I have loaded a huge CSV dataset -- Eclipse's Filtered Usage Data using PostgreSQL's COPY, and it's taking a huge amount of space because it's not normalized: three of the TEXT columns is much more efficiently refactored into separate tables, to be referenced from the main table with foreign key columns.
My question is: is it faster to refactor the database after loading all the data, or to create the intended tables with all the constraints, and then load the data? The former involves repeatedly scanning a huge table (close to 10^9 rows), while the latter would involve doing multiple queries per CSV row (e.g. has this action type been seen before? If not, add it to the actions table, get its ID, create a row in the main table with the correct action ID, etc.).
Right now each refactoring step is taking roughly a day or so, and the initial loading also takes about the same time.
From my experience you want to get all the data you care about into a staging table in the database and go from there, after that do as much set based logic as you can most likely via stored procedures. When you load into the staging table don't have any indexes on the table. Create the indexes after the data is loaded into the table.
Check this link out for some tips http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/populate.html
Related
I'm using Data Factory (well synapse pipelines) to ingest data from sources into a staging layer. I am using the Copy Data activity with UPSERT. However i found the performance of incrementally loading large tables particularly slow so i did some digging.
So my incremental load brought in 193k new/modified records from the source. These get stored in the transient staging/landing table that the copy data activity creates in the database in the background. In this table it adds a column called BatchIdentifier, however the batch identifier value is different for every row.
Profiling the load i can see individual statements issued for each batchidentifier so effectively its processing the incoming data row by row rather than using a batch process to do the same thing.
I tried setting the sink writebatchsize property on copy data activity to 10k but that doesn't make any difference.
Has anyone else come across this, or a better way to perform a dynamic upsert without having to specify all the columns in advance (which i'm really hoping to avoid)
This is the SQL statement issued 193k times on my load as an example.
Does a check to see if the record exists in the target table, if so performs an update otherwise performs an insert. logic makes sense but its performing this on a row by row basis when this could just be done in bulk.
Is your primary key definition in the source the same as in the sink?
I just ran into this same behavior when the columns in the source and destination tables used different columns.
It also appears ADF/Synapse does not use MERGE for upserts, but its own IF EXISTS THEN UPDATE ELSE INSERT logic so there may be something behind the scenes making it select single rows for those BatchId executions.
Assume I'm doing everything in one postgresql database. I have 10 source tables I'm using to create one huge denormalized table. These source tables change frequently and have triggers firing after insert/update/delete to modify denormalized table in near-real-time. The problem is, some of these source tables I'm joining are huge (one table has 120M and other 25M rows) and statements for inserting new rows into denormalized table execute for a long time (20+ minutes for 50-100k rows).
So, I was thinking on what would be the best solution for updating(IUD)changes on this denormalized table, based on changes coming to source tables? Should I run these operations on a schedule, should I dedicate a specific database replica just for this, or should I continue trying to use triggers?
I'm open to using a totally different approach, as long as it's doable on the same database.
That sounds like there is no good and simple solution.
Perhaps you don't need that one huge denormalized table, and denormalizing a few attributes would be good enough for your query speed.
If not, you will probably need a kind of data warehouse for the denormalized data, and refresh that daily with increments. Ideally, tables there are already pre-aggregated.
I have a requirement in Talend where in I have to update/insert rows from the source table to the destination table. The source and destination tables are identical. The source gets refreshed by a business process and need to update/insert these results in the destination table.
I had designed for the 'insert or update' in tmap and tmysqloutput. However, the job turns out to be super slow
As an alternative to the above solution I am trying to do design the insert and update separately.In order to do this, I was wanting to hash the source rows as the number of rows would be usually less.
So, my question I will hash the input rows but when I join them with the destination rows in tmap should I hash the destination rows as well? Or should I use the destination rows as it is and then join them?
Any suggestions on the job design here?
Thanks
Rathi
If you are using the same database, you should not use ETL loading techniques but ELT loading so that all processing will happen in the database. Talend offers a few ELT components which are a bit different to use but very helpful for this case. I've had things to speed up by multiple magnitudes using only those components.
It is still a good idea to use an indexed hashed field both in the source and the target, which is done in a same way in loading Satellites in the Data Vault 2.0 model.
Alternatively, if you have direct access to the source table database, you could consider adding triggers for C(R)UD scenarios. Doing this, every action on the source database could be reflected in your database immediately. Remember though that you might need to think about a buffer table ("staging") where you could store your changes so that you are able to ingest fast, process later. In this table only the changed rows and the change type (create, update, delete) would be present for you to process. This decouples loading and processing which can be helpful if there will be a problem with loading or processing later on.
Yes i believe that you should use hash component for destination table as well.
Because than your processing (lookup) will be very fast as its happening in memory
If not than lookup load may take more time.
I'm copying several tables (~1.5M records) from one data source to another, but it is taking a long time. I'm looking to speed up my use of DBD::Pg.
I'm currently using pg_getcopydata/pg_putcopydata, but I suppose that the indexes on the destination tables are slowing the process down.
I found that I can find some information on table's indexes using $dbh->statistics_info, but I'm curious if anyone has a programmatic way to dynamically drop/recreate indexes based on this information.
The programmatic way, I guess, is to submit the appropriate CREATE INDEX SQL statements via DBI that you would enter into psql.
Sometimes when copying a large table it's better to do it in this order:
create table with out indexes
copy data
add indexes
Greetings Overflowers,
Is there an SQL DBMS that allows me to create an indexed view in which I can insert new rows without modifying the original tables of the view? I will need to query this view after performing the in-view-only inserts. If the answer is no, what other methods can do the job? I simply want to merge a set of rows that comes from another server with the set of rows in the created view -in a specific order- to be able to perform fast queries against the merged set, ie the indexed view, without having to persist the received set in disk. I am not sure if using in-memory database would perform well as the merged sets grow ridiculously?
What do you think guys?
Kind regards
Well, there's no supported way to do that, since the view has to be based on some table(s).
Besides that, indexed views are not meant to be used like that. You don't have to push any data into the index view thinking that you will make data retrieval faster.
I suggest you keep your view just the way it is. And then have a staging table, with the proper indexes created on it, in which you insert the data coming from the external system.
The staging table should be truncated anytime you want to get rid of the data (so right before you're inserting new data). That should be done in a SNAPSHOT ISOLATION transaction, so your existing queries don't read dirty data, or deadlock.
Then you have two options:
Use an UNION ALL clause to merge the results from the view and the staging table when you want to retrieve your data.
If the staging table shouldn't be merged, but inner joined, then you perhaps can integrate it in the indexed view.