" WHERE "d"."user_id"=10000 LIMIT 1)
For example, this is my tbl data:
Row1 => id = 1, data = ARRAY[ROW(5,'YYYY'),ROW(6,'YYYY')]
Row2 => id = 2, data = ARRAY[ROW(10,'YYYY'),ROW(11,'YYYY')]
Now i want to update tbl where id is 2 and set the value of one of the tbl.data elements to 'XXXX' where the user_id of element is equal to 11
In fact, the final result of Row2 will be this:
Row2 => id = 2, data = ARRAY[ROW(10,'YYYY'),ROW(11,'XXXX')]
If you know the value value, you can use the array_replace() function to make the change:
UPDATE tbl
SET data_list = array_replace(data_list, (11, 'YYYY')::mydata_t, (11, 'XXXX')::mydata_t)
WHERE id = 2
If you do not know the value value then the situation becomes more complex:
UPDATE tbl SET data_list = data_arr
FROM (
-- UPDATE doesn't allow aggregate functions so aggregate here
SELECT array_agg(new_data) AS data_arr
FROM (
-- For the id value, get the data_list values that are NOT modified
SELECT (user_id, value)::mydata_t AS new_data
FROM tbl, unnest(data_list)
WHERE id = 2 AND user_id != 11
UNION
-- Add the values to update
VALUES ((11, 'XXXX')::mydata_t)
) x
) y
WHERE id = 2
You should keep in mind, though, that there is an awful lot of work going on in the background that cannot be optimised. The array of mydata_t values has to be examined from start to finish and you cannot use an index on this. Furthermore, updates actually insert a new row in the underlying file on disk and if your array has more than a few entries this will involve substantial work. This gets even more problematic when your arrays are larger than the pagesize of your PostgreSQL server, typically 8kB. All behind the scene so it will work, but at a performance penalty. Even though array_replace sounds like changes are made in-place (and they indeed are in memory), the UPDATE command will write a completely new tuple to disk. So if you have 4,000 array elements that means that at least 40kB of data will have to be read (8 bytes for the mydata_t type on a typical system x 4,000 = 32kB in a TOAST file, plus the main page of the table, 8kB) and then written to disk after the update. A real performance killer.
As #klin pointed out, this design may be more trouble than it is worth. Should you make data_list as table (as I would do), the update query becomes:
UPDATE data_list SET value = 'XXXX'
WHERE id = 2 AND user_id = 11
This will have MUCH better performance, especially if you add the appropriate indexes. You could then still create a view to publish the data in an aggregated form with a custom type if your business logic so requires.
I have a table cusers with a primary key:
primary key(uid, lid, cnt)
And I try to insert some values into the table:
insert into cusers (uid, lid, cnt, dyn, ts)
values
(A, B, C, (
select C - cnt
from cusers
where uid = A and lid = B
order by ts desc
limit 1
), now())
on conflict do nothing
Quite often (with the possibility of 98%) a row cannot be inserted to cusers because it violates the primary key constraint, so hard select queries do not need to be executed at all. But as I can see PostgreSQL first counts the select query as a result of dyn column and only then rejects row because of uid, lid, cnt violation.
What is the best way to insert rows quickly in such situation?
Another explanation
I have a system where one row depends on another. Here is an example:
(x, x, 2, 2, <timestamp>)
(x, x, 5, 3, <timestamp>)
Two columns contain an absolute value (2 and 5) and relative value (2, 5 - 2). Each time I insert new row it should:
avoid same rows (see primary key constraint)
if new row differs, it should count a difference and put it into the dyn column (so I take the last inserted row for the user according to the timestamp and subtract values).
Another solution I've found is to use returning uid, lid, ts for inserts and get user ids which were really inserted - this is how I know they have differences from existing rows. Then I update inserted values:
update cusers
set dyn = (
select max(cnt) - min(cnt)
from (
select cnt
from cusers
where uid = A and lid = B
order by ts desc
limit 2) Table
)
where uid = A and lid = B and ts = TS
But it is not a fast approach either, as it seeks all over the ts column to find the two last inserted rows for each user. I need a fast insert query as I insert millions of rows at a time (but I do not write duplicates).
What the solution can be? May be I need a new index for this? Thanks in advance.
I have two hive clustered tables t1 and t2
CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE `t1`(
`t1_req_id` string,
...
