I have a tool that reads membership of groups in AAD every 6 hours. I used the graph api groups/{id}/transitiveMembers to read the entire membership and found out the resource unit cost (x-ms-resource-unit) was higher. I updated the code to use delta query so that it reads incremental changes instead of entire membership to reduce the cost and found out that x-ms-resource-unit header is missing in delta query. Because this header is missing, the cost should go lower. However, what I noticed is that the cost is still the same as before (no changes) even though I don't read entire membership + header is missing in delta query. From the logs, I can clearly see that delta query is running on the groups. What am I missing?
Related
I have an AWS application where DynamoDB is used for most data storage and it works well for most cases. I would like to ask you about one particular case where I feel DynamoDB might not be the best option.
There is a simple table with customers. Each customer can collect virtual coins so each customer has a balance attribute. The balance is managed by 3rd party service keeping up-to-date value and the balance attribute in my table is just a cached version of it. The 3rd party service requires its own id of the customer as an input so customers table contains also this externalId attribute which is used to query the balance.
I need to run the following process once per day:
Update the balance attribute for all customers in a database.
Find all customers with the balance greater than some specified constant value. They need to be sorted by the balance.
Perform some processing for all of the customers - the processing must be performed in proper order - starting from the customer with the greatest balance in descending order (by balance).
Question: which database is the most suitable one for this use case?
My analysis:
In terms of costs it looks to be quite similar, i.e. paying for Compute Units in case of DynamoDB vs paying for hours of micro instances in case of RDS. Not sure though if micro RDS instance is enough for this purpose - I'm going to check it but I guess it should be enough.
In terms of performance - I'm not sure here. It's something I will need to check but wanted to ask you here beforehand. Some analysis from my side:
It involves two scan operations in the case of DynamoDB which
looks like something I really don't want to have. The first scan can be limited to externalId attribute, then balances are queried from 3rd party service and updated in the table. The second scan requires a range key defined for balance attribute to return customers sorted by the balance.
I'm not convinced that any kind of indexes can help here. Basically, there won't be too many read operations of the balance - sometimes it will need to be queried for a single customer using its primary key. The number of reads won't be much greater than number of writes so indexes may slow the process down.
Additional assumptions in case they matter:
There are ca. 500 000 customers in the database, the average size of a single customer is 200 bytes. So the total size of the customers in the database is 100 MB.
I need to repeat step 1 from the above procedure (update the balance of all customers) several times during the day (ca. 20-30 times per day) but the necessity to retrieve sorted data is only once per day.
There is only one application (and one instance of the application) performing the above procedure. Besides that, I need to handle simple CRUD which can read/update other attributes of the customers.
I think people are overly afraid of DynamoDB scan operations. They're bad if used for regular queries but for once-in-a-while bulk operations they're not so bad.
How much does it cost to scan a 100 MB table? That's 25,000 4KB blocks. If doing eventually consistent that's 12,250 read units. If we assume the cost is $0.25 per million (On Demand mode) that's 12,250/1,000,000*$0.25 = $0.003 per full table scan. Want to do it 30 times per day? Costs you less than a dime a day.
The thing to consider is the cost of updating every item in the database. That's 500,000 write units, which if in On Demand at $1.25 per million will be about $0.63 per full table update.
If you can go Provisioned for that duration it'll be cheaper.
Regarding performance, DynamoDB can scan a full table faster than any server-oriented database, because it's supported by potentially thousands of back-end servers operating in parallel. For example, you can do a parallel scan with up to a million segments, each with a client thread reading data in 1 MB chunks. If you write a single-threaded client doing a scan it won't be as fast. It's definitely possible to scan slowly, but it's also possible to scan at speeds that seem ludicrous.
If your table is 100 MB, was created in On Demand mode, has never hit a high water mark to auto-increase capacity (just the starter capacity), and you use a multi-threaded pull with 4+ segments, I predict you'll be done in low single digit seconds.
What does it mean there is a longer time for COMPILATION_TIME, QUEUED_PROVISIONING_TIME or both more than usual?
I have a query runs every couple of minutes and it usually takes less than 200 milliseconds for compilation and 0 for provisioning. There are 2 instances in the last couple of days the values are more than 4000 for compilation and more than 100000 for provisioning.
Is that mean warehouse was being resumed and there was a hiccup?
COMPILATION_TIME:
The SQL is parsed and simplified, and the tables meta data is loaded. Thus a compile for select a,b,c from table_name will be fractally faster than select * from table_name because the meta data is not needed from every partition to know the final shape.
Super fragmented tables, can give poor compile performance as there is more meta data to load. Fragmentation comes from many small writes/deletes/updates.
Doing very large INSERT statements can give horrible compile performance. We did a lift-and-shift and did all data loading via INSERT, just avoid..
