I am building an eCommerce site and I have about 10 different custom post types. For each custom post type, I have about 20 custom fields (with a single meta_value assigned to each meta_key).
What I was thinking about doing is grouping all 20 custom fields into a single custom field so that I'll have 20 meta_values (array) assigned to a single meta_key. This would essentially reduce the number of rows inside the database table from 20 rows down to a single row for each custom post type.
For example, let's say I have post type "book".
Currently my post_meta table for this post type might look like this:
meta_key | meta_value
_________________________
chapters | 5
_________________________
paragraphs | 10
_________________________
author | john_smith
_________________________
price | 19
_________________________
If I convert it to this:
meta_key | meta_value
____________________________
book_detail | [chapters:5 ,paragraphs:10, author:john_smith, price:19]
____________________________
Would doing something like this optimize WordPress query speed or would I just be wasting time?
The tables should be kept as normalized as possible. Storing the CSV or any delimited values is not recommended.
Also, in case you need to query a specific aspect of a post such as only chapters, then normalized data comes handy where you just need to put a simple predicate:
where metakey = 'chapters';
Related
My dataset is of the form of instances of series data, each with associated metadata. Similar to a CD collection where each CD track has metadata (artist, album, length, etc.) and a series of audio data. Or imagine a road condition survey dataset - each time a survey is conducted the metadata of location, date, time, operator, etc. is recorded, as well as some physical series data of the road condition for each unit length of road. The collection of surveys ({metadata, data} pairs) is the dataset.
I'd like to take advantage of pandas to help import, store, search and analyse that dataset. pandas does not have built-in support for this type of dataset, but many have tried to add it.
The typical solutions are either:
Add metadata to a pandas DataFrame, but this is the wrong way around - I want a collection of metadata records each with associated data, not data with associated metadata.
Casting data to be valid field in a DataFrame and storing it as one of the metadata fields, but the casting process discards significant integrity.
Using multiple indices to create a 3D DataFrame, but this imposes design details on your choice of index, which limits experimentation.
This sort of dataset is very common, and I see a lot of people trying to bend pandas to accommodate it. I wonder what the right approach is, or even if pandas is the right tool.
I now have a working solution, but since I haven't seen this method documented I wonder if there be dragons ahead.
My "database" is a pandas DataFrame that looks something like this:
| | Description | Time | Length | data_uuid |
| 0 | My first record | 2017-03-09 11:00:00 | 502 | f7ee-11e6-b702 |
| 1 | My second record | 2017-03-10 11:00:00 | 551 | f7ee-11e6-a996 |
That is, my metadata are rows of a DataFrame, which gives me all the power of pandas, but my data is given an uuid on importation. The data for each metadata is actually a separate DataFrame, serialised to a file whose name is the uuid.
That way, an illustrative example of looking up a record and pulling out the data looks like this:
display(df_database[df_database['Length'] >= 550.0])
idx = df_database[df_database['Length'] >= 550.0].index[0]
df_data = pd.read_pickle(DATA_DIR + str(df_database.at[idx, 'data_uuid']))
display(df_data)
With suitable importation, storage and lookup functions, this seems to give me the power (with associated cumbersomeness!) of pandas without pulling too many restrictive tricks.
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.
A bit of background...my company utilizes a piece of software that stores information about a mortgage loan in independent fields. These fields are broken up across many tables in the loan database.
My current dilemma revolves around designing a view(s) that will allow me to find mismatched data on a subset of loans from the underwriting side of our software and the lock side of our software.
Here is a quick example of the data returned from the two views that already exist:
UW View
transID | DTIField | LTVField | MIField
50000 | 37.5 | 85.0 | 1
Lock View
transID | DTIField | LTVField | MIField
50000 | 42.0 | 85.0 | 0
In the above situation, the view should return the fields that are not matching (in this case the DTIField and the MIField). I have built a comparison view that uses a series of CASE statements to return either a 0 for not matched or a 1 for matched already:
transID | DTIField | LTVField | MIField
50000 | 0 | 1 | 0
This is fine in itself but it is creating a bit of an issue downstream on the reporting side. We want to be able to build a report that would display only those transIDs that have mismatched data and show which columns are not matched. Crystal Reports is the reporting solution in question.
Some specifics about the data sets...we have 27 items of the loan that we are comparing (so a total 54 fields). There are over 4000 loans in the system and growing. There are already indexes on the transID fields.
How would you structure the view to return all the data needed for the report? We can do a good amount of work in Crystal Reports but ideally much of the logic would be handled in MSSQL.
Thanks for any assistance.
I think there should be no issue in comparing the 27 columns for a given row. Since you'll be reading the row just once and comparing the columns on that row in both the tables, it shouldn't really pose any performance issues. You can use some hash functions HASHBYTES to assign a hash value to the combination of these 27 fields in both the tables and then use this field to compare which rows should be returned by the view. This should result in some performance improvement. Testing will reveal more.
Taking MySQL as an example DB to perform this in (although I'm not restricted to Relational flavours at this stage) and Java style syntax for model / db interaction.
I'd like the ability to allow versioning of individual column values (and their corresponding types) as and when users edit objects. This is primarily in an attempt to drop the amount of storage required for frequent edits of complex objects.
A simple example might be
- Food (Table)
- id (INT)
- name (VARCHAR(255))
- weight (DECIMAL)
So we could insert an object into the database that looks like...
