I am trying to make different STATISTIC objects using different attributes in a database.
Problem - 1
My aim is to find the error in selectivity by choosing different attribute combinations. I wanted to compare this results with some other experiments. Here is what I have done,
I have made each of the attribute combinations (nC1, nC2, ..., nC_len_of_attributes). One attribute combination, two attribute combination etc. For example (name), (name, age), (name, age, zip), (age, zip), etc.
Made STATISTIC objects for each of the combinations using the command CREATE STATISTICS <name> on <one_attrib_combination> from <table_name>
I ran ANALYSE on the table, <table_name>.
Now I want to run a set of queries on each of this STATISTIC objects and get selectivity for each of the STATISTIC objects.
How can I go about this problem? I am using PostgreSQL 10. Any ideas?
Problem - 2
The second problem is, I wanted to know the size of each of these STATISTIC objects? How can I find the size of each of the unique STATISTIC objects that I have created before?
Thanks in advance for answering my queries.
Purpose for STATISTICS is different. You can create extended stats, so that planner can be aware about relations between columns, functions and so on. That way DBA can provide better, dynamic hint for the planner. Docs for CREATE STATISTIC has nice explanation for that.
To see information about that object there is dedicated catalog pg_statistic_ext.
To get something you can use explain analyze, but I would say - this is dead-end, and choose other path... Sorry for bad news.
Related
The question doesn't do the problem justice, so let me try and explain. I'm reorganizing a database which has (amongst other things) 20 fields with tools to be used for a job. Not every job needs 20 tools, some require 1 or 2 or 3.
I was thinking I could grab the info from the 20 existing fields and plop them into a table called tbl_Tools with a single tools field and a key. Then, in the main table remove the 20 fields and add one single field with a reference to the key of tbl_Tools and condense the info of the 20 fields into a single string variable where each tool is separated by a comma (this only has to be done because the location of each tool is important to save). Figure below has a basic explanation.
It this optimal or is there a better way of doing this I'm not figuring out? I'd love to hear your feedback.
Thanks in advance, Rafael.
(Also not sure which tags to use for this)
Book answer to your question would be to use two tables storing separate entries (TBL_INFO and TBL_TOOLS) and third table which would store connections between them using two foreign keys (TBL_INFO_TOOLS_REL), just like this.
This way you're minimizing amount of empty columns but also keep clean database without columns that store multiple keys glued together using separators. This allows much simpler management of tools required for certain jobs.
Probably what you want is many to many relationship (this will consist of 3 tables see the image below)
Comma Separated solution would work if your application deals with the logic of splitting and joining tool IDs but this way you lose the ability to query for tool specific data i.e. "which toll was used the most" or "who used tool_3" etc.
I've been trying to learn programming for a while. I've studied Java and Python, and I'm comfortable with their syntax. Recently, I wanted to use what I've learnt with coding a tangible software from ground up.
I want to implement a database engine, sort of a NoSQL database. I've put together a small document, sort of a specification to follow throughout my adventure of coding it. But all I know is a bunch of keywords. I don't know where to start.
Can someone help me find out how to gather the knowledge I need for this kind of work and in what order to learn things? I have searched for documents, but I feel like I'll end up finding unrelated/erroneous content or start from a wrong point, because implementing a complete database engine is (seeming to be) a truly complicated task.
I wan't to express that I'd prefer theses and whitepapers and (e)books to codes of other projects, because I've asked a question of kind in which people usually get answered in the form of "read project - x' source code". I'm not at the level of comfortably reading and understanding source code.
First, you may have a look that the answers for How to write a simple database engine. While it focus on a SQL engine, there is still a lot of good material in the answers.
Otherwise, a good project tutorial is Implementation of a B-Tree Database Class. The example code is in C++, but the description of what is done and why is probably what you'll want to look at anyway.
Also, there is Designing and Implementing Structured Storage (Database Engine) over at MSDN. Plenty of information there to help you in your learning project.
Because the accepted answer only offers (good) links to other resources, I'd thought I share my experience writing webdb, a small experimental database for browsers. I also invite you to read the source code. It's pretty small. You should be able to read through it and get a basic understanding of what it's doing in a couple of hours. Warning: I am a n00b at this and since writing it I learned a lot more about it and see I have been doing some things wrong. It can help you get started though.
