In the newest version of MATLAB there are two new data types: Tables and Categorical Arrays.
Table is a new data type suitable for holding data and metadata, and can be used with mixed-type tabular data that are often stored as columns in a text file or in a spreadsheet. It consists of rows and column-oriented variables.
Categorical arrays are useful for holding categorical data - which have values from a finite list of discrete categories.
In previous versions I would have handled these use cases using cell and struct arrays. What are the differences between these and the new data types?
I haven't upgraded yet so I can't play around but based on this video and this article I can already see some advantages. They're not necessarily adding functionality that you couldn't do before, but rather just taking the hassle out of it. Using readtable over xlsread is immediately appealing to me. Being able to access columns by name rather than just by index is great, I do it in other languages often. In a table where column order doesn't really matter (unlike a matrix) it's really convenient to be able to address a column by it's name instead of having to know the column order. Also you can merge table using the join function which wasn't that easy to do with cell arrays before. I see that you can name the rows too, I didn't see what advantage that gives you and I can't play around but I know in some languages (like PANDAS in Python and I think in R as well) naming rows means you can work with time series data with different series that are not completely overlapping and not have to worry about alignment. I hope this is the case in Matlab too! Categorical arrays also look like just an extra layer of convenience, kind of like an enum. You never actually need a enum but it just makes development more pleasant.
Anyway that's just my two cents, I probably won't get an opportunity to play around with them any time soon but I look forward to using them when I do need them.
I use the table format to organize different input/output cases in my data, where the result may come from different tables. Main advantages compared to struct or cell array:
convenient table functions such as join, innerjoin, outerjoin
the use of fields <> more robust programming than arrays
data format is easy to export/import (e.g. delimited .txt file) <> no fprintf()
the data file can be opened in excel/Calc (libreoffice) <> no .mat
Related
Imagine a web form with a set of check boxes (any or all of them can be selected). I chose to save them in a comma separated list of values stored in one column of the database table.
Now, I know that the correct solution would be to create a second table and properly normalize the database. It was quicker to implement the easy solution, and I wanted to have a proof-of-concept of that application quickly and without having to spend too much time on it.
I thought the saved time and simpler code was worth it in my situation, is this a defensible design choice, or should I have normalized it from the start?
Some more context, this is a small internal application that essentially replaces an Excel file that was stored on a shared folder. I'm also asking because I'm thinking about cleaning up the program and make it more maintainable. There are some things in there I'm not entirely happy with, one of them is the topic of this question.
In addition to violating First Normal Form because of the repeating group of values stored in a single column, comma-separated lists have a lot of other more practical problems:
Can’t ensure that each value is the right data type: no way to prevent 1,2,3,banana,5
Can’t use foreign key constraints to link values to a lookup table; no way to enforce referential integrity.
Can’t enforce uniqueness: no way to prevent 1,2,3,3,3,5
Can’t delete a value from the list without fetching the whole list.
Can't store a list longer than what fits in the string column.
Hard to search for all entities with a given value in the list; you have to use an inefficient table-scan. May have to resort to regular expressions, for example in MySQL:
idlist REGEXP '[[:<:]]2[[:>:]]' or in MySQL 8.0: idlist REGEXP '\\b2\\b'
Hard to count elements in the list, or do other aggregate queries.
Hard to join the values to the lookup table they reference.
Hard to fetch the list in sorted order.
Hard to choose a separator that is guaranteed not to appear in the values
To solve these problems, you have to write tons of application code, reinventing functionality that the RDBMS already provides much more efficiently.
Comma-separated lists are wrong enough that I made this the first chapter in my book: SQL Antipatterns, Volume 1: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.
There are times when you need to employ denormalization, but as #OMG Ponies mentions, these are exception cases. Any non-relational “optimization” benefits one type of query at the expense of other uses of the data, so be sure you know which of your queries need to be treated so specially that they deserve denormalization.
"One reason was laziness".
This rings alarm bells. The only reason you should do something like this is that you know how to do it "the right way" but you have come to the conclusion that there is a tangible reason not to do it that way.
