Existing Postgres Database vs Solr - postgresql

We have an app that uses postgres database, that has about 50 tables. Each table contains about 3 Million records (on average). The tables get updated with new data every now and than. Now, we want to implement search feature in our app. The search needs to be performed on one table at a time (no joins needed).
I've read about postgres full text support and that looks promising. But it seems that Solr is Super fast in comparison to it. Can I use my existing postgres database with Solr? If tables get updated would I need to re-index everything again?

It is definitely worth giving Solr a try. We moved many MySQL queries involving JOINs on multiple tables with sorting on different fields to Solr. We are very happy with Solr's search speed, sort speed, faceting capabilities and highly configurable text analysis/tokenization options.
If tables get updated would I need to re-index everything again?
No, you can run delta imports to only re-index your new and updated documents. See https://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler.
Get started with https://lucene.apache.org/solr/4_1_0/tutorial.html and all the links in there.

Since nobody has leapt in, I'll answer.
I'm afraid it all depends. It depends on (at least)
how big the text is in each "document"
how flexible you want your searching to be
how much integration you need between database and text-search
how fast is fast enough
how much experience you have with both
When I've had a database that needs some text searching, I've just used PG's built-in options. If I didn't have superuser access to the db, or was already running a big Java setup then Solr might well have appealed.

Related

Sync Elasticsearch Postgresql on a Springboot application

I have Postgresql as my primary database and I would like to take advantage of the Elasticsearch as a search engine for my SpringBoot application.
Problem: The queries are quite complex and with millions of rows in each table, most of the search queries are timing out.
Partial solution: I utilized the materialized views concept in the Postgresql and have a job running that refreshes them every X minutes. But on systems with huge amounts of data and with other database transactions (especially writes) in progress, the views tend to take long times to refresh (about 10 minutes to refresh 5 views). I realized that the current views are at it's capacity and I cannot add more.
That's when I started exploring other options just for the search and landed on Elasticsearch and it works great with the amount of data I have. As a POC, I used the Logstash's Jdbc input plugin but then it doesn't support the DELETE operation (bummer).
From here the soft delete is the option which I cannot take because:
A) Almost all the tables in the postgresql DB are updated every few minutes and some of them have constraints on the "name" key which in this case will stay until a clean-up job runs.
B) Many tables in my Postgresql Db are referenced with CASCADE DELETE and it's not possible for me to update 220 table's Schema and JPA queries to check for the soft delete boolean.
The same question mentioned in the link above also provides PgSync that syncs the postgresql with elasticsearch periodically. However, I cannot go with that either since it has LGPL license which is forbidden in our organization.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone else encountered this strange limitation of elasticsearch and RDMS.
I'm open to other options rather than elasticsearch to solve my need. I just don't know what's the right stack to use. Any help here is much appreciated!

Auto complete on Large data set

I'm writing a project where I need to do an autocomplete on a data set that has 5 milion objects (schema is different for objects).
My first thought was to do SQL, but since Schema is changing it will not be fast
So I thought about MongoDB.
Two questions:
1 - do you have sample code that's working that I can use?
2- is Mongo the best solution in place? will it be fast? is there another NoSQL database that I can use instead?
If the time is critical and you wish to have the fastest database than Redis may be the database you are looking for. Here is a link to the Auto complete blog post using Redis.
MongoDB is a great database and includes many great feature so it may be a good choice either.

Best way to backup and restore data in PostgreSQL for testing

I'm trying to migrate our database engine from MsSql to PostgreSQL. In our automated test, we restore the database back to "clean" state at the start of every test. We do this by comparing the "diff" between the working copy of the database with the clean copy (table by table). Then copying over any records that have changed. Or deleting any records that have been added. So far this strategy seems to be the best way to go about for us because per test, not a lot of data is changed, and the size of the database is not very big.
Now I'm looking for a way to essentially do the same thing but with PostgreSQL. I'm considering doing the exact same thing with PostgreSQL. But before doing so, I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar and what method you used to restore data in your automated tests.
On a side note - I considered using MsSql's snapshot or backup/restore strategy. The main problem with these methods is that I have to re-establish the db connection from the app after every test, which is not possible at the moment.
If you're okay with some extra storage, and if you (like me) are particularly not interested in re-inventing the wheel in terms of checking for diffs via your own code, you should try creating a new DB (per run) via templates feature of createdb command (or CREATE DATABASE statement) in PostgreSQL.
So for e.g.
(from bash) createdb todayDB -T snapshotDB
or
(from psql) CREATE DATABASE todayDB TEMPLATE snaptshotDB;
Pros:
In theory, always exact same DB by design (no custom logic)
Replication is a file-transfer (not DB restore). So far less time taken (i.e. doesn't run SQL again, doesn't recreate indexes / restore tables etc.)
Cons:
Takes 2x the disk space (although template could be on a low performance NFS etc)
For my specific situation. I decided to go back to the original solution. Which is to compare the "working" copy of the database with "clean" copy of the database.
There are 3 types of changes.
For INSERT records - find max(id) from clean table and delete any record on working table that has higher ID
For UPDATE or DELETE records - find all records in clean table EXCEPT records found in working table. Then UPSERT those records into working table.

