I have a simple procedure where I need to process records of a table, and ideally run multiple instances of the process without processing the same record. The way I've done this with MySQL is fairly common (although I perceive the token field to be more of a hack):
Adding a couple of fields to the table:
CREATE TABLE records (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
...actual fields...
processed_at DATETIME DEFAULT NULL,
process_token TEXT DEFAULT NULL
);
And then a simple processing script:
process_salt = md5(rand()) # or something like a process id
def get_record():
token = md5(microtime + process_salt)
db.exec("UPDATE records SET process_token = ?
WHERE processed_at IS NULL LIMIT 1", token)
return db.exec("SELECT * FROM records WHERE token = ?", token)
while (row = get_record()) is valid:
# ...do processing on row...
db.exec("UPDATE records SET processed_at = NOW(), token = NULL
WHERE id = ?", row.id)
I'm implementing such a process in a system which uses a PostgreSQL database. I know Pg could be considered more mature than MySQL with regards to locking thanks to MVCC - can I use row-locking or some other feature in Pg instead of the token field?
This approach will work with PostgreSQL but it'll tend to be pretty inefficient as you're updating each row twice - each update requires two transactions, two commits. The cost of this can be mitigated somewhat by using a commit_delay and possibly disabling synchronous_commit, but it's still not going to be fast unless you have a non-volatile write-back cache on your storage subsystem.
More importantly, because you're committing the first update there is no way to tell the difference between a worker that's still working on the job and a worker that has crashed. You could probably set the token to the worker's process ID if all workers are on the local machine then scan for missing PIDs occasionally but that's cumbersome and race-condition prone, not to mention the problems with pid re-use.
I would recommend that you adopt a real queuing solution that is designed to solve these problems, like ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, ZeroMQ, etc. PGQ may also be of significant interest.
Doing queue processing in a transactional relational database should be easy, but in practice it's ridiculously hard to do well and get right. Most of the "solutions" that look sensible at a glance turn out to actually serialize all work (so only one of many queue workers is doing anything at any given time) when examined in detail.
You can use SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT which will obtain an exclusive lock on the row, or report an error if it is already locked.
Related
now I am hitting a very big road block.
I use PostgreSQL 10 and its new table partitioning.
Sometimes many queries don't return and at the time many backend processes are active when I check backend processes by pg_stat_activity.
First, I thought theses process are just waiting for lock, but these transactions contain only SELECT statements and the other backend doesn't use any query which requires ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock. And these queries which contain only SELECT statements are no problem in terms of plan. And usually these work well. And computer resources(CPU, memory, IO, Network) are also no problem. Therefore, theses transations should never conflict. And I thoughrouly checked the locks of theses transaction by pg_locks and pg_blocking_pids() and finnaly I couldn't find any lock which makes queries much slower. Many of backends which are active holds only ACCESS SHARE because they use only SELECT.
Now I think these phenomenon are not caused by lock, but something related to new table partition.
So, why are many backends active?
Could anyone help me?
Any comments are highly appreciated.
The blow figure is a part of the result of pg_stat_activity.
If you want any additional information, please tell me.
EDIT
My query dosen't handle large data. The return type is like this:
uuid UUID
,number BIGINT
,title TEXT
,type1 TEXT
,data_json JSONB
,type2 TEXT
,uuid_array UUID[]
,count BIGINT
Because it has JSONB column, I cannot caluculate the exact value, but it is not large JSON.
Normally theses queries are moderately fast(around 1.5s), so it is absolutely no problem, however when other processes work, the phenomenon happens.
If statistic information is wrong, the query are always slow.
EDIT2
This is the stat. There are almost 100 connections, so I couldn't show all stat.
For me it looks like application problem, not postresql's one. active status means that your transaction still was not commited.
So why do you application may not send commit to database?
Try to review when do you open transaction, read data, commit transaction and rollback transaction in your application code.
EDIT:
By the way, to be sure try to check resource usage before problem appear and when your queries start hanging. Try to run top and iotop to check if postgres really start eating your cpu or disk like crazy when problem appears. If not, I will suggest to look for problem in your application.
Thank you everyone.
I finally solved this problem.
I noticed that a backend process holded too many locks. So, when I executed the query SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pg_locks WHERE pid = <pid>, the result is about 10000.
The parameter of locks_per_transactions is 64 and max_connections is about 800.
So, if the number of query that holds many locks is large, the memory shortage occurs(see calculation code of shared memory inside PostgreSQL if you are interested.).