Food banana = new Food("Banana",0.3);
giving us
+----+--------+--------+
| id | name | weight |
+----+--------+--------+
| 1 | Banana | 0.3 |
+----+--------+--------+
if we then want to update the weight we might use
banana.weight = 0.4;
banana.save();
+----+--------+--------+
| id | name | weight |
+----+--------+--------+
| 1 | Banana | 0.4 |
+----+--------+--------+
Obviously though this is going to overwrite the data.
I could add a revision column to this table, which could be incremented as items are saved, and set a composite key that combines id/version, but this would still mean storing ALL attributes of this object for every single revision
- Food (Table)
- id (INT)
- name (VARCHAR(255))
- weight (DECIMAL)
- revision (INT)
+----+--------+--------+----------+
| id | name | weight | revision |
+----+--------+--------+----------+
| 1 | Banana | 0.3 | 1 |
| 1 | Banana | 0.4 | 2 |
+----+--------+--------+----------+
But in this instance we're going to be storing every single piece of data about every single item. This isn't massively efficient if users are making minor revisions to larger objects where Text fields or even BLOB data may be part of the object.
What I'd really like, would be the ability to selectively store data discretely, so the weight could possible be saved in a separate DB in its own right, that would be able to reference the table, row and column that it relates to.
This could then be smashed together with a VIEW of the table, that could sort of impose any later revisions of individual column data into the mix to create the latest version, but without the need to store ALL data for each small revision.
+----+--------+--------+
| id | name | weight |
+----+--------+--------+
| 1 | Banana | 0.3 |
+----+--------+--------+
+-----+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| ID | TABLE_NAME | COLUMN_NAME | OBJECT_ID | BLOB_DATA | REVISION |
+-----+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 456 | Food | weight | 1 | 0.4 | 2 |
+-----+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
Not sure how successful storing any data as blob to then CAST back to original DTYPE might be, but thought since I was inventing functionality here, why not go nuts.
This method of storage would also be fairly dangerous, since table and column names are entirely subject to change, but hopefully this at least outlines the sort of behaviour I'm thinking of.
A table in 6NF has one CK (candidate key) (in SQL a PK) and at most one other column. Essentially 6NF allows each pre-6NF table's column's update time/version and value recorded in an anomaly-free way. You decompose a table by dropping a non-prime column while adding a table with it plus an old CK's columns. For temporal/versioning applications you further add a time/version column and the new CK is the old one plus it.
Adding a column of time/whatever interval (in SQL start time and end time columns) instead of time to a CK allows a kind of data compression by recording longest uninterupted stretches of time or other dimension through which a column had the same value. One queries by an original CK plus the time whose value you want. You dont need this for your purposes but the initial process of normalizing to 6NF and the addition of a time/whatever column should be explained in temporal tutorials.
Read about temporal databases (which deal both with "valid" data that is times and time intervals but also "transaction" times/versions of database updates) and 6NF and its role in them. (Snodgrass/TSQL2 is bad, Date/Darwen/Lorentzos is good and SQL is problematic.)
Your final suggested table is an example of EAV. This is usually an anti-pattern. It encodes a database in to one or more tables that are effectively metadata. But since the DBMS doesn't know that you lose much of its functionality. EAV is not called for if DDL is sufficient to manage tables with columns that you need. Just declare appropriate tables in each database. Which is really one database, since you expect transactions affecting both. From that link:
You are using a DBMS anti-pattern EAV. You are (trying to) build part of a DBMS into your program + database. The DBMS already exists to manage data and metadata. Use it.
Do not have a class/table of metatdata. Just have attributes of movies be fields/columns of Movies.
The notion that one needs to use EAV "so every entity type can be
extended with custom fields" is mistaken. Just implement via calls
that update metadata tables sometimes instead of just updating regular
tables: DDL instead of DML.
I have the following table:
CREATE TABLE videos_tags (
id text,
tag text,
video text,
someotherfield long,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
) WITH gc_grace_seconds = 1296000
AND compaction={'class': 'LeveledCompactionStrategy'}
AND compression={'sstable_compression': 'LZ4Compressor'};
The table stores a list of tags and videos. A video can have one or more tags; and a tag can be attributed to more than one video. Example:
id | tag | video
------------------------------------------
1 | dancing | video1
2 | singing | video2
3 | prank | video3
4 | prank | video4
5 | funny | video3
6 | cover | video2
I want to show to my users a list of related videos based from tag assignment - the more tags a certain video has in common with the user's video, the more "related" it is. The actual approach that I use comprises of 2 steps:
Get a list of the user's video's tags
q=:&fq=video:video1&fl=tag
Identify the videos use the same tags as the user's video and select the top 10 (resultset slicing is done in application side)
q=:&fq=tag:tag1 AND tag:tag2 AND tag:tag3 AND !video:video1&fl=video&stats=true&stats.field=someotherfield&stats.facet=video
Note: I used stats instead of plain facet because I also need the sum of someotherfield
This approach yields an average execution time of 30 seconds. Unfortunately, the maximum acceptable query time for my app is 10 seconds
Is there a better approach to tackling this data requirement? I'm open to:
Alternative query approach (minor tweaks are preferred; but I can accept something as drastic as replacing my 2-step approach completely)
Alternative schema
Notes:
The actual schema has several other fields that I removed from this post for brevity
I do all read operations via Solr (Datastax Enterprise 4.6.0). Nothing fancy in the Solr schema
The table currently holds 1.5 billion rows, but could grow to double or triple of that within years (so the solution must take into account the table/index size)
No fulltext search - only exact string filters