In RethinkDB's ReQL, if you have to run multiple queries on the same base query, that is the same filtered records, is it better to:
A) filter the base records first and pass their primary keys to the secondary queries, even if it could potentially involve passing thousands of primary keys?
Or
B) include both the base filter and secondary queries in one more complex query?
Background:
This is for a dashboard style application, where the dashboard itself controls the base records, including relationships to other table records (eqJoin) and can be filtered by the user. Each of the tiles will use data from one or more of those filtered tables, possibly applying additional pre-defined filters, aggregate functions, maps etc. to return the required data to support its UI (tables, forms, charts etc.).
My primary concern is execution time, I know this is a very general question and will depend very much on the data and filters, but as a general rule, if you had to choose one approach or any other approach which would be applied across the board, which would offer the best performance in RethinkDB?
Related
I have an application that requires a database containing a set of products where each product can have a set of tables. The end-user should be able to add new products and define new tables for a product. So each table has a set of columns that are specified by the user. The user can then fill the tables with rows of data. Each table belongs to exactly one product.
The end-user should also be able to view the tables as they were at a specific point in time (at a certain transaction).
How would I go about making a schema for this in Datomic so that querying it would be as efficient as possible?
I would go with 4 entity types: products, tables, columns, and rows.
The relationship between products and tables is best handled by a :table/product to-one ref attribute, but a :product/tables to-many component ref attribute could also work (the latter does not enforce the one-to-many relationship).
Likewise, I would use either a :column/table or :table/columns attribute. I would also have a :column/name string attribute and maybe a :column/type enumerated attribute.
The hardest part is to model rows.
One tempting solution is to just create an attribute per column - I actually think it's bad idea, Datomic attributes are not intended for such a dynamic use. In particular, schema attributes are stored in a cache on the Peer that's not meant to grow big. (I may be wrong about this, so it'd be nice if someone in the Datomic team could confirm.)
Instead, I would have a few dozens reusable :row/cell-0, :row/cell-1, :row/cell-2, etc. 'cell position' attributes, that are shared across all tables. Each actual column would be mapped to a at creation time by a to-one :column/position attribute.
If the rows can have several data types, it's a bit more difficult, you'd have to basically make an attribute for each (type,position) pair.
Then each row basically consist of a :row/table attribute and the above cell position attributes.
Here's a Datalog query that would let you read the whole table
[:find ?row ?column-name ?val :in $ ?table :where
[?column :column/table ?table]
[?row :row/table ?table]
[?row ?pos ?val]
[?column :column/position ?pos]
[?column :column/name ?column-name]]
Note that all of the above is only useful if you want to query the table with Datalog directly against your Datomic db. But it can be also completely fine to serialize your tables and store them as blobs - especially if they're small; later, you pull out the blob, deserialize it, then you can query with Datalog too. And if tables are to coarse for this use, maybe you can do it with rows.
Currently scoping out a new system. Like many systems, it will be required to store documents and link them to other kinds of item. In this instance a Document object can belong to a Job or it can belong to an Item (which in turn belongs to a Job).
We could do this by having a JobId and an ItemId against a Document and leaving one or the other blank if necessary, but that's going to mean annoying conditional logic in the handling code. So, two link tables seems a better idea.
However, it is likely that we will need to link Documents to other items in the system at some point in the future. There are Company and User objects, for example, and we might want to record Documents against those. There may be more.
That would entail a proliferation of link tables which, while effective, is messy and hard to follow.
This solution is in SQL Server and will be handled in code via Entity Framework.
Are there any design principles that can allow us to hook up Document objects with a variety of other system objects as required in a neater and more flexible way?
You could store two values: the id, and the type of object to which the document is attached. It doesn't allow the use of foreign keys, but is compatible with many application development frameworks.
If you have the partitioning option then you could dedicate different partitions to different object types.
You could also have multiple tables, one for job documents, one for item documents, and get an overview of all of them with a view that UNION ALL's them together. If you need uniqueness in that result set then you could use UUIDs for the primary key, or add an extra column to the view to express from which table the row was read.
I'm part of a team architecting an Operational Data Store (ODS) database, using SQL Server 2012, that will be used by some of our analysts to do predictive modeling. The ODS will contain manufacturing production data for a single product we make.
We will have hundreds of tables in the ODS. However, we will have a single core table that will contain critical information (lifecycle info) about each item manufactured (tens of millions each year). Our product is manufactured in a manufacturing plant and spends roughly 2.5 hours moving through various processes along a production line. We want to store various, individual, pieces of manufacturing and post manufacturing information in this core table. An example piece of data might be the time the product entered a particular oven.
We have a decision to make on how to architect this table. We can create a wide table (many columns) or a narrow table where most columns are rows (as property values). I have never designed and worked with a table structure that is very narrow and columns are treated as rows in the table.
I'd like some feedback on the pros and cons of a wide table vs. a narrow table. The following might be useful in helping with this discussion:
Number of products produced each year: Several million (each of these product instances will be a row in the core table)
Will this table be queried often: Yes, very often. It will be the parent to many child tables.
Potential number of columns (or row properties): 75 to 150+
If more information would be useful, I'd be glad to provide it.
Wide tables, static properties
You are tracking a single product through a well-defined manufacturing process. This data model sounds very static, and would lend itself to a wide table with many columns that are consistently populated with data.
Narrow tables, dynamic properties
If you had many, many products with lots of variation in the manufacturing process, it would be better suited for a narrow table, where you could easily add new properties for tracking.
