I have a fairly busy DB2 on Windows server - 9.7, fix pack 11.
About 60% of the CPU time used by all queries in the package cache is being used by the following two statements:
CALL SYSIBM.SQLSTATISTICS(?,?,?,?,?,?)
CALL SYSIBM.SQLPRIMARYKEYS(?,?,?,?)
I'm fairly decent with physical tuning and have spent a lot of time on SQL tuning on this system as well. The applications are all custom, and educating developers is something I also spend time on.
I get the impression that these two stored procedures are something that perhaps ODBC calls? Reading their descriptions, they also seem like things that are completely unnecessary to do the work being done. The application doesn't need to know the primary key of a table to be able to query it!
Is there anything I can tell my developers to do that will either eliminate/reduce the execution of these or cache the information so that they're not executing against the database millions of times and eating up so much CPU? Or alternately anything I can do at the database level to reduce their impact?
6.5 years later, and I have the answer to my own question. This is a side effect of using an ORM. Part of what it does is to discover the database schema. Rails also has a similar workload. In Rails, you can avoid this by using the schema cache. This becomes particularly important at scale. Not sure if there are equivalencies for other ORMs, but I hope so!
Related
As part of my university curriculum I ended up with a real project which consists in helping a company shifting from their relational data warehouse into a NoSQL data warehouse. The thing is that what they are looking for is better performance in large jobs but so far they have used a single machine and if they indeed migrate to NoSQL they still wish to keep using a single machine for cost reasons.
As far as I know the whole point of NoSQL is to run it in a large distributed system of several machines. So I don't see the point of this migration, specially since I am pretty sure (but not entirely) that if they do install NoSQL, they will probably end having even worst performance.
But still I am not comfortable telling them this since I am still new to this area (less than a month), so I wonder, is there are any situation where using NoSQL in a single machine for a datawarehouse would be justifiable performance wise? Or is it just a plain bad idea?
The answer to your question, like the answer to so many questions, is "it depends."
Ignoring the commentary on the question, I think there may be legitimacy to your client's question. Both relational and non-relational databases ultimately hold data in key-value tuples, with indexes and such to ensure quick and speedy access to the data. The difference is that SQL/relational databases contain an incredible amount of overhead to attempt the optimal way to retrieve results given an unknown set of queries, as well as ensure stable concurrency. This overhead is both computationally expensive and rarely results in the optimal solution. As a result, SQL databases often perform significantly slower for simple repetitive queries.
No-sql databases, on the other hand, are more of a "bare-bones" database, relying on programmers and intelligent design to achieve success. They are optimized to retrieve a value for a given key very quickly, often sub-millisecond. As a result, increased up front investment in the design results in superior and near-optimal performance. It will be necessary to determine the cost-benefit of doing this up-front design, but it is all but guaranteed that the no-sql approach will perform better regardless of the number of machines involved (in fact, SQL databases are very difficult or impossible to cluster together and is one of the main reasons why NoSql was developed).
Eventually we will see relational-like solutions implemented on a no-sql platform. In fact, Mongo, Elasticsearch, and Couchbase (probably others) already have SQL-like query functionality. But right now, you are faced with this dilemma.
For a single machine if the load is write heavy e.g. your logging a lot of events you could do for cassandra. Also a good alternative is hbase but its heavy and not suggested for single node. If they expose api in json you could look into document based dbs such as couchbase, mongo db. If you have an idea about the load then selecting a nosql data store is much easier
If you're in a position where you need to pick one, I think you should look first at MongoDB. If you've never tried it, I really recommend you visit their live demo with tutorial and give it a try. If you like, download and follow the installation guide on their site. It's free, runs well on a single machine, and is incredibly easy to use.
In addition to MongoDB, I've used Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, SQLite, and HBase. I understand Cassandra should be in the list but I've not tried it. With MongoDB, I was fully deployed and executing reads and writes from an application in like two hours. I attribute most of that to their website's clear and concise instructional content. The biggest learning curve was figuring out how the queries work for things like updating a record or deleting a record without deleting the entire set of similar records.