And too many locks were caused when I execute query like SELECT * FROM (partitioned table). Imangine you have a table foo that is partitioned and the number of the table is 1000. And then you can execute SELECT * FROM foo WHERE partion_id = <id> and the backend process will hold about 1000 table locks(and index locks). So, I change the query from SELECT * FROM foo WHERE partition_id = <id> to SELECT * FROM foo_(partitioned_id). As the result, the problem looks solved.
You say
Sometimes many queries don't return
...however when other processes work, the phenomenon happens. If statistic
information is wrong, the query are always slow.
They don't return/are slow when directly connecting to the Postgres instance and running the query you need, or when running the queries from an application? The backend processes that are running, are you able to kill them successfully with pg_terminate_backend($PID) or does that have issues? To rule out issues with the statement itself, make sure statement_timeout is set to a reasonable amount to kill off long-running queries. After that is ruled out, perhaps you are running into a case of an application hanging and never allowing the send calls from PostgreSQL to finish. To avoid a situation like that, if you are able to (depending on OS) you can tune the keep-alive time: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-connection.html#GUC-TCP-KEEPALIVES-IDLE (by default is 2 hours)
Let us know if playing with any of that gives any more insight into your issue.
Sorry for late post, As #Konstantin pointed out, this might be because of your application(which is why I asked for your EDIT2). Adding a few excerpts,
table partition has no effect on these locks, that is a totally different concept and does not hold up locks in your case.
In your application, check if the connection properly close() after read() and is in finally block (From Java perspective). I am not sure of your application tier.
Check if SELECT..FOR UPDATE or any similar statement is written erroneously recently which is causing this.
Check if any table has grown in size recently and the column is not Indexed. This is very important and frequent cause of select statements running for some minutes. I'd also suggest using timeouts for select statements in your application. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/gin-intro.html This can give you a headstart.
Another thing that is fishy to me is the JSONB column, maybe your Jsonb values are pretty long, or the queries are unnecessarily selecting JSONB value even if not required?
Finally, If you don't need some special features of Jsonb data type, then you use JSON data type which is faster (magical maximum, sometimes 50x!)
It looks like the pooled connections not getting closed properly and a few queries might be taking huge time to respond back. As pointed out in other answers, it is the problem with the application and could be connection leak. Most possibly, it might be because of pending transactions over some already pending and unresolved transactions, leading to a number of unclosed transactions.
In addition, PostgreSQL generally has one or more "helper" processes like the stats collector, background writer, autovaccum daemon, walsender, etc, all of which show up as "postgres" instances.
One thing I would suggest you check in which part of the code you have initiated the queries. Try to DRY run your queries outside the application and have some benchmarking of queries performance.
Secondly, you can keep some timeout for certain queries if not all.
Thirdly, you can do kill the idle transactions after certain timeouts by using:
SET SESSION idle_in_transaction_session_timeout = '5min';
I hope it might work. Cheers!
My software runs a cronjob every 30 minutes, which pulls data from Google Analytics / Social networks and inserts the results into a Postgres DB.
The data looks like this:
url text NOT NULL,
rangeStart timestamp NOT NULL,
rangeEnd timestamp NOT NULL,
createdAt timestamp DEFAULT now() NOT NULL,
...
(various integer columns)
Since one query returns 10 000+ items, it's obviously not a good idea to store this data in a single table. At this rate, the cronjob will generate about 480 000 records a day and about 14.5 million a month.
I think the solution would be using several tables, for example I could use a specific table to store data generated in a given month: stats_2015_09, stats_2015_10, stats_2015_11 etc.
I know Postgres supports table partitioning. However, I'm new to this concept, so I'm not sure what's the best way to do this. Do I need partitioning in this case, or should I just create these tables manually? Or maybe there is a better solution?
The data will be queried later in various ways, and those queries are expected to run fast.
EDIT:
If I end up with 12-14 tables, each storing 10-20 millions rows, Postgres should be still able to run select statements quickly, right? Inserts don't have to be super fast.
Partitioning is a good idea under various circumstances. Two that come to mind are:
Your queries have a WHERE clause that can be readily mapped onto one or a handful of partitions.
You want a speedy way to delete historical data (dropping a partition is faster than deleting records).
Without knowledge of the types of queries that you want to run, it is difficult to say if partitioning is a good idea.