Having said this: if the data you are choosing to store this way is data that you will never need to query by, then there may be a case for storing it in the way you have chosen.
(Some users would dispute the statement in my previous paragraph, saying that "you can never know what requirements will be added in the future". These users are either misguided or stating a religious conviction. Sometimes it is advantageous to work to the requirements you have before you.)
There are numerous questions on SO asking:
how to get a count of specific values from the comma separated list
how to get records that have only the same 2/3/etc specific value from that comma separated list
Another problem with the comma separated list is ensuring the values are consistent - storing text means the possibility of typos...
These are all symptoms of denormalized data, and highlight why you should always model for normalized data. Denormalization can be a query optimization, to be applied when the need actually presents itself.
In general anything can be defensible if it meets the requirements of your project. This doesn't mean that people will agree with or want to defend your decision...
In general, storing data in this way is suboptimal (e.g. harder to do efficient queries) and may cause maintenance issues if you modify the items in your form. Perhaps you could have found a middle ground and used an integer representing a set of bit flags instead?
Yes, I would say that it really is that bad. It's a defensible choice, but that doesn't make it correct or good.
It breaks first normal form.
A second criticism is that putting raw input results directly into a database, without any validation or binding at all, leaves you open to SQL injection attacks.
What you're calling laziness and lack of SQL knowledge is the stuff that neophytes are made of. I'd recommend taking the time to do it properly and view it as an opportunity to learn.
Or leave it as it is and learn the painful lesson of a SQL injection attack.
I needed a multi-value column, it could be implemented as an xml field
It could be converted to a comma delimited as necessary
querying an XML list in sql server using Xquery.
By being an xml field, some of the concerns can be addressed.
With CSV: Can't ensure that each value is the right data type: no way to prevent 1,2,3,banana,5
With XML: values in a tag can be forced to be the correct type
With CSV: Can't use foreign key constraints to link values to a lookup table; no way to enforce referential integrity.
With XML: still an issue
With CSV: Can't enforce uniqueness: no way to prevent 1,2,3,3,3,5
With XML: still an issue
With CSV: Can't delete a value from the list without fetching the whole list.
With XML: single items can be removed
With CSV: Hard to search for all entities with a given value in the list; you have to use an inefficient table-scan.
With XML: xml field can be indexed
With CSV: Hard to count elements in the list, or do other aggregate queries.**
With XML: not particularly hard
With CSV: Hard to join the values to the lookup table they reference.**
With XML: not particularly hard
With CSV: Hard to fetch the list in sorted order.
With XML: not particularly hard
With CSV: Storing integers as strings takes about twice as much space as storing binary integers.
With XML: storage is even worse than a csv
With CSV: Plus a lot of comma characters.
With XML: tags are used instead of commas
In short, using XML gets around some of the issues with delimited list AND can be converted to a delimited list as needed
Yes, it is that bad. My view is that if you don't like using relational databases then look for an alternative that suits you better, there are lots of interesting "NOSQL" projects out there with some really advanced features.
Well I've been using a key/value pair tab separated list in a NTEXT column in SQL Server for more than 4 years now and it works. You do lose the flexibility of making queries but on the other hand, if you have a library that persists/derpersists the key value pair then it's not a that bad idea.
I would probably take the middle ground: make each field in the CSV into a separate column in the database, but not worry much about normalization (at least for now). At some point, normalization might become interesting, but with all the data shoved into a single column you're gaining virtually no benefit from using a database at all. You need to separate the data into logical fields/columns/whatever you want to call them before you can manipulate it meaningfully at all.
If you have a fixed number of boolean fields, you could use a INT(1) NOT NULL (or BIT NOT NULL if it exists) or CHAR (0) (nullable) for each. You could also use a SET (I forget the exact syntax).
When referring to the spark ml/mllib docs, they all start from a svm stored example. This is really frustrating me since there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to go from a standard RDD[Row] or Dataframe (taken from a "table" select) to this notation without first storing it.
This is just an inconvenience when dealing with 3 features or so, but when you scale that up to lots and lots of features, it's implying you will be doing a lot of typing and searching.