The basics: BTree
I started out with adapting an AVL tree to suit my needs. An AVL tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree. You store the key K and related data (if any) in a node, then all items with key < K in a node in the left subtree and all items with key > K in a right subtree. You can use an array to store the data items if you want to support non unique keys.
This tree will give you the basics: Create, Update, Delete and a way to quickly get an item by key, or all items with key < x, or with key between x and y etc. It can serve as the index for our table.
A schema
As a next step I wrote code that lets the client code define a schema. Methods like createTable() etc. Schemas are typically associated with SQL, but even no-SQL sort-of has a schema; they usually require you to mark the ID field and any other fields you want to search on. You can make your schema as fancy as you want, but you typically want to model at least which column(s) serve as primary key and which fields will be searched on frequently and need an index.
Creating a data structure to store a table
I decided to use the tree I created in the first step to store my items. These were simple JS objects. Having defined which field contains the PK, I could simply insert the item into the tree using that field's value as the key. This gives me quick lookup by ID (range).
Next I added another tree for every column that needs an index. In these trees I did not store the full record, but only the key. So to fetch a customer by last name, I would first use the index on last name to get the ID, then the primary key index to get the actual record. The reason I did not just store the (reference to the) actual object is because it makes set operations a little bit simpler (see next step)
Querying
Now that we have a table with indexes for PK and search fields, we can implement querying. I did not take this very far as it becomes complicated quickly, but you can get some nice functionality with just some basics. WebDB does not implement joins; all queries operate only on a single table. But once you understand this you see a pretty clear (though long and winding) path to doing joins and other complicated stuff as well.
In WebDB, to get all customers with firstName = 'John' and city = 'New York' (assuming those are two search fields), you would write something like:
var webDb = ...
var johnsFromNY = webDb.customers.get({
firstName: 'John',
city: 'New York'
})
To solve it, we first do two lookups: we get the set X of all IDs of customers named 'John' and we get the set Y of all IDs of customers from New York. We then perform an intersection on these two sets to get all IDs of customers that are both named 'John' AND from New York. We then run through our set of resulting IDs, getting the actual record for each one and adding it to the result array.
Using the set operators like union and intersection we can perform AND and OR searches. I only implemented AND.
Doing joins would (I think) involve creating temporary tables in memory, then populating them as the query runs with the joined results, then applying the query criteria to the temp table. I never got there. I attempted some syncing logic next but that was too ambitious and it went downhill from there :)
I need an efficient way to search through my models to find a specific User, here's a list,
User - list of users, their names, etc.
Events - table of events for all users, on when they're not available
Skills - many-to-many relationship with the User, a User could have a lot of skills
Contracts - many-to-one with User, a User could work on multiple contracts, each with a rating (if completed)
... etc.
So I got a lot of tables linked to the User table. I need to search for a set of users fitting certain criteria; for example, he's available from next Thurs through Fri, has x/y/z skills, and has received an average 4 rating on all his completed contracts.
Is there some way to do this search efficiently while minimizing the # of times I hit the database? Sorry if this is a very newb question.
Thanks!
Not sure if this method will solve you issue for all 4 cases, but at least it should help you out in the first one - querying users data efficiently.
I usually find using values or values_list query function faster because it slims down the SELECT part of the actual SQL, and therefore you will get results faster. Django docs regarding this.
Also worth mentioning that starting with new dev version within values and values_list you can query any type of relationship, including many_to_one.
And finally you might find in_bulk also useful. If I do a complex query, you might try to query the ids first of some models using values or values_list and then use in_bulk to get the model instances faster. Django docs about that.
I am trying to visualize how to create a search for an application that we are building. I would like a suggestion on how to approach 'searching' through large sets of data.
For instance, this particular search would be on a 750k record minimum table, of product sku's, sizing, material type, create date, etc;
Is anyone aware of a 'plugin' solution for Coldfusion to do this? I envision a google like single entry search where a customer can type in the part number, or the sizing, etc, and get hits on any or all relevant results.
