Sphinx 2.0.1 brings with it the ability to call UPDATE and update an individual item in an index.
Does anyone know what type of performance this brings to sphinx when called VERY frequently (as frequently as several hundred times a second)? The reason for this would be to keep a real time index of trending item scores which get updated every time a user performs an action. Obviously when there are lots of users this value can be update quite frequently.
EDIT:
I should mention that I am not using SphinxSE.
You are talking about sphinx rt indices... Updates are fast, but remember, this type of indices do not support enable_star. This means you can't perform searches like appl*.
Such attributes are stored in memory. So updates should be really fast.
But I've never benchmarked it. So try benchmarking it!
... although to be honest I would still be tempted to 'batch process' it. Write the actions to a log "file", and then process that log in batches. Maybe every 10 seconds. All actions on the same record can be run as one update statement.
Related
I'm debugging a DB performance issue. There's a lead that the issue was introduced after a certain deploy, e.g. when DB started to serve some new queries.
I'm looking to correlate deployment time with the performance issues, and would like to identify the queries that are causing this.
Using pg_stat_statements has been very handy so far. Unfortunately it does not store the time stamp of the first occurrence of each query.
Is there any auxiliary tables I could look into to see the time of first occurrence of queries?
Ideally, if this information would have been available in pg_stat_statements, I'd make a query like this:
select queryid from where date(first_run) = '2020-04-01';
Additionally, it'd be cool to see last_run as well, so to filter out some old queries that no longer execute at all, but remain in pg_stat_statements. That's more of a nice thing that's a necessity though.
This information is not stored anywhere, and indeed it would not be very useful. If the problem statement is a new one, you can easily identify it in your application code. If it is not a new statement, but something made the query slower, the first time the query was executed won't help you.
Is your source code not under version control?
I am asking a question that I assume does not have a simple black and white question but the principal of which I'm asking is clear.
Sample situation:
Lets say I have a collection of 1 million books, and I consistently want to always pull the top 100 rated.
Let's assume that I need to perform an aggregate function every time I perform this query which makes it a little expensive.
It is reasonable, that instead of running the query for every request (100-1000 a second), I would create a dedicated collection that only stores the top 100 books that gets updated every minute or so, thus instead of running a difficult query a 100 times every second, I only run it once a minute, and instead pull from a small collection of books that only holds the 100 books and that requires no query (just get everything).
That is the principal I am questioning.
Should I create a dedicated collection for EVERY query that is often
used?
Should I do it only for complicated ones?
How do I gauge which is complicated enough and which is simple enough
to leave as is?
Is there any guidelines for best practice in those types of
situations?
Is there a point where if a query runs so often and the data doesn't
change very often that I should keep the data in the server's memory
for direct access? Even if it's a lot of data? How much is too much?
Lastly,
Is there a way in MongoDB to cache results?
If so, how can I tell it to fetch the cached result, and when to regenerate the cache?
Thank you all.
Before getting to collection specifics, one does have to differentiate between "real-time data" vis-a-vis data which does not require immediate and real-time presenting of information. The rules for "real-time" systems are obviously much different.
Now to your example starting from the end. The cache of query results. The answer is not only for MongoDB. Data architects often use Redis, or memcached (or other cache systems) to hold all types of information. This though, obviously, is a function of how much memory is available to your system and the DB. You do not want to cripple the DB by giving your cache too much of available memory, and you do not want your cache to be useless by giving it too little.
In the book case, of 100 top ones, since it is certainly not a real time endeavor, it would make sense to cache the query and feed that cache out to requests. You could update the cache based upon a cron job or based upon an update flag (which you create to inform your program that the 100 have been updated) and then the system will run an $aggregate in the background.
Now to the first few points:
Should I create a dedicated collection for EVERY query that is often used?
Yes and no. It depends on the amount of data which has to be searched to $aggregate your response. And again, it also depends upon your memory limitations and btw let me add the whole server setup in terms of speed, cores and memory. MHO - cache is much better, as it avoids reading from the data all the time.
Should I do it only for complicated ones?
How do I gauge which is complicated enough and which is simple enough to leave as is?
I dont think anyone can really black and white answer to that question for your system. Is a complicated query just an $aggregate? Or is it $unwind and then a whole slew of $group etc. options following? this is really up to the dataset and how much information must actually be read and sifted and manipulated. It will effect your IO and, yes, again, the memory.
Is there a point where if a query runs so often and the data doesn't change very often that I should keep the data in the server's memory for direct access? Even if it's a lot of data? How much is too much?
See answers above this is directly connected to your other questions.
Finally:
Is there any guidelines for best practice in those types of situations?
The best you can do here is to time the procedures in your code, monitor memory usage and limits, look at the IO, study actual reads and writes on the collections.
Hope this helps.
Use a cache to store objects. For example in Redis use Redis Lists
Redis Lists are simply lists of strings, sorted by insertion order
Then set expiry to either a timeout or a specific time
Now whenever you have a miss in Redis, run the query in MongoDB and re-populate your cache. Also since cache resids in memory therefore your fetches will be extremely fast as compared to dedicated collections in MongoDB.
In addition to that, you don't have to keep have a dedicated machine, just deploy it within your application machine.
I am designing a search that will be fed around 50 to 200 GB of text data per day (similar to logs) and it only needs to retain that data for week or two. This data will be piped at a constant rate (5,000/per second for example), non-stop, 24 hours a day. After a week or two, the document should drop out of the index never to be heard from again.