I ended up with something like this: (where "train" is a random split of a dataset w/ features stored in a table)
val trainLp = train.map(row => LabeledPoint(row.getInt(0).toDouble, Vectors.dense(row(8).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(9).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(10).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(11).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(12).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(13).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(14).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(15).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(18).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(21).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(27).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(28).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(29).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(30).asInstanceOf[Int].toDouble,row(31).asInstanceOf[Double],row(32).asInstanceOf[Double],row(33).asInstanceOf[Double],row(34).asInstanceOf[Double],row(35).asInstanceOf[Double],row(36).asInstanceOf[Double],row(37).asInstanceOf[Double],row(38).asInstanceOf[Double],row(39).asInstanceOf[Double],row(40).asInstanceOf[Double],row(41).asInstanceOf[Double],row(42).asInstanceOf[Double],row(43).asInstanceOf[Double])))
This is a nightmare to maintain, since these rows tend to change pretty often.
And here I'm only in the stage of getting labeled points, I'm not even at a svm stored version of this data.
What am I missing here that could potentially save me days of misery?
EDIT:
I got one step closer to the solution using something called a vectorassembler to build up my vector
Usually, CSV files are raw, unfiltered sources of information. Often they provide the original source of information.
In order to build a model, you usually want to go through a data cleansing, data preparation, data wrangling (and maybe more "data x" wording) phase before you build your model. This phase usually takes a big piece of the model building, and usually requires exploration of data. Typically, a process of transformation and feature selection (and creation) occurs between the original data and the data that builds the model.
If your CSV files don't need any of these preliminary phases - good for you!
You can always make configuration files that can keep track of certain columns or column indexes that build your model.
If your DataFrame comes from a "select", I guess what you can do to improve legibility and maintainability is to use column names instead of index numbers.
df.select($"my_col_1", $"my_col_2", .. )
and then operate through
row.getAs[String]("my_col_1")
I'm writing simplest analytics system for my company. I have about 100 different event types that should be collected per tens of projects. We are not interested in cross-project analytic requests but events have similar types through all projects. I use PostgreSQL as primary storage for this system. Now I should decide which architecture is more preferable.
First architecture is one very big table (in terms of rows count) per project that contains data for all types of events. It will be about 20 or more columns many of them will be nullable. May be it will be used partitioning to split this table by event type but table still be so wide.
Second one architecture is a lot of tables (fairly big in terms of rows count but not so wide) with one table per event type.
I going to retrieve analytic data from this tables using different join queries (self join in case of first architecture). Which one is more preferable and where are pitfalls of them?
UPD. All events have about 10 common attributes. And remain attributes are varied from one event type to another.
In the past, I've had similar situations. With postgres you have a bunch of options.
Depending on how your data is input into the system (all at once/ a little at a time) and the volume of your data per project (hundreds of data points vs millions of data points) and the querying pattern (IE, querying after the data is all in, querying nightly, or reports running constantly throughout), there are many options. One other factor will be IF new project types (with new data point types) are likely to crop up.
First, in your "first architecture" the first question that comes up for me is: Are all the "data points" the same data type (or at least very similar). Are some text and others numeric? Are some numeric and others floats? If so, you're likely to run into issues with rolling up your data without either building a column or a table for every data type.
If all your data is the same datatype, then the first architecture you mentioned might work really well.
The second architecture you mentioned is OK especially if you don't predict having a bunch of new project types coming down the pike anytime soon, otherwise, you'll be constantly modifying the DB, which I prefer to avoid when unnecessary.
A third architecture that you didn't mention is to have a combination of 1 and 2. Basically have 1 table to hold the 10 common attributes and use either 1 or 2 to hold the additional attributes. This would have an advantage, especially if the additional data wasn't that frequently used, or was non-numeric.
Lastly, you could use one of PostgreSQLs "document store" type datatypes. You could store this information in arrays, hstores, or json. Now, this will be fairly inefficient if you're doing a ton of aggregate functions as you might be left calculating the aggregates outside of Pgsql, or at a minimum, running an inefficient query. You could store the 10 common fields in normal fields, and the additional ones as hstore or json.