PARTITIONED BY (`t1_stats_date` string)
CLUSTERED BY (t1_req_id) INTO 1000 BUCKETS
// t2 looks similar with same amount of buckets
The insert part happens in hive
set hive.exec.dynamic.partition=true;
set hive.exec.dynamic.partition.mode=nonstrict;
insert overwrite table `t1` partition(t1_stats_date,t1_stats_hour)
select *
from t1_raw
where t1_stats_date='2020-05-10' and t1_stats_hour='12' AND
t1_req_id is not null
The code looks like as following:
val t1 = spark.table("t1").as[T1]
val t2= spark.table("t2").as[T2]
val outDS = t1.joinWith(t2, t1("t1_req_id) === t2("t2_req_id), "fullouter")
.map { case (t1Obj, t2Obj) =>
val t3:T3 = // do some logic
t3
}
outDS.toDF.write....
I see projection in DAG - but it seems that the job still does full data shuffle
Also, while looking into the logs of executor I don't see it reads the same bucket of the two tables in one chunk - that what I would expect to find
There are spark.sql.sources.bucketing.enabled, spark.sessionState.conf.bucketingEnabled and
spark.sql.join.preferSortMergeJoin flags
What am I missing? and why is there still full shuffle, if there are bucketed tables?
The current spark version is 2.3.1
One possibility here to check for is if you have a type mismatch. E.g. if the type of the join column is string in T1 and BIGINT in T2. Even if the types are both integer (e.g. one is INT, another BIGINT) Spark will still add shuffle here because different types use different hash functions for bucketing.
I am using SQL 2008 and trying to process the data I have in a table in batches, however, there is a catch. The data is broken into groups and, as I do my processing, I have to make sure that a group will always be contained within a batch or, in other words, that the group will never be split across different batches. It's assumed that the batch size will always be much larger than the group size. Here is the setup to illustrate what I mean (the code is using Jeff Moden's data generation logic: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Data+Generation/87901)
DECLARE #NumberOfRows INT = 1000,
#StartValue INT = 1,
#EndValue INT = 500,
#Range INT
SET #Range = #EndValue - #StartValue + 1
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#SomeTestTable','U') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #SomeTestTable;
SELECT TOP (#NumberOfRows)
GroupID = ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) % #Range + #StartValue
INTO #SomeTestTable
FROM sys.all_columns ac1
CROSS JOIN sys.all_columns ac2
This will create a table with about 435 groups of records containing between 1 and 7 records in each. Now, let's say I want to process these records in batches of 100 records per batch. How can I make sure that my GroupID's don't get split between different batches? I am fine if each batch is not exactly 100 records, it could be a little more or a little less.
I appreciate any suggestions!
This will result in slightly smaller batches than 100 entries, it'll remove all groups that aren't entirely in the selection;
WITH cte AS (SELECT TOP 100 * FROM (
SELECT GroupID, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY GroupID ORDER BY GroupID) r
FROM #SomeTestTable) a
ORDER BY GroupID, r DESC)
SELECT c1.GroupID FROM cte c1
JOIN cte c2
ON c1.GroupID = c2.GroupID
AND c2.r = 1
It'll select the groups with the lowest GroupID's, limited to 100 entries into a common table expression along with the row number, then it'll use the row number to throw away any groups that aren't entirely in the selection (row number 1 needs to be in the selection for the group to be, since the row number is ordered descending before cutting with TOP).
I have a large database, that I want to do some logic to update new fields.
The primary key is id for the table harvard_assignees
The LOGIC GOES LIKE THIS
Select all of the records based on id
For each record (WHILE), if (state is NOT NULL && country is NULL), update country_out = "US" ELSE update country_out=country
I see step 1 as a PostgreSQL query and step 2 as a function. Just trying to figure out the easiest way to implement natively with the exact syntax.
====
The second function is a little more interesting, requiring (I believe) DISTINCT:
Find all DISTINCT foreign_keys (a bivariate key of pat_type,patent)
Count Records that contain that value (e.g., n=3 records have fkey "D","388585")
Update those 3 records to identify percent as 1/n (e.g., UPDATE 3 records, set percent = 1/3)
For the first one:
UPDATE
harvard_assignees
SET
country_out = (CASE
WHEN (state is NOT NULL AND country is NULL) THEN 'US'
ELSE country
END);
At first it had condition "id = ..." but I removed that because I believe you actually want to update all records.
And for the second one:
UPDATE
example_table
SET
percent = (SELECT 1/cnt FROM (SELECT count(*) AS cnt FROM example_table AS x WHERE x.fn_key_1 = example_table.fn_key_1 AND x.fn_key_2 = example_table.fn_key_2) AS tmp WHERE cnt > 0)
That one will be kind of slow though.
I'm thinking on a solution based on window functions, you may want to explore those too.