PRIOVISIONING_TIME is the amount of time to setup the hardware, this occurs for two main reasons ,you are turning on 3X, 4X, 5X, 6X servers and it can take minutes just to allocate those volume of servers.
Or there is failure, sometime around releases there can be a little instability, where a query fails on the "new" release, and query is rolled back to older instances, which you would see in the profile as 1, 1001. But sometimes there has been problems in the provisioning infrastructure (I not seen it for a few years, but am not monitoring for it presently).
But I would think you will mostly see this on a on going basis for the first reason.
The compilation process involves query parsing, semantic checks, query rewrite components, reading object metadata, table pruning, evaluating certain heuristics such as filter push-downs, plan generations based upon the cost-based optimization, etc., which totally accounts for the COMPILATION_TIME.
QUEUED_PROVISIONING_TIME refers to Time (in milliseconds) spent in the warehouse queue, waiting for the warehouse compute resources to provision, due to warehouse creation, resume, or resize.
https://docs.snowflake.com/en/sql-reference/functions/query_history.html
To understand the reason behind the query taking long time recently in detail, the query ID needs to be analysed. You can raise a support case to Snowflake support with the problematic query ID to have the details checked.
After making a change to a Group in Azure AD using Microsoft Graph API v1 (for example, Adding a user to the group) which completes successfully, if the Group Delta Query is fired immediately after the change, the graph delta query doesn't return the expected delta, instead, have to do Group delta query again after some time to get the expected change.
What is the expected latency between any mutating operation using Microsoft Graph API and consequentially getting the same change in Delta Query's result?
While Security Groups are pretty lightweight, Unified Groups have a number of additional dependencies (i.e. a mailbox if it's mail-enabled, the group's Drive, etc.). As such, it takes a little longer to provision them. In general, this process takes 10 seconds or less to complete but it can take a bit longer (anecdotally, it seems to depend on how much other activity/load is on the tenant at the time).
My general guidance here would be to assume 20 seconds. I have a number of integration tests that exorcize Group creation/deletion that include a 20 second and I've yet to have a test fail due to this latency.
What is the maximum number of records within a single custom object in salesforce.com?
There does not seem to be a limit indicated in https://login.salesforce.com/help/doc/en/limits.htm
But of course, there has to be a limit of some kind. EG: Could 250 million records be stored in a single salesforce.com custom object?
As far as I'm aware the only limit is your data storage, you can see what you've used by going to Setup -> Administration Setup -> Data Management -> Storage Usage.
In one of the Orgs I work with I can see one object has almost 2GB of data for just under a million records, and this accounts for a little over a third of the storage available. Your storage space depends on your Salesforce Edition and number of users. See here for details.
I've seen the performance issue as well, though after about 1-2M records the performance hit appears magically to plateau, or at least it didn't appear to significantly slow down between 1M and 10M. I wonder if orgs are tier-tuned based on volume... :/
But regardless of this, there are other challenges which make it less than ideal for big data. Even though they've increased the SOQL governor limit to permit up to 50 million records to be retrieved in one call, you're still strapped with a 200,000 line execution limit in Apex and a 10K DML limit (per execution thread). These can be bypassed through Batch Apex, yet this has limitations as well. You can only execute 250K batches in 24 hours and only have 5 batches running at any given time.
So... the moral of the story seems to be that even if you managed to get a billion records into a custom object, you really can't do much with the data at that scale anyway. Therefore, it's effectively not the right tool for that job in its current state.
2-cents
LaceySnr is correct. However, there is an inverse relationship between the number of records for an object and performance. Any part of the system that filters on that object will be impacted, such as views, reports, SOQL queries, etc.
It's hard to talk specific numbers since salesforce has upwards of a dozen server clusters, each with their own performance characteristics. And there's probably a lot of dynamic performance management that occurs regularly. But, in the past I've seen performance issues start to creep in around 2M records. One possible remedy is you can ask salesforce to index fields that you plan to filter on.
With the appengine pricing changes, we've been paying attention to our datastore puts. According to the pricing comparison chart we're making 2.18 million puts a day. This seems a lot higher than expected. We receive about 0.6 queries per second which means that each request is making about 60 puts!!
Using the sample code for db profiling http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/hooks.html
we measured this for a day and the most we counted was ~14,000 which seems more reasonable. Does anyone have experience with something similar on their site?
The discrepancy you're seeing is because every index write is counted separately. When you do a datastore put, you're charged for the number of rows that have to be modified, so if you modified a single indexed field, you'd expect to be charged for:
One write for the entity itself
Two writes for the ascending index for the modified property
Two writes for the descending index for the modified property
For a total of 5 writes. As you can see, setting properties to indexed=False can have a big impact on your quota usage here.