I think I can say that splitting the data into different tables is a bad idea because it is a maintenance nightmare:
You can't have foreign key references into the table.
Queries spanning multiple tables are cumbersome, so simple questions are hard to answer.
Maintaining tables becomes a nightmare (adding/removing a column).
Permissions have to be carefully maintained, if you have users with different roles.
In any case, the place to start is with Postgres's documentation on partitioning, which is here. I should note that Postgres's implementation is a bit more awkward than in other databases, so you might want to review the documentation for MySQL or SQL Server to get an idea of what it is doing.
Firstly, I would like to challenge the premise of your question:
Since one query returns 10 000+ items, it's obviously not a good idea to store this data in a single table.
As far as I know, there is no fundamental reason why the database would not cope fine with a single table of many millions of rows. At the extreme, if you created a table with no indexes, and simply appended rows to it, Postgres could simply carry on writing these rows to disk until you ran out of storage space. (There may be other limits internally, I'm not sure; but if so, they're big.)
The problems only come when you try to do something with that data, and the exact problems - and therefore exact solutions - depend on what you do.
If you want to regularly delete all rows which were inserted more than a fixed timescale ago, you could partition the data on the createdAt column. The DELETE would then become a very efficient DROP TABLE, and all INSERTs would be routed through a trigger to the "current" partition (or could even by-pass it if your import script was aware of the partition naming scheme). SELECTs, however, would probably not be able to specify a range of createAt values in their WHERE clause, and would thus need to query all partitions and combine the results. The more partitions you keep around at a time, the less efficient this would be.
Alternatively, you might examine the workload on the table and see that all queries either already do, or easily can, explicitly state a rangeStart value. In that case, you could partition on rangeStart, and the query planner would be able to eliminate all but one or a few partitions when planning each SELECT query. INSERTs would need to be routed through a trigger to the appropriate table, and maintenance operations (such as deleting old data that is no longer needed) would be much less efficient.
Or perhaps you know that once rangeEnd becomes "too old" you will no longer need the data, and can get both benefits: partition by rangeEnd, ensure all your SELECT queries explicitly mention rangeEnd, and drop partitions containing data you are no longer interested in.
To borrow Linus Torvald's terminology from git, the "plumbing" for partitioning is built into Postgres in the form of table inheritance, as documented here, but there is little in the way of "porcelain" other than examples in the manual. However, there is a very good extension called pg_partman which provides functions for managing partition sets based on either IDs or date ranges; it's well worth reading through the documentation to understand the different modes of operation. In my case, none quite matched, but forking that extension was significantly easier than writing everything from scratch.
Remember that partitioning does not come free, and if there is no obvious candidate for a column to partition by based on the kind of considerations above, you may actually be better off leaving the data in one table, and considering other optimisation strategies. For instance, partial indexes (CREATE INDEX ... WHERE) might be able to handle the most commonly queried subset of rows; perhaps combined with "covering indexes", where Postgres can return the query results directly from the index without reference to the main table structure ("index-only scans").
I know mongo docs provide a way to simulate auto_increment.
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/tutorial/create-an-auto-incrementing-field/
But it is not concurrency-proof as guaranteed by say MySQL.
Consider the sequence of events:
client 1 obtains an index of 1
client 2 obtains an index of 2
client 2 saves doc with id=2
client 1 saves doc with id=1
In this case, it is possible to save a doc with id less than the current max that is already saved. For MySql, this can never happen since auto increment id is assigned by the server.
How do I prevent this? One way is to do optimistic looping at each client, but for many clients, this will result in heavy contention. Any other better way?
The use case for this is to ensure id is "forward-only". This is important for say a chat room where many messages are posted, and messages are paginated, I do not want new messages to be inserted in a previous page.
But it is not concurrency-proof as guaranteed by say MySQL.
That depends on the definition of concurrency-proof, but let's see
In this case, it is possible to save a doc with id less than the current max that is already saved.
That is correct, but it depends on the definition of simultaneity and monotonicity. Let's say your code snapshots the state of some other part of the system, then fetches the monotonic key, then performs an insert that may take a while. In that case, this apparently non-monotonic insert might actually be 'more monotonic' in the sense that index 2 was indeed captured at a later time, possibly reflecting a more recent state. In other words: does the time it took to insert really matter?
For MySql, this can never happen since auto increment id is assigned by the server.
That sounds like folklore. Most relational dbs offer fine-grained control over these features, since strict guarantees severely impact concurrency.