Currently if I run a 'LIKE' comparison query, it seems to take ages (ok a few seconds, but still), and it is too long. At times making a user sit there and wait up to 10 seconds for queries & page loads.
Or are there any SQL formulas to help accomplish this? I want to use a proven method to search the data, not just a simple SQL like or = comparison operation.
So this is a multi-approach question, should I attack this at the SQL level (as it ultimately looks to be) or is there a plug in/module for ColdFusion that I can grab that will give me speedy, advanced search capability.
You could try indexing your db records with a Verity (or Solr, if CF9) search.
I'm not sure it would be faster, and whether even trying it would be worthwhile would depend a lot on how often you update the records you need to search. If you update them rarely, you could do an Verity Index update whenever you update them. If you update the records constantly, that's going to be a drag on the webserver, and certainly mitigate any possible gains in search speed.
I've never indexed a database via Verity, but I've indexed large collections of PDFs, Word Docs, etc, and I recall the search being pretty fast. I don't know if it will help your current situation, but it might be worth further research.
If your slowdown is specifically the search of textual fields (as I surmise from your mentioning of LIKE), the best solution is building an index table (not to be confiused with DB table indexes that are also part of the answer).
Build an index table mapping the unique ID of your records from main table to a set of words (1 word per row) of the textual field. If it matters, add the field of origin as a 3rd column in the index table, and if you want "relevance" features you may want to consider word count.
Populate the index table with either a trigger (using splitting) or from your app - the latter might be better, simply call a stored proc with both the actual data to insert/update and the list of words already split up.
This will immediately drastically speed up textual search as it will no longer do "LIKE", AND will be able to use indexes on index table (no pun intended) without interfering with indexing on SKU and the like on the main table.
Also, ensure that all the relevant fields are indexed fully - not necessarily in the same compund index (SKU, sizing etc...), and any field that is searched as a range field (sizing or date) is a good candidate for a clustered index (as long as the records are inserted in approximate order of that field's increase or you don't care about insert/update speed as much).
For anything mode detailed, you will need to post your table structure, existing indexes, the queries that are slow and the query plans you have now for those slow queries.
Another item is to enure that as little of the fields are textual as possible, especially ones that are "decodable" - your comment mentioned "is it boxed" in the text fields set. If so, I assume the values are "yes"/"no" or some other very limited data set. If so, simply store a numeric code for valid values and do en/de-coding in your app, and search by the numeric code. Not a tremendous speed improvement but still an improvement.
I've done this using SQL's full text indexes. This will require very application changes and no changes to the database schema except for the addition of the full text index.
First, add the Full Text index to the table. Include in the full text index all of the columns the search should perform against. I'd also recommend having the index auto update; this shouldn't be a problem unless your SQL Server is already being highly taxed.
Second, to do the actual search, you need to convert your query to use a full text search. The first step is to convert the search string into a full text search string. I do this by splitting the search string into words (using the Split method) and then building a search string formatted as:
"Word1*" AND "Word2*" AND "Word3*"
The double-quotes are critical; they tell the full text index where the words begin and end.
Next, to actually execute the full text search, use the ContainsTable command in your query:
SELECT *
from containstable(Bugs, *, '"Word1*" AND "Word2*" AND "Word3*"')
This will return two columns:
Key - The column identified as the primary key of the full text search
Rank - A relative rank of the match (1 - 1000 with a higher ranking meaning a better match).
I've used approaches similar to this many times and I've had good luck with it.
If you want a truly plug-in solution then you should just go with Google itself. It sounds like your doing some kind of e-commerce or commercial site (given the use of the term 'SKU'), So you probably have a catalog of some kind with product pages. If you have consistent markup then you can configure a google appliance or service to do exactly what you want. It will send a bot in to index your pages and find your fields. No SQl, little coding, it will not be dependent on your database, or even coldfusion. It will also be quite fast and familiar to customers.