Regarding NoSQL vs RDBMS, some points to consider:
Adding a new column to RDBMS table can lock the database in or degrade performance in another
MongoDB is schema-less so adding a new field, does not effect old documents and will be instant (think how flexible that really is - throw any dimension of data into this system without maintenance overhead)
You're less likely to require a DBA to solve your schema problems when an application changes
I think problems related to table size are irrelevant, so you won't run into a scaling problem - just a disk space problem on single machine
I have just moved to PostgreSQL after having worked with Oracle for a few years.
I have been looking into some performance issues with prepared statements in the application (Java, JDBC) with the PostgreSQL database.
Oracle caches prepared statements in its SGA - the pool of prepared statements is shared across database connections.
PostgreSQL documentation does not seem to indicate this. Here's the snippet from the documentation (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-prepare.html) -
Prepared statements only last for the duration of the current database
session. When the session ends, the prepared statement is forgotten,
so it must be recreated before being used again. This also means that
a single prepared statement cannot be used by multiple simultaneous
database clients; however, each client can create their own prepared
statement to use.
I just want to make sure that I am understanding this right, because it seems so basic for a database to implement some sort of common pool of commonly executed prepared statements.
If PostgreSQL does not cache these that would mean every application that expects a lot of database transactions needs to develop some sort of prepared statement pool that can be re-used across connections.
If you have worked with PostgreSQL before, I would appreciate any insight into this.
Yes, your understanding is correct. Typically if you had a set of prepared queries that are that critical then you'd have the application call a custom function to set them up on connection.
There are three key reasons for this afaik:
There's a long todo list and they get done when a developer is interested/paid to tackle them. Presumably no-one has thought it worth funding yet or come up with an efficient way of doing it.
PostgreSQL runs in a much wider range of environments than Oracle. I would guess that 99% of installed systems wouldn't see much benefit from this. There are an awful lot of setups without high-transaction performance requirement, or for that matter a DBA to notice whether it's needed or not.
Planned queries don't always provide a win. There's been considerable work done on delaying planning/invalidating caches to provide as good a fit as possible to the actual data and query parameters.
I'd suspect the best place to add something like this would be in one of the connection pools (pgbouncer/pgpool) but last time I checked such a feature wasn't there.
HTH
I have several performance issue in my website.
I'm using asp.net mvc 2 and Entity Framework 4.0. I bought a Entity Framework Profiler to see what kind of SQL request that EF generated.
By example, some page take between 3 and 5 seconds to open. This is to much for my client.
To see if it's a performance problem with SQL generated by EF, I used my profiler and Copy / Paste the generated SQL in Sql Management Studio to see the execution plan and the sql statistic. The result show in less than a second.
Now that I eliminated the SQL query, I suspect EF at buidling query step.
I Follow the msdn step by step to pre-generate my view. I didn't see any performance gain.
How to be sure that my query use these Pre-Generated Views ?
Is there anything I can do to increase performance of my website ?
thanks
First of all, keep in mind that the pre-compiled queries still take just as long (in fact a little longer) the first time they are run, because the queries are compiled the first time they are invoked. After the first invocation, you should see a significant performance increase on the individual queries.
However, you will find the best answer to all performance questions is: figure out what's taking the most time first, then work on improving in that area. Until you have run a profiler and know where your system is blocking, any time you spend trying to speed things up is likely to be wasted.
Once you've determined what's taking the most time, there are a lot of possible techniques to use to speed things up:
Caching data that doesn't change often
Restructuring your data accesses so you pull the data you need in fewer round trips.
Ensuring you're not pulling more data than you need when you do your database queries.
Buying better hardware.
... and many others
One last note: In Entity Framework 5, they plan to implement automatic query caching, which will make precompiling queries practically useless. So I'd only recommend doing it where you know for sure that you'll get a significant improvement.
I just wanted to know if there is a fundamental difference between hbase, cassandra, couchdb and monogodb ? In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems. Or they fit best in different scenarios?
All this comes to the question, what should I chose when. Matter of taste?
Thanks,
Federico
Those are some long answers from #Bohzo. (but they are good links)
The truth is, they're "kind of" competing. But they definitely have different strengths and weaknesses and they definitely don't all solve the same problems.
For example Couch and Mongo both provide Map-Reduce engines as part of the main package. HBase is (basically) a layer over top of Hadoop, so you also get M-R via Hadoop. Cassandra is highly focused on being a Key-Value store and has plug-ins to "layer" Hadoop over top (so you can map-reduce).
Some of the DBs provide MVCC (Multi-version concurrency control). Mongo does not.