I didn't ask you, but it'd be nice to know that if each event within a project had more than 1 data point (IE are you logging changes, or just updating data).If your overall table has less than 100,000 rows, it's likely just going to be best to focus on what's easier to maintain and program rather than performance, as small amounts of data are pretty quick regardless of how they're stored.
I am trying to work with a large set of numerical data stored in a csv file. Is so big that I cannot store in a single variable, as Matlab does not have enough memory.
I was wondering if there is some way to manipulate large csv files in matlab similar as if they were variables, i.e. I want to sort it, delete some rows, find the column and row of some values, etc.
If that is not possible, what programming language do you recommend to do that, considering that the data is stored in a matrix form?
You can import the csv file into a database. E.g. sqlite - https://sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=ImportingFiles
Take one of the sqlite Toolboxes for Matlab, e.g. http://go-sqlite.osuv.de/doc/
You should be able to select single rows and columns due sql language and import to matlab. Or use sqlite functions (for sort -> order by etc.)...
Another option is to access csv files directly like it is a sql database with q. See https://github.com/harelba/q
Is there any guideline on when to normalize a database or just use composite types and arrays?
When using arrays and composite types, I can use just a single table. I can also normalize the database and use a couple of tables and joins.
How do you decide which option is best?
Most of the time, stick to normalization. Among other things, keeping your database fairly well normalized helps with lock granularity. For example, if you have a "parent" object with two arrays in it, you cannot have transactions that are simultaneously adding/updating/modifying members of the arrays. If they're regular side tables, you can. (You can still SELECT ... FOR UPDATE the parent row before updating child objects if you want the serialized behaviour, though).
Updating an array to add/replace/delete a value is expensive, as PostgreSQL must rewrite the whole tuple the array is in as an MVCC update. (It has a few TOAST tricks up its sleeve that can help, but not tons). Ditto composite types embedded in rows.
Big wide rows full of arrays and composites mean slower table scans, meaning slower fetches for commonly used values.
IIRC you can't define a foreign key into a field of a composite type, so you'll find yourself working around that or giving up on referential integrity where it'd be good to have. Ditto arrays (there was work to get foreign keys to arrays to work but I don't think it ever got comitted).
Many client drivers (PgJDBC, psqlODBC, psycopg2, etc etc etc) have incomplete to nonexistent support for arrays and composites, so you'll often land up expanding them into tuples for client driver interaction anyway. Some things, like arrays of composite types, are really quite painful to work with.
Most ORMs, including common ones like Hibernate, totally suck at using anything beyond the most utterly simplistic lowest-common-denominator SQL features. Sooner or later, someone's going to want to point one of those at your data model, at which point much wailing and gnashing of teeth will ensue. OTOH, don't accomodate garbage ORMs to the point where you avoid using features that'll greatly improve the data model and solve real world problems - for example, if you have the choice of storing native hstore fields, or using an EAV schema, consider just using jstore (or better, in 9.4, json with hstore features).
(Perversely, this means that people who have the most "object oriented" programs often have the most purely relational databases because their tools suck).
Things like report generation tools will similarly struggle with composites and arrays, so you'll often land up creating views to present a normalized appearance for the DB anyway. Then ON INSERT OR UPDATE OR DELETE ... DO INSTEAD triggers on the views to enable writes. At which point it gets ugly.
Personally I recommend keeping composites for times when it's logical to model something as a "type". Consider, say, if your data model required you to track timestamps in their original time zone. There's no built-in type for this (no, that's not what "timestamp with time zone" does, despite the name, thanks SQL committee), so you might create a composite type that stored (timestamp without time zone, tzname) and use that consistently in your data model.
Similarly, I tend to use arrays in queries a lot, but not in the data model much. They're useful when you want to intentionally denormalize something for performance, but that's often done in a materialized view or similar. Even if it's a change to the main data model, it's the sort of thing you should be doing based on proper performance review, not just "optimizing" stuff you don't know is slow yet.