I'm developing an application that uses a mysql database and we wanted to do an approach for history purposes, that we store the current state and the history in the same table for performance reasons (on updates the application doesn't have the id for an entity just a key pair, so it is easier just to insert a new row).
The table looks like this:
+------+-------+-----------+------------------------------+
| id |user_id| type |content |
+------+-------+-----------+------------------------------+
| 1 |'1-2-3'| position | *creation |
| 2 |'1-2-3'| position | *something_changed |
| 3 |'1-2-3'| device | *creation |
| 4 |'1-2-4'| position | *creation |
| 5 |'1-2-4'| device | *creation |
| 6 |'1-2-4'| device | *something_changed |
+------+-------+-----------+------------------------------+
Every entity is described with the user_id and type "key" pair, when something is changed in the entity a new row is inserted. The current state of an entity is selected by the highest id row from the group, which is grouped by the user_id and type. Performance wise the updates should be super fast and the selects can be slower, because those are not used often.
I would like to look up best practices and other people experiences with this method, but I don't know how to search for them. Can you help me? I'm interested in your experiences or opinions on this topic as well.
I know about Kafka and other streaming platforms, but that was sadly not an option for this.
Related
I have a hypertable which looks like this:
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression | Stats target | Description
-------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+-------------+--------------+-------------
state | text | | | | extended | | |
device | text | | | | extended | | |
time | bigint | | not null | | plain | | |
Indexes:
"device_state_time" btree ("time")
Triggers:
ts_insert_blocker BEFORE INSERT ON "device_state" FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE FUNCTION _timescaledb_internal.insert_blocker()
Child tables: _timescaledb_internal._hyper_4_2_chunk
Access method: heap
I have 100k devices each sending their state at different time intervals. For ex, device1 sends state every second, device2 every day, device3 every 5 days etc. And I MUST keep at least 10 latests states for a device. So, I can't really use the default data retention policy provided by timescale.
Is there any way to achieve this efficiently other than manually selecting the latest 10 entries for each device and deleting the rest?
Thanks!
That sounds like a corner case because the chunks are time-based. Can you categorize these devices in advance?
Maybe you can insert data into different hypertables based on the insert timeframe if you still want to use the retention policies.
For example, on promscale, the solution uses one table for each metric, allowing users to redefine the retention policy for every metric.
It will depend on how you read the data later; maybe fragmenting it into several hypertables will make it harder.
Also, consider hacking the hypertable creation optional arguments maybe you can get something from the partitioning_func and time_partitioning_func.
I'm looking for some guidance, what's the best way to transform data from A to B. I.e. if each client has different data but essentially recording the same details, what is the best way to transform this into a common schema?
Simple example showing different schemas
Client A | Id | Email | PricePaid | Date |
Client B | Id | Email | Price | DateOfTransaction |
Result schema
| Id | Email | Price | Order_Timestamp |
This simple example shows two clients record essentially the same things but with different names for the price and date of the order. Is there a good technique to automate this for any future schema but purely through configuration? I.e. maybe something with XML/ XSD perhaps?
Many suggestions welcome.
Thanks,
Here is my requirement.
I have a big table in Vertica say base_table as follows.
base_table
ID | path | service | experience
20 | /abc/xyz | trz | moderate
22 | /wer/cmz | brd | professional
Mapping Tables
map_table1
path_id | path
1 | /abc/xyz
map_table2
exp_id | experience
1 | beginner
Final Table
ID | path_id | service | exp_id
20 | 1 | trz | -
22 | - | brd | 2
In the First case, I need to get ID as 1 as the path column is present in the map_table1 as well as base table and insert that record into the final table.
In the Second case, I need to insert id as 2 in map_table2 as experience professional is not present in that table as well as insert it into the final table.
which processors should I go for or how the flow should look like in Nifi?
I am not sure if I understand your question correctly, but if I generalize the situation, you want to insert a record if it does not exist, and then get the value of the corresponding ID (which may or may not have existed before).
The good news is that NiFi can easily work with a database like Vertica, have a look at the QueryDatabaseTable processor.
The challenge here however, is that NiFi is designed to efficiently handle many individual messages, and is therefore designed not to be very context aware. For your usecase you would probably want to use a tool that is built to work with tables. In general the solution for this would be Spark, or perhaps it can be built into your database with some procedures.
I have to optimize my little-big database, because it's too slow, maybe we'll find another solution together.
First of all let's talk about data that are stored in the database. There are two objects: users and let's say messages
Users
There is something like that:
+----+---------+-------+-----+
| id | user_id | login | etc |
+----+---------+-------+-----+
| 1 | 100001 | A | ....|
| 2 | 100002 | B | ....|
| 3 | 100003 | C | ....|
|... | ...... | ... | ....|
+----+---------+-------+-----+
There is no problem inside this table. (Don't afraid of id and user_id. user_id is used by another application, so it has to be here.)