All of these DBs are intended to scale horizontally, but they do it in different ways. All of these DBs are also trying to provide flexibility in different ways. Flexible document sizes or REST APIs or high redundancy or ease of use, they're all making different trade-offs.
So to your question: In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems?
Yes: they're all trying to solve the issue of database-scalability and performance.
No: they're definitely making different sets of trade-offs.
What should you start with?
Man, that's a tough question. I work for a large company pushing tons of data and we've been through a few years. We tried Cassandra at one point a couple of years ago and it couldn't handle the load. We're using Hadoop everywhere, but it definitely has a steep learning curve and it hasn't worked out in some of our environments. More recently we've tried to do Cassandra + Hadoop, but it turned out to be a lot of configuration work.
Personally, my department is moving several things to MongoDB. Our reasons for this are honestly just simplicity.
Setting up Mongo on a linux box takes minutes and doesn't require root access or a change to the file system or anything fancy. There are no crazy config files or java recompiles required. So from that perspective, Mongo has been the easiest "gateway drug" for getting people on to KV/Document stores.
CouchDB and MongoDB are document stores
Cassandra and HBase are key-value based
Here is a detailed comparison between HBase and Cassandra
Here is a (biased) comparison between MongoDB and CouchDB
Short answer: test before you use in production.
I can offer my experience with both HBase (extensive) and MongoDB (just starting).
Even though they are not the same kind of stores, they solve the same problems:
scalable storage of data
random access to the data
low latency access
We were very enthusiastic about HBase at first. It is built on Hadoop (which is rock-solid), it is under Apache, it is active... what more could you want? Our experience:
HBase is fragile
administrator's nightmare (full of configuration settings where default ones are less than perfect, nontransparent configuration, changes from version to version,...)
loses data (unless you have set the X configuration and changed Y to... you get the point :) - we found that out when HBase crashed and we lost 2 hours (!!!) of data because WAL was not setup properly
lacks secondary indexes
lacks any way to perform a backup of database without shutting it down
All in all, HBase was a nightmare. Wouldn't recommend it to anyone except to our direct competitors. :)
MongoDB solves all these problems and many more. It is a delight to setup, it makes administrating it a simple and transparent job and the default configuration settings actually make sense. You can perform (hot) backups, you can have secondary indexes. From what I read, I wouldn't recommend MapReduce on MongoDB (JavaScript, 1 thread per node only), but you can use Hadoop for that.
And it is also VERY active when compared to HBase.
Also:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=HBase%2CMongoDB
Need I say more? :)
UPDATE: many months later I must say MongoDB delivered on all accounts and more. The only real downside is that hosting companies do not offer it the way they offer MySQL. ;)
It also looks like MapReduce is bound to become multi-threaded in 2.2. Still, I wouldn't use MR this way. YMMV.
Cassandra is good for writing the data. it has advantage of "writes never fail". It has no single point failure.
HBase is very good for data processing. HBase is based on Hadoop File System (HDFS) so HBase dosen't need to worry for data replication, data consistency. HBase has the single point of failure. I am not really sure that what does it's mean if it has single point of failure then it is somhow similar to RDBMS where we have single point of failure. I might be wrong in sense since I am quite new.
How abou RIAK ? Does someone has experience using RIAK. I red some where that you need to pay, I am not sure. Need explanation.
One more thing which one you will prefer to use when you are only concern to reading a lot of data. You don't have any concern with writing. Just imagine you have database with pitabyte and you want to make fast search which NOSQL database would you prefer ?
Object databases like MongoDB and db4o are getting lots of publicity lately. Everyone that plays with them seems to love it. I'm guessing that they are dealing with about 640K of data in their sample apps.
Has anyone tried to use an object database with a large amount of data (say, 50GB or more)? Are you able to still execute complex queries against it (like from a search screen)? How does it compare to your usual relational database of choice?
I'm just curious. I want to take the object database plunge, but I need to know if it'll work on something more than a sample app.
Someone just went into production with a 12 terabytes of data in MongoDB. The largest I knew of before that was 1 TB. Lots of people are keeping really large amounts of data in Mongo.
It's important to remember that Mongo works a lot like a relational database: you need the right indexes to get good performance. You can use explain() on queries and contact the user list for help with this.