Postgres Multi-tenant administration/maintenance

We have a SaaS application where each tenant has its own database in Postgres. How would I apply a patch to all the databses? For example if I want to add a table or add a column to a table, I have to either write a program that loops through all databases and execute a SQL against them or using pgadmin, go through them one by one.
Is there smarter and/or faster way?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a smarter way.
Don't create a new database for each tenant. If everything is in one database then you only need to alter one database.
Pick one database, alter each table to have the column TENANT and add this to the primary key. Then insert into this database every record for all tenants and drop the other databases (obviously considerably more work than this as your application will need to be changed).
The differences with your approach are extensively discussed elsewhere:
What problems will I get creating a database per customer?
What are the advantages of using a single database for EACH client?
Multiple schemas versus enormous tables
Practicality of multiple databases per client vs one database
Multi-tenancy - single database vs multiple database
If you don't put everything in one database then I'm afraid you have to alter them all individually, and doing it programatically would be simplest.
At a higher level, all multi-tenant applications follow one of three approaches:
One tenant's data lives in one database,
One tenant's data lives in one schema, or
Add a tenant_id / account_id column to your tables (shared schema).
I usually find that developers use the following criteria when they evaluate these different approaches.
Isolation: Since you can put each tenant into its own database in one hand, and have tenants share the same table on the other, this becomes the most apparent dimension. If you provide your users raw SQL access or you're in a regulated industry such as healthcare, you may need strict guarantees from your database. That said, PostgreSQL 9.5 comes with row level security policies that makes this less of a concern for most applications.
Extensibility: If your tenants are sharing the same schema (approach #3), and your tenants have fields that varies between them, then you need to think about how to merge these fields.
This article on multi-tenant databases has a great summary of different approaches. For example, you can add a dozen columns, call them C1, C2, and so forth, and have your application infer the actual data in this column based on the tenant_id. PostgresQL 9.4 comes with JSONB support and natively allows you to use semi-structured fields to express variations between different tenants' data.
Scaling: Another criteria is how easily your database would scale-out. If you create a tenant per database or schema (#1 or #2 above), your application can make use of existing Ruby Gems or [Django packages][1] to simplify app integration. That said, you'll need to manually manage your tenants' data and the machines they live on. Similarly, you'll need to build your own sharding logic to propagate foreign key constraints and ALTER TABLE commands.
With approach #3, you can use existing open source scaling solutions, such as Citus. For example, this blog post describes how to easily shard a multi-tenant app with Postgres.
it's time for me to give back to the community :) So after 4 years, our multi-tenant platform is in production and I would like to share the following observations/experiences with all of you.
We used a database per each tenant. This has given us extreme flexibility as the size of the databases in the backups are not huge and hence we can easily import them into our staging environment for customers issues.
We use Liquibase for database development and upgrades. This has been a tremendous help to us, allowing us to package the entire build into a simple war file. All changes are easily versioned and managed very efficiently. There is a bit of learning curve here an there but nothing substantial. 2-5 days can significantly save you time.
Given that we use Spring/JPA/Hibernate, we use a technique called Dynamic Data Source Routing. So when a user logs-in, we find the related datasource with a lookup and connect them to the session to the right database. That's also when the Liquibase scripts get applied for updates.
This is, for now, I will come back with more later on.
Well, there are problems with one database for all tenants in our case for sure.
The backup file gets huge and becomes almost not practical hard to manage
For troubleshooting, we need to restore customer's data in our dev env, we just use that customer's backup file and usually the file is not as big as if we were to use one database for all customers.
Again, Liquibase has been key in allowing to manage updates across all the tenants seamlessly and without any issues. Without Liquibase, I can see lots of complications with this approach. So Liquibase, Liquibase and more Liquibase.
I also suspect that we would need a more powerful hardware to manage a huge database with large joins across millions of records vs much lighter database with much smaller queries.
In case of problems, the service doesn't go down for everyone and there will be limited to one or few tenants.
In general, for our purposes, this has been a great architectural decision and we are benefiting from it every day. One time we had one customer that didn't have their archiving active and their database size grew to over 3 GB. With offshore teams and slower internet as well as storage/bandwidth prices, one can see how things may become complicated very quickly.
Hope this helps someone.
--Rex