Messages
And the second table has some problem. Each user has for example messages like this:
+----+---------+------+----+
| id | user_id | from | to |
+----+---------+------+----+
| 1 | 1 | aab | bbc|
| 2 | 2 | vfd | gfg|
| 3 | 1 | aab | bbc|
| 4 | 1 | fge | gfg|
| 5 | 3 | aab | gdf|
|... | ...... | ... | ...|
+----+---------+------+----+
There is no need to edit messages, but there should be an opportunity to updated the list of messages for the user. For example, an external service sends all user's messages to the db and the list has to be updated.
And the most important thing is that there are about 30 Mio of users and average user has 500+ of messages. Another problem that I have to search through the field from and calculate number of matches. I designed a simple SQL query with join, but it takes too much time to get the data.
So...it's quite big amount of data. I decided not to use RDS (I used Postgresql) and decided to move to databases like Clickhouse and so on.
However I faced with a problem that for example Clickhouse doesn't support UPDATE statement.
To resolve this issues I decided to store messages as one row. So the table Messages should be like this:
Here I'd like to store messages in JSON format
{"from":"aaa", "to":bbe"}
{"from":"ret", "to":fdd"}
{"from":"gfd", "to":dgf"}
||
\/
+----+---------+----------+------+ And there I'd like to store the
| id | user_id | messages | hash | <= hash of the messages.
+----+---------+----------+------+
I think that full-text search inside the messages column will save some time resources and so on.
Do you have any ideas? :)
In ClickHouse, the most optimal way is to store data in "big flat table".
So, you store every message in a separate row.
15 billion rows is Ok for ClickHouse, even on single node.
Also, it's reasonable to have each user attributes directly in messages table (pre-joined), so you don't need to do JOINs. It is suitable if user attributes are not updated.
These attributes will have repeated values for each users' message - it's Ok because ClickHouse compresses data well, especially repeated values.
If users' attributes are updated, consider to store users table in separate database and use 'External dictionaries' feature to join it.
If message is updated, just don't update it. Write another row with modified message to a table instead and leave old message as is.
Its important to have right primary key for your table. You should use table from MergeTree family, which constantly reorders data by primary key and so maintains efficiency of range queries. Primary key is not required to be unique, for example you could define primary key as just (from) if you would frequently write "from = ...", and if these queries must be processed in short time.
And you could use user_id as primary key: if queries by user id are frequent and must be processed as fast as possible, but then queries with predicate on 'from' will scan whole table (mind that ClickHouse do full scan efficiently).
If you need to fast lookup by many different attributes, you could just duplicate table with different primary keys. It's typically that table will be compressed well enough and you could afford to have data in few copies with different order for different range queries.
First of all, when we have such a big dataset, from and to columns should be integers, if possible, as their comparison is faster.
Second, you should consider creating proper indexes. As each user has relatively few records (500 compared to 30M in total), it should give you a huge performance benefit.
If everything else fails, consider using partitions:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-partitioning.html
In your case they would be dynamic, and hinder first time inserts immensely, so I would consider them only as last, if very efficient, resort.
I have to generate a view that shows tracking across each month. The ultimate view will be something like this:
| Person | Task | Jan | Feb | Mar| Apr | May | June . . .
| Joe | Roof Work | 100% | 50% | 50% | 25% |
| Joe | Basement Work | 0% | 50% | 50% | 75% |
| Tom | Basement Work | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
I already have the following tables:
Person
Task
I am now creating a new table to foreign key into the above 2 tables and i am trying to figure out the pros and cons of creating 1 or 2 tables.
Option 1:
Create a new table with the following Columns:
Id
PersonId
TaskId
Jan2012
Feb2012
Mar2012
Apr2013
or
Option 2:
have 2 seperate tables
One table for just
Id
PersonId
TaskId
and another table for just the following columns
Id
PersonTaskId (the id from table above)
MonthYearKey
MonthYearValue
So an example record would be
| 1 | 13 | Jan2011 | 100% |
where 13 would represent a specific unique Person and Task combination. This second way would avoid having to create new columns to continue over time (which seems right) but i also want to avoid overkill.
which would be a more scalable way to have this schema. Also, any other suggestions or more elegant ways of doing this would be great as well?
You can have a m2m table with data columns. I don't see a reason why you can't just put MonthYearKey, MonthYearValue on the same table with PersonId and TaskId
Id
TaskId
PersonId
MonthYearKey
MonthYearValue
It's possible too that you would want to move the MonthYearKey out into their own table, it really just comes down to common queries and what this data is used for.
I would note, you never want to design a schema where you are adding columns due to time. The first option would require maintenance all the time, and would become very difficult to query also.
Option 2 is definitely more scalable and is not overkill.
Option 1 would require you to add a new column every month and simple date based queries of your data would not be possible, e.g. Show me all people who worked at least 90% in any month last year.
The ultimate view would be generated from a particular query or view of your data.