When I started db4o back in 2000 I didn't have huge databases in mind. The key goal was to store any complex object very simply with one line of code and to do that good and fast with low ressource consumption, so it can run embedded and on mobile devices.
Over time we had many users that used db4o for webapps and with quite large amounts of data, going close to todays maximum database file size of 256GB (with a configured block size of 127 bytes). So to answer your question: Yes, db4o will work with 50GB, but you shouldn't plan to use it for terabytes of data (unless you can nicely split your data over multiple db4o databases, the setup costs for a single database are negligible, you can just call #openFile() )
db4o was acquired by Versant in 2008, because it's capabilites (embedded, low ressource-consumption, lightweight) make it a great complimentary product to Versant's high-end object database VOD. VOD scales for huge amounts of data and it does so much better than relational databases. I think it will merely chuckle over 50GB.
MongoDB powers SourceForge, The New York Times, and several other large databases...
You should read the MongoDB use cases. People who are just playing with technology are often just looking at how does this work and are not at the point where they can understand the limitations. For the right sorts of datasets and access patterns 50GB is nothing for MongoDB running on the right hardware.
These non-relational systems look at the trade-offs which RDBMs made, and changed them a bit. Consistency is not as important as other things in some situations so these solutions let you trade that off for something else. The trade-off is still relatively minor ms or maybe secs in some situations.
It is worth reading about the CAP theorem too.
I was looking at moving the API I have for sure with the stack overflow iphone app I wrote a while back to MongoDB from where it currently sits in a MySQL database. In raw form the SO CC dump is in the multi-gigabyte range and the way I constructed the documents for MongoDB resulted in a 10G+ database. It is arguable that I didn't construct the documents well but I didn't want to spend a ton of time doing this.
One of the very first things you will run into if you start down this path is the lack of 32 bit support. Of course everything is moving to 64 bit now but just something to keep in mind. I don't think any of the major document databases support paging in 32 bit mode and that is understandable from a code complexity standpoint.
To test what I wanted to do I used a 64 bit instance EC2 node. The second thing I ran into is that even though this machine had 7G of memory when the physical memory was exhausted things went from fast to not so fast. I'm not sure I didn't have something set up incorrectly at this point because the non-support of 32 bit system killed what I wanted to use it for but I still wanted to see what it looked like. Loading the same data dump into MySQL takes about 2 minutes on a much less powerful box but the script I used to load the two database works differently so I can't make a good comparison. Running only a subset of the data into MongoDB was much faster as long as it resulted in a database that was less than 7G.
I think my take away from it was that large databases will work just fine but you may have to think about how the data is structured more than you would with a traditional database if you want to maintain the high performance. I see a lot of people using MongoDB for logging and I can imagine that a lot of those databases are massive but at the same time they may not be doing a lot of random access so that may mask what performance would look like for more traditional applications.
A recent resource that might be helpful is the visual guide to nosql systems. There are a decent number of choices outside of MongoDB. I have used Redis as well although not with as large of a database.
Here's some benchmarks on db4o:
http://www.db4o.com/about/productinformation/benchmarks/
I think it ultimately depends on a lot of factors, including the complexity of the data, but db4o seems to certainly hang with the best of them.
Perhaps worth a mention.
The European Space Agency's Planck mission is running on the Versant Object Database.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46951
It is a satelite with 74 onboard sensors launched last year which is mapping the infrarred spectrum of the universe and storing the information in a map segment model. It has been getting a ton of hype these days because of it's producing some of the coolest images ever seen of the universe.
Anyway, it has generated 25T of information stored in Versant and replicated across 3 continents. When the mission is complete next year, it will be a total of 50T
Probably also worth noting, object databases tend to be a lot smaller to hold the same information. It is because they are truly normalized, no data duplication for joins, no empty wasted column space and few indexes rather than 100's of them. You can find public information about testing ESA did to consider storage in multi-column relational database format -vs- using a proper object model and storing in the Versant object database. THey found they could save 75% disk space by using Versant.
Here is the implementation:
http://www.planck.fr/Piodoc/PIOlib_Overview_V1.0.pdf
Here they talk about 3T -vs- 12T found in the testing
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2008/12/10/cosmic-data/
Also ... there are benchmarks which show Versant orders of magnitude faster on the analysis side of the mission.
CHeers,
-Robert