MySQL does neither guarantee that there are no gaps, nor that a transaction with a high AUTO_INCREMENT id isn't visible to other readers before a transaction that acquired a lower AUTO_INCREMENT value was committed, unless you keep a table-level lock, which severely impacts concurrency.
For gaplessness, consider a transaction rollback of the first of two concurrent inserts. Does the second insert now get a new id assigned while it's being committed? No - from the InnoDB documentation:
You may see gaps in the sequence of values assigned to the AUTO_INCREMENT column if you roll back transactions that have generated numbers using the counter. (see end of 14.6.5.5.1, "Traditional InnoDB Auto-Increment Locking")
and
In all lock modes (0, 1, and 2), if a transaction that generated auto-increment values rolls back, those auto-increment values are “lost”
also, you're completely ignoring the problem of replication where sequences lead to even more trouble:
Thus, table-level locks held until the end of a statement make INSERT statements using auto-increment safe for use with statement-based replication. However, those locks limit concurrency and scalability when multiple transactions are executing insert statements at the same time. (see 14.6.5.5.2 "Configurable InnoDB Auto-Increment Locking")
The sheer length of the documentation of the InnoDB behavior is a reminder of the true complexity of making apparently simple guarantees in a concurrent system. Yes, monotonicity of inserts is possible with table-level locks, but hardly desirable. If you take a distributed view of the system, things get worse, because we can't even be sure of the counter value in partition mode...
I have a table whose primary keys are numbers are not sequentially.
By company policy is to register the new rows with ID lower value available. I.E.
table.ID = [11,13,14,16,17]
min(table.ID) = 12
I have an algorithm that gives me the lowest available. I want to know how to prevent this ID is use by another person before making insertion.
Would it be possible to do by DB? or would it be programming language?
Thanks.
The company policy is extremely short-sighted. Unless the company's goal is to build applications that do not scale and the company is unconcerned with performance.
If you really wanted to do this, you'd need to serialize all your transactions that touch this table-- essentially turning your nice, powerful server into a single-threaded single-user low-end machine. There are any number of ways to do this. The simplest (though not simple) method would be to do a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE on the row with the largest key less than the new key you want to insert (11 in this case). Once you acquired the lock, you would need to re-confirm that 12 is vacant. If it is, you could then insert the row with an id of 12. Otherwise, you'd need to restart the process looking for the new key and trying to lock the row with an id one less than that key. When your transaction commits, the lock would be released and the next session that was blocked waiting for a lock would be able to process. This assumes that you can control every process that tries to insert data into this table and that they would all implement exactly the same logic. It will lock up the system if you ever allow transactions to span waits for human input because humans will inevitably go to lunch with rows locked. And all that serialization will radically reduce the scalability of your application.
I would strongly encourage you to push back against the ridiculous "requirement" rather than implementing something this hideous.
I am writing an iPhone application where the user receives multiple messages from different users. These messages are stored in an sqlite3 database. With time the user might like to delete received messages from one user, but for sure he will continue to receive new messages from that user after deleting the old ones.
Since retrieving the messages will be done using a SELECT statement, which scenario is better to use when the user would like to delete the messages (in terms of performance):
DELETE all the old messages normally and continue to retrieve the new ones using a statement like: SELECT Messages FROM TableName WHERE UserID = (?)
Add a field to the table of type INTEGER and upon the DELETE request set this field to 1 and after that retrieve the new messages using a statement like: SELECT Messages FROM TableName WHERE UserID = (?) AND IsDeleted = 0
One more thing, if scenario 1 is used (normal DELETE) will this cause any fragmentation of the database file on the disk?
Many thanks in advance.
Using scenario 1 is much better, since both SELECT and DELETE in SQL operate at the same level of speed and scenario 1 will grant you not having dangling tuples (Unwanted Rows) in your database.
If you are wishing to perform data backup after any deletion process so scenario 2 is a must but you have to take into consideration the growing size of your database which leads to a slower performance in future.
Finally I would like to add that performing deleting operations on a database would not cause any fragmentation issues since most of databases have fragmentation and optimizing tools in their engines.
It would be a pretty lousy database if DELETE didn't work well. In absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd assume you are safe to delete as normal. The database's entire raison d'être is to make these sorts of operations efficient.
IMHO if you don't use DELETE, after a while the db will get bigger and bigger, thus making each SELECT less and less efficient.
therefore i figure that deleting rows that will never be used again is more efficient.