I have a table that has around 40 columns. The only difference in the columns names is that the last 20 all start with "B" before the column name. This table is used for comparing. In other words, compare the data in the first 20 columns to the data in the last 20 columns.
I know this is very bad design, so how should this table be redesigned, so that there are only 20 columns, yet we can still compare the data?
EDIT: if it helps, we also use this data to find a matched cohort
Also note that performance is of main concern here. By duplicating the columns the getting of data is extremely fast.
Thanks!
Two possible architectures and a query tip.
1) Build your table with a "Type" column, and use that to flag "primary" vs. "alternate". In your case, "A" vs. "B" might be appropriate.
2) Build a vertical partition, two identical tables (for primary and alternate data), that share a common primary key. (If Id = 42 is in one table, it must be in the other--unless "alternate" data is optional, in which case don't populate the second table.) Also optionally, have a third table that tracks all possible primary keys, along with any data that is known to always be common to both tables.
Tip: Read up on SELECT...EXCEPT and SELECT...INTERSECT. They run disturbingly quickly, and are idea for comparing all columns and rows between two datasets for differences (except) and matches (intersect). You can use this fairly easily with either of the two structures, and it would work with your existing code as well (though it might be fussier to write the query).
Related
Context
I'm trying to find the best way to represent and aggregate a high-cardinality column in Redshift. The source is event-based and looks something like this:
user
timestamp
event_type
1
2021-01-01 12:00:00
foo
1
2021-01-01 15:00:00
bar
2
2021-01-01 16:00:00
foo
2
2021-01-01 19:00:00
foo
Where:
the number of users is very large
a single user can have very large numbers of events, but is unlikely to have many different event types
the number of different event_type values is very large, and constantly growing
I want to aggregate this data into a much smaller dataset with a single record (document) per user. These documents will then be exported. The aggregations of interest are things like:
Number of events
Most recent event time
But also:
Number of events for each event_type
It is this latter case that I am finding difficult.
Solutions I've considered
The simple "columnar-DB-friendy" approach to this problem would simply be to have an aggregate column for each event type:
user
nb_events
...
nb_foo
nb_bar
1
2
...
1
1
2
2
...
2
0
But I don't think this is an appropriate solution here, since the event_type field is dynamic and may have hundreds or thousands of values (and Redshift has a upper limit of 1600 columns). Moreover, there may be multiple types of aggregations on this event_type field (not just count).
A second approach would be to keep the data in its vertical form, where there is not one row per user but rather one row per (user, event_type). However, this really just postpones the issue - at some point the data still needs to be aggregated into a single record per user to achieve the target document structure, and the problem of column explosion still exists.
A much more natural (I think) representation of this data is as a sparse array/document/SUPER:
user
nb_events
...
count_by_event_type (SUPER)
1
2
...
{"foo": 1, "bar": 1}
2
2
...
{"foo": 2}
This also pretty much exactly matches the intended SUPER use case described by the AWS docs:
When you need to store a relatively small set of key-value pairs, you might save space by storing the data in JSON format. Because JSON strings can be stored in a single column, using JSON might be more efficient than storing your data in tabular format. For example, suppose you have a sparse table, where you need to have many columns to fully represent all possible attributes, but most of the column values are NULL for any given row or any given column. By using JSON for storage, you might be able to store the data for a row in key:value pairs in a single JSON string and eliminate the sparsely-populated table columns.
So this is the approach I've been trying to implement. But I haven't quite been able to achieve what I'm hoping to, mostly due to difficulties populating and aggregating the SUPER column. These are described below:
Questions
Q1:
How can I insert into this kind of SUPER column from another SELECT query? All Redshift docs only really discuss SUPER columns in the context of initial data load (e.g. by using json_parse), but never discuss the case where this data is generated from another Redshift query. I understand that this is because the preferred approach is to load SUPER data but convert it to columnar data as soon as possible.
Q2:
How can I re-aggregate this kind of SUPER column, while retaining the SUPER structure? Until now, I've discussed a simplified example which only aggregates by user. In reality, there are other dimensions of aggregation, and some analyses of this table will need to re-aggregate the values shown in the table above. By analogy, the desired output might look something like (aggregating over all users):
nb_events
...
count_by_event_type (SUPER)
4
...
{"foo": 3, "bar": 1}
I can get close to achieving this re-aggregation with a query like (where the listagg of key-value string pairs is a stand-in for the SUPER type construction that I don't know how to do):
select
sum(nb_events) nb_events,
(
select listagg(s)
from (
select
k::text || ':' || sum(v)::text as s
from my_aggregated_table inner_query,
unpivot inner_query.count_by_event_type as v at k
group by k
) a
) count_by_event_type
from my_aggregated_table outer_query
But Redshift doesn't support this kind of correlated query:
[0A000] ERROR: This type of correlated subquery pattern is not supported yet
Q3:
Are there any alternative approaches to consider? Normally I'd handle this kind of problem with Spark, which I find much more flexible for these kinds of problems. But if possible it would be great to stick with Redshift, since that's where the source data is.