I was able to do this with a coldfusion site in about 6 hours, done! The only thing to watch out for is that google's index is limited to what the bot can see, so if you have a situation where you want to limit access based on a users role or permissions or group, then it may not be the solution for you (although you can configure a permission service for Google to check with)
Because SQL Server is where your data is that is where your search performance is going to be a possible issue. Make sure you have indexes on the columns you are searching on and if using a like you can't use and index if you do this SELECT * FROM TABLEX WHERE last_name LIKE '%FR%'
But it can use an index if you do it like this SELECT * FROM TABLEX WHERE last_name LIKE 'FR%'. The key here is to allow as many of the first characters to not be wild cards.
Here is a link to a site with some general tips. https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://blogs.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/datacenter/?p=173
I have an MS Access database with plenty of data. It's used by an application me and my team are developing. However, we've never added any foreign keys to this database because we could control relations from the code itself. Never had any problems with this, probably never will either.
However, as development has developed further, I fear there's a risk of losing sight over all the relationships between the 30+ tables, even though we use well-normalized data. So it would be a good idea go get at least the relations between the tables documented.
Altova has created DatabaseSpy which can show the structure of a database but without the relations, there isn't much to display. I could still use to add relations to it all but I don't want to modify the database itself.
Is there any software that can analyse a database by it's structures and data and then do a best-guess about its relations? (Just as documentation, not to modify the database.)
This application was created more than 10 years ago and has over 3000 paying customers who all use it. It's actually document-based, using an XML document for it's internal storage. The database is just used as storage and a single import/export routine converts it back and to XML. Unfortunately, the XML structure isn't very practical to use for documentation and there's a second layer around this XML document to expose it as an object model. This object model is far from perfect too, but that's what 10 years of development can do to an application. We do want to improve it but this takes time and we can't disappoint the current users by delaying new updates.Basically, we're stuck with its current design and to improve it, we need to make sure things are well-documented. That's what I'm working on now.
Only 30+ tables? Shouldn't take but a half hour or an hour to create all the relationships required. Which I'd urge you to do. Yes, I know that you state your code checks for those. But what if you've missed some? What if there are indeed orphaned records? How are you going to know? Or do you have bullet proof routines which go through all your tables looking for all these problems?
Use a largish 23" LCD monitor and have at it.
If your database does not have relationships defined somewhere other than code, there is no real way to guess how tables relate to each other.
Worse, you can't know the type of relationship and whether cascading of update and deletion should occur or not.
Having said that, if you followed some strict rules for naming your foreign key fields, then it could be possible to reconstruct the structure of the relationships.
For instance, I use a scheme like this one:
Table Product
- Field ID /* The Unique ID for a Product */
- Field Designation
- Field Cost
Table Order
- Field ID /* the unique ID for an Order */
- Field ProductID
- Field Quantity
The relationship is easy to detect when looking at the Order: Order.ProductID is related to Product.ID and this can easily be ascertain from code, going through each field.
If you have a similar scheme, then how much you can get out of it depends on how well you follow your own convention, but it could go to 100% accuracy although you're probably have some exceptions (that you can build-in your code or, better, look-up somewhere).
The other solution is if each of your table's unique ID is following a different numbering scheme.
Say your Order.ID is in fact following a scheme like OR001, OR002, etc and Product.ID follows PD001, PD002, etc.
In that case, going through all fields in all tables, you can search for FK records that match each PK.
If you're following a sane convention for naming your fields and tables, then you can probably automate the discovery of the relations between them, store that in a table and manually go through to make corrections.
Once you're done, use that result table to actually build the relationships from code using the Database.CreateRelation() method (look up the Access documentation, there is sample code for it).
You can build a small piece of VBA code, divided in 2 parts:
Step 1 implements the database relations with the database.createrelation method
Step 2 deleted all created relations with the database.delete command
As Tony said, 30 tables are not that much, and the script should be easy to set. Once this set, stop the process after step 1, run the access documenter (tools\analyse\documenter) to get your documentation ready, launch step 2. Your database will then be unchanged and your documentation ready.
I advise you to keep this code and run it regularly against your database to check that your relational model sticks to the data.
There might be a tool out there that might be able to "guess" the relations but I doubt it. Frankly I am scared of databases without proper foreign keys in particular and multi user apps that uses Access as a DBMS as well.
I guess that the app must be some sort of internal tool, otherwise I would suggest that you move to a proper DBMS ( SQL Express is for free) and adds the foreign keys.