The index should be searchable with free-form text across only 1 field (pretty small in size, around 512 characters max). At most, the schema could have 2 attributes that could be categorized.
The system needs to be indexed in near real-time as data is fed to it. A delay of 15 to 30 seconds is acceptable.
We prefer to stream data into the indexer/service with a constant stream of pipe data.
Lastly, a single stand-alone solution is prefer over any type of distribution setup (this will be part of a package to deploy and setup on local machines for testers).
I'm looking closely at Sphinx search engine with RT updates via the API as it checks off most of these. But, I am not seeing an easy way to expire documents after a certain length of time.
I am aware that I could track the IDs and a timestamp and issue a batch DELETE through the Sphinx API. But, that creates an issue of tracking large amounts of IDs in a separate datastore that will need the same kind of 5,000/per second inserts and deleting them when done.
I also have a concern around Sphinx Fragmentation of mass-inserting, and mass-deleting in the middle of inserting.
We would really prefer the search engine/indexer to handle the expiration itself.
I think I can perform a WHERE timestamp < UNIXTIMESTAMP-OF-TWO-WEEEKS-AGO as the where clause in the Sphinx API in order to gather the Document IDs to delete. The problem with that is if the system does not stay ontop of the deletes, the total number of documents/search results will be in the 10s of millions, maybe even billions in count after a two week timeframe if it has to gather a few days worth of document ids to delete. That's not a feasible query.
You can actually run
DELETE FROM rt WHERE timestamp < UNIXTIMESTAMP-OF-TWO-WEEEKS-AGO
As a query to delete the old documents, which is much simpler :)
You will also need to call OPTIMIZE INDEX from time to time.
Both these will have to be called on some sort of 'cron' schedule, as they wont be run automatically.
You might be better not using Sphinxes DELETE function at all. When writing RT indexes, as soon as the RAM chunk is full its writen out as a disk chunk. So you end up with a number of disk chunks on the disk. The oldest documents will be in the oldest chunk, sequentially.
So to clear out the oldest documents, you could just dispose of the oldest chunks. (on a rolling basis)
The problem is sphinx does not include a function to delete individual chunks.
Will need to shutdown searchd, delete the chunk(s), manipulate the header files and then restart Sphinx. Not an easy process.
But in the more general sense, not sure if sphinx will be able to keep up with a continuous stream of 5,000/documents per second (even ignoreing delete for a moment) - Sphinx is generally designed for write-infrequently, read-frequently. It builds a (for the most part) monolithic inverted index. This is great for querying, but is very hard to keep updated. Its not great for incremental updates.
I am using mongoDB for an application. This application requires high frequency of read, write and update.
I am just concerned about update and delete functions. Which one is fast among these two. I am indexing the collection on one attribute. Update and Delete both fulfils my purpose, but I am not sure which one is perfect and have better performance.
I would suggest that rather than deciding on whether you use Update or Delete for your solution, you look more on the SafeMode attribute.
SafeMode.True indicates that you are expecting a response from the server that will contain among other things, a confirmation of whether the command succeeded or failed. This option blocks the execution until you receive a response from the server.
SafeMode.False will not expect any response, and it is basically an optimistic command. You expect for it to work, but have no way to confirm it. Waiting for the response does not block the execution, therefore, you gain performance because all you need to do is to send the request.
Now you need to consider that Deletes will free us space on the server, but you will lose history and traceability of the data. Updates will allow you to keep historic entries, but you will need to make sure your queries exclude the 'marked for deletion' entries.
It is obviously up to you to find whether a Delete or Update is better, but I think the focus should be on whether you use SafeMode true or false to improve performance.
A rather odd question but here are the things you can base your decision on :
Deleting will keep the collection at an optimum size. Updating (I assume you mean something like setting a deleted flag to true) will result in an ever growing collection which eventually will make things slower.
In-place updates (updates that do not result in the document having to be moved due to an increase in size) are always faster than updates or deleted that require documents to be (re)moved.
Safe = false writes will significantly improve throughput of updates and deletes at the expense of not being able to check if the update/remove was succesful.
What is the best way to get this thing done:
I have a huge table with +40k records (tv show titles) in sqlite and I want to do real time lookups to this table. For eg if user searches for a show, as and when user enters search terms I read sqlite and filter records after every keystroke (like google search suggestion).
My performance benchmark is 100 milliseconds. A few things I have thought of are: creating indexes, splitting the data into multiple tables.
However, I would really appreciate any suggestions to achieve this in the fastest possible time so I can avoid any ui refresh delays - it would be awesome to have feedback from coders who have already done something similar.
Things to do:
Index fields appropriately.
Limit yourself to only 10-15 records on the initial query—that should be enough to populate the top of the table view.
If you don't need to sort, don't. If you do need to sort, sort on an indexed field.
Do as much as you can in SQLite rather than your own code.
Do as little as you can overall.
You'll likely find what I have: SQLite and the iPhone are actually amazingly capable as long as you don't do anything really dumb.
Keep "perceived performance" in mind - doing lookups right after a key is hit is could be somewhat expensive. How many milliseconds does it take a user to hit a key, though? You can probably get away with not updating the resultlist until the user hasn't typed anything for several hundred milliseconds. (For really fast users, perhaps update every X hundred millisecodns while he's still typing).
How do you know the performance will be bad? 40k rows is not that much, even for an iPhone... try it on the phone before you optimize.
Avoid doing any joins, try to use paging so that you keep the amount of data returned to a minimum. Perhaps you should try loading the whole thing into memory, then sort and do binary search? If it is just a list of show titles it would fit?