I have two tables in which I have data coming from two different sources. One of the field of each table contains the title of a movie, but for some reason out of my control, the titles are not always exactly the same.
So I use the ts_vector to get rid of all the minor differences (stop words, plurals and so on).
See an example here: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/5ccbc/3
My problem is how to compare the two ts_vector without taking into account the numberic values, but just the text content. If I compare directly the two fields, I only get the exact match between values, including position of each word. The only solution I have found is using the strip() function, that remove positions and weights from tsvector, leaving only the text content.
I was wondering if there is a fastest way to compare ts_vectors.
You could create in index on the stripped vector:
create index on tbl1 (strip(ts_title));
create index on tbl2 (strip(ts_title));
But given that your query has to fetch every row of each table, it is unlikely this would serve much of a point. Doing a merge join between the precomputed stripped vectors could be faster, but probably not once you include the overhead of building and maintaining the indexes. If the real WHERE clause is more restrictive (selecting only a few rows from one or the other of the tables) then please share the real query.
To give you a bit of background. I have a process which does this large complex calculation which takes a while to complete. It runs on a timer. After some investigation I realise that what is causing the slowness isn't the actual calculation but the internal q function, union.
I am trying to union two simple tables, table A and table B. A is approximately 5m rows and B is 500. Both tables have only two columns. First column is a symbol. Table A is actually a compound primary key of a table. (Also, how do you copy directly from the console?)
n:5000000
big:([]n?`4;n?100)
small:([]500?`4;500?100)
\ts big union small
I tried keying both columns and upserting, join and then distinct, "big, small where not small in big" but nothing seems to work :(
Any help will be appreciated!
If you want to upsert the big table it has to be keyed and upsert operator should be used. For example
n:5000000
//big ids are unique numbers from 0 to 499999
//table is keyed with 1! operator
big:1!([]id:(neg n)?n;val:n?100)
//big ids are unique numbers. 250 from 0-4999999 and 250 from 500000-1000000 intervals
small:([]id:(-250?n),(n+-250?n);val:500?100)
If big is global variable it is efficient to upsert it as
`big upsert small
if big is local
big: big upsert small
As the result big will have 500250 elements, because there are 250 common keys (id column) in big and small tables
this may not be relevant, but just a quick thought. If your big table has a column which has type `sym and if this column does not really show up that much throughout your program, why not cast it to string or other value? if you are doing this update process every single day then as the data gets packed in your partitioned hdb, whenever the new data is added, kdb+ process has to reassign/rewrite its sym file and i believe this is the part that actually takes a lot of time, not the union calculation itself..
if above is true, i'd suggest either rewriting your schema for the table which minimises # of rehashing(not sure if this is the right term though!) on your symfile. or, as the above person mentioned, try to assign attribute to your table.. this may reduce the time too.
I have a table with 100+ values corresponding to each row, so I'm exploring different ways to store them.
Without any indexes, would I lose anything if I store these 100 values in an integer[] column in postgresql? As compared to storing them in separate columns.
Plus, since we can add indexes to array elemnets,
CREATE INDEX test_index on test ((foo[1]));
Would there be a performance difference queries using such an index as compared to regular index on a column?
As far as I've read, this performance difference would come into picture in arrays with variable length elements; but I'm not sure about fixed length ones.
Don't go for the lazy way.
If you need to store 100 and more values as array, it is ok, if it has sense has array for your application, your data.
If you need to query for a specific element of the array, then this design is not good, regardless of performances, and you must use columns. This will help you in the moment you must delete a "column" in the middle or redesign it.
Anyway, as wrote by Frank in comments, if values are all same type, consider to model them to another table (if also the meaning is the same).
Given that a column family can have rows with arbitrary structure we could store all rows in a single "store" (avoiding the name 'columnfamily/table' on purpose).
What is the purpose of column families then?
The simplest of all reasons is evident in the name itself "Column Family". A Column Family groups a bunch of related columns together. You could consider it as a namespace containing related columns.
For example the Column "Name" by itself lacks context, which can be provided by ColumnFamilies like "Employees" or "Cities". Or each Column would need to carry all of it's context by itself with no concept of related Columns.
Atomicity
In Cassandra 1.1 and below, the only atomic guarantee you have is that writes to the same row (i.e. with the same key) will be atomic.
Thus, you think very carefully about what you want in your columns, and what row those columns should be in so that your application will behave appropriately if a write fails.
Reasons:
To have a different sort order for the columns within a row. The comparator is specified at column family creation time and can't be changed afterwards. So if you have rows which columns must be sorted alphabetically or numerically you have to create different column families.
Customize the storage options that can be set on per column family basis. E.g. caching or rows, compaction, deletion of expired columns, etc. Per column family storage options can be found here
Can't mix counter and non-counter columns in the same column family
As mentioned in other answers, due to logical cohesion - columns represent attributes of some entity identified by the row id.