How do I implement Sphinx's companion Suggest feature on databases with large numbers of rows?
Right now, Sphinx's Suggest feature works fine on around 1,000 rows. But I am afraid that actually using Suggest, on a database with hundreds of thousands of rows, will not work out well especially if there are new rows are added regularly (say, 100 at a time). My database also contains very specific and technical terms, so I need to actually lower the frequency limit from the default 40 to 1.
How should I work on this? My primary concern is that using by using suggest.php --builddict, I am actually rewriting the whole suggest table from scratch. Is there a better way to do this?
Related
I've been looking into pagination (paginate by timestamp) with a PSQL dbms. My approach currently is to build a b+ index to greatly reduce the cost of finding the start of the next chunk. But everywhere I look in tutorials and on NPM modules like express-paginate (https://www.npmjs.com/package/express-paginate), people seem to get chunks using offset one way or the other or fetching all the data anyways but simply sending them in chunks which to me doesn't seem to be a complete optimization that pagination is for.
I can see that they're still making an optimization by lazy loading and streaming the chunks (thus saving bandwidth and any download/processing time on the client-side), but since offset on psql still requires scanning previous rows. In the worst case where a user wants to view all the data, doesn't this approach have a very high server cost since if you have per say n chunks, you're accessing the first chunk n times, the second chunk n-1 times, the third chunk n-2 times, etc. I understand that this is really in terms of IOs so it's not that expensive but it still bothers me?
Am I missing something very obvious here? I feel like I am because there seems to be a lot more established and experienced engineers who seem to be using this approach. I'm guessing there is some part of the equation or mechanism that I'm just missing from my understanding.
No, you understand this quite well.
The reason why so many people and tools still advocate pagination with OFFSET and LIMIT (or FETCH FIRST n ROWS ONLY, to use the standard's language) is that they don't know a lot about databases. It is easy to understand LIMIT and OFFSET even if you the word “index” to you has no other meaning than ”the last pages in a book”.
There is another reason: to implement key set pagination, you must have an ORDER BY clause in your query, that ORDER BY clause has to contain a unique column, and you have to create an index that supports that ordering.
Moreover, your database has to be able to handle conditions like
... WHERE (name, id) > ('last_found', 42)
and support a multi-column index scan for them.
Since many tools strive to support several database systems, they are likely to go for the simple but inefficient method that works with every query on most database systems.
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 am designing a database in Postgresql and I would like to have some expert advices before refactorizing my work.
The database naturally contains different parts that I plan to separate into schemas in order to have a mangling of object names that reflect logical organization of them. About 20 tables are for scientific purposes and 20 others are technical and 20 furthers are about administrative tasks.
Is that a good idea or am I misleading myself into a management overhead that I will regret later?
The database contains 3 tables that are huge. By huge, I mean there is more than 60 millions of rows in it and they might grow a little bit. I think I will create special tablespace for that tables. I would like to do it, in order to separate logically the place where data are stored because the rest of the database should be backuped in a different way than that three tables.
Further more one those 3 tables contains binary data that are not heavy but weight a bit when multiplying by the amount of rows and also this table grows faster than the 2 others. Then I will periodically purge it after backuping the table.
Is it a good idea to have more than one tablespace in a database? If so, is there any precaution to be taken when proceeding this way?
Thank you in advance for your advices.
Choosing good names & grouping database stuffs is always a wise choice, and such overheads are not usually considerable.
About separating tablespace of a single database, it also should not cause any special problem, I've a similar database (but in mysql) that has a large file table and I had to move all of it's content to another server for some optimization reasons and i had no problem with it till now.
There is a very more important matter in RDBMS designing and that's CORRECT TABLE INDEXING. I think choosing good indexes is most critical phase of designing a relational database and you'll see it's effect soon (when you begin to write JOIN queries!).
In general, designing and implementing database is an experimental job that depends to your situation and expertness, so you can't seek for a solid instruction.
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.
Q1: What is the maximum number of tables can store in database?
Q2: What is the maximum number of tables can union in view?
Q1: There's no explicit limit in the docs. In practice, some operations are O(n) on number of tables; expect planning times to increase, and problems with things like autovacuum as you get to many thousands or tens of thousands of tables in a database.
Q2: It depends on the query. Generally, huge unions are a bad idea. Table inheritance will work a little better, but if you're using constraint_exclusion will result in greatly increased planning times.
Both these questions suggest an underlying problem with your design. You shouldn't need massive numbers of tables, and giant unions.
Going by the comment in the other answer, you should really just be creating a few tables. You seem to want to create one table per phone number, which is nonsensical, and to create views per number on top of that. Do not do this, it's mismodelling the data and will make it harder, not easier, to work with. Indexes, where clauses, and joins will allow you to use the data more effectively when it's logically structured into a few tables. I suggest studying basic relational modelling.
If you run into scalability issues later, you can look at partitioning, but you won't need thousands of tables for that.
Both are, in a practical sense, without limit.
The number of tables a database can hold is restricted by the space on your disk system. However, having a database with more than a few thousand tables is probably more an expression of an incorrect analysis of your application domain. Same goes for unions: if you have to union more than a handful of tables you probably should look at your table structure.
One practical scenario where this can happen is with Postgis: having many tables with similar attributes that could be joined in a single view (this is a flaw in the design of Postgis IMHO), but that would typically be handled at the application side (e.g. a GIS).
Can you explain your scenario where you would need a very large number of tables that need to be queried in one sweep?