Accessing non-public schema in PostgreSQL with Pentaho

Let me start by saying, what I know about Pentaho wouldn't fill up a single paragraph. I'm more knowledgeable about PostgreSQL. I'm working with some contractors that are building a set of monthly reports in Pentaho (v. 4.5) for my company. Some of the data needs to go through a ETL process and get rolled up for reporting purposes. From a dba(ish) point of view, I would like to move these tables into a separate PostgreSQL schema.
I know that Pentaho is often times used with MySQL (which doesn't have schemas) and I'm concerned this might cause problems. I've done some "googlin'" and I don't turn up a lot of hits on the topic, but I did find a closed bug from a few years ago - thus implying that the functionality should be supported.
before I do this, I would like to see if anyone knows of a reason this will fail or be a bad idea. (or if you've done it an it works great, please let me know that, too).
Final notes: I'm using PostgreSQL 9.1.5, and I don't have access to a Pentaho instance to even test this myself. And I'm hoping the good folks in the Stackoverflow community will share their expertise and save me from having to install one and the hours of playing/testing to get an idea of this is a bad idea.
EDIT:
I sort of knew this question was a bit vague, but I was hoping that some one would read it and share any experience they have. So, Let me spell it out more clearly and ask more explicit questions.
I have not done anything. I don't know Pentaho. I don't want to learn Pentaho (not that there is anything wrong with Pentaho... It's just not where my interests are right now). My company hired contractors (I did not hire them). They have experience with Pentaho, but with MySQL. They don't really know anything about PostgreSQL. There are some important difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. Including the fact that PostgreSQL supports schemas (whereas MySQL uses separate database... similar in concept be behave differently in some ways). Some ORMs (and tools) don't really like this... for example, the Django framework still doesn't really fully support schemas in Postgresql (I know this because I use Python and Django often and my life is much better when I keep things in the "public" schema). Because of my experience with Django and PostgreSQL schemas, I'm a bit leery of moving this data to a new schema.
I do understand that where ever the tables are, they will need permissions to be able to access the data.
My explicit questions:
Do you use Pentaho to access a PostgreSQL database to access tables in schemas other than "public" (the default).
If so, does it just work (no problems)?
If you had problems, would you please be willing to share with me (and the Stackoverflow community) any online resources that helped you? Or would you be willing to detail what you remember here?
Do you know of anything that just won't work correctly? For example, an open bug in Pentaho related to this topic.
Again, it's not your standard kind of question. I'm hoping that someone out there has experience and is willing to share it here and save me from having to spend time setting up a new Pentaho instance and trying to learn Pentaho well enough to test it, etc.
Thanks.
Two paths you can take:
1) What previous post said ("Pentaho steps (table inputs, outputs, etc.) usually allow you to specify a database schema.")
2) In database connection, advanced tab, "The preferred schema name".
If you're working with different schemas, you can create one database connection per schema. With this approach you can leave schema field in input/output steps empty.
We use MS SQL server and I can tell you that Pentaho does struggle with the idea of a schema. Many of their apps allow you to select a schema but Pentaho, like you said, is built to use something like mySQL.
Make you pentaho database user work like it would be working in mySQL.
We made the database user default to dbo then we structured our tables like dbo.dimDimension,
dbo.factFactTable etc. Basically, only use dbo for Pentaho purposes. (Or whatever schema you want to default to.)
I use PDI and PgSQL extensively every day with a bunch of different schemas. It works fine. The only trouble you might run into is Pg's troublesome practice of forcing unquoted identifiers to lower instead of upper case. I soon realized everything was easier when I set the Advanced connection property to "Quote all in database".
Yes, you have to quote everything when you type SQL if PDI doesn't do it for you, but it works quite well. Haven't experimented with forcing all identifiers to lower case, but I expect that would work as well.
And yes, use the "Preferred schema nanme" as well, but be aware that some steps use that option and others don't. You can't, for example, expect it to add schema names to SQL you type into a Table Input step.
The only other issues you might run into are the limits of Pg's JDBC driver. It's not as good as SQL Server's or DB2's, but the only thing I've every had trouble with was sending error rows from a Table Output step to another step when the Table Output step was in batch mode.
Have fun learning PDI. It makes a great complement to your DBA skills.
Brian
Pentaho steps (table inputs, outputs, etc.) usually allow you to specify a database schema.
I did a quick test using PDI and our 8.4 Postgres instance and was able to explore, read from and write to tables in different schemas.
So, I think this is a reasonable direction. Hope this helps.