Difficult to query a narrow table
However, even simple querying of a narrow table can extremely difficult. For example, what if you needed to sort the data by a certain property when that property is shuffled amongst 100+ other property rows? How would you get all the rows together to form a single "record" and then sort the record groups within your result set?
Flat tables simpler to query
Depending on how you need to view and analyze the data, you may find yourself constantly using pivot or crosstab queries. If that's the case, then why not flatten out the storage table to begin with?
Or do both
Another option is to do both: Store the data narrowly, and use a transformation process to flatten it out for ease of reporting. That way you can quickly begin tracking new properties (just by adding rows), and then you can work on getting your reporting tables and transformation process updated to utilize the new data.
How wide is too wide? Well, there can be several problems with wide tables.
One problem is that wide tables tend to deviate from the rules for normalizing data. This in turn can result in tricky update problems where you have to be careful to prevent the database from entering a self contradictory state. There's no particular answer to how wide it too wide here. Just apply the normalization rules, and you'll end up decomposing the table.
However, some databases are not built with normalization as the guiding principle. In particular, consider fact tables in star schemas. There are times when some of the coulmns are determined by some subset of the FK's, and this can violate 3NF or even 2NF. Keeping fact tables skinny is still important in star schemas, but it's for a different reason, namely speed. Sometimes, a fact table can be made skinnier by pushing data out to one of the dimension tables. Sometimes, you can decompose a star into two or more related stars.
Your case sounds like the second reason given above, even though your design probably isn't a star schema. Still, star schema design principles might help you improve your design.
I'm developing an Asset management application.
Looking through the excel tracker that was being used previously, I was able to identify some attributes that were common to all categories of assets (basically non-technical attributes such as Purchase Order No. , Warranty Info etc.) for which I think I will make a separate table.
But when storing technical-attributes, there are many categories of assets for which I need only one or two additional attributes to be stored.
Should a make a single table for all these attributes and store NULLs wherever applicable or should I make a separate table each category containing just the asset ID and the addition columns? Which approach is better/more pragmatic?
Is cluttering the database with too many tables ok? I have around 10 such categories.
There are 3 known approaches to this:
Single table
In this model, you have a single table with all known columns, and allow them to be null for types that don't have that attribute. This gives you a simple database, and fairly simple SQL, but doesn't allow support for common features that relational databases give you, like insisting on non-null columns for a data type, or creating unique indices where that makes sense.
It also tends to lead to messy SQL, with developers forgetting over time what columns mean, so you could get a column being used for multiple purposes.
It does make it easy to join to other tables - so if you have an asset and a purchase related to that asset, the "purchase" table joins to the "asset" table on "assetID".
Table per subtype
In this case, you build a table for each subtype, and enforce the data characteristics of that subtype with not null, unique etc.
This creates a clearer separation of subtypes, and is less likely to degrade into big ball of mud, but makes joins very hard - to join from "purchase" to "asset", you have to know which table holds that particular asset.
Common table for common fields, table per subtype
In this model, you have a single table for the fields that are common between subtypes - you say you've identified this already - and have further tables for each subtype to store the unique attributes.
This solves the joining problem between "asset" and "purchase", keeps the data pretty self-describing.
It does mean client logic needs to implement the "join asset_master to asset_subtype" issue.
I prefer option 3 - it's the best trade-off between maintainability and managability.
Databases should be able to handle lots of columns and lots of tables, so both approaches should work from that perspective.
If you don't have any additional requirements, I'd use the single table approach. It is the easiest, and the only thing you are loosing is the ability to put not null constraints on the fields that exist only form some categories
I am using SQL Server 2005 Express and Visual Studio 2008.
I have a database which has a table with 400 Columns. Things were (just about manageable) until I had to perform bi-directional sync between several databases.
I am wondering what arguments are for and against using 400 column database or 40 table database are?
The table in not normalised and comprises of mainly nvarchar(64) columns and some TEXT columns. (there are no datatypes as it was converted from text files).
There is one other table that links to this table and is a 1-1 relationship (i.e one entry relates to one entry in the 400 column table).
The table is a list files that contained parameters that are "plugged" into a application.
I look forward to your replies.
Thank you
Based on your process description I would start with something like this. The model is simplified, does not capture history, etc -- but, it is a good starting point. Note: parameter = property.
- Setup is a collection of properties. One setup can have many properties, one property belongs to one setup only.
- Machine can have many setups, one setup belongs to one machine only.
- Property is of a specific type (temperature, run time, spindle speed), there can be many properties of a certain type.
- Measurement and trait are types of properties. Measurement is a numeric property, like speed. Trait is a descriptive property, like color or some text.
For having a wide table:
Quick to report on as it's presumably denormalized and so no joins are needed.
Easy to understand for end-consumers as they don't need to hold a data model in their heads.
Against having a wide table:
Probably need to have multiple composite indexes to get good query performance
More difficult to maintain data consistency i.e. need to update multiple rows when data changes if that data is on multiple rows
As you're having to update multiple rows and maintain multiple indexes, concurrent performance for updates may become an issue as locks escalate.
You might end up with records with loads of nulls in columns if the attribute isn't relevant to the entity on that row which can make handling results awkward.
If lazy developers do a SELECT * from the table you end up dragging loads of data across the network, so you generally have to maintain suitable subset views.
So it all really depends on what you're doing. If the main purpose of the table is OLAP reporting and updates are infrequent and affect few rows then perhaps a wide, denormalized table is the right thing to have. In an OLTP environment then it's probably not and you should prefer narrower tables. (I generally design in 3NF and then denormalize for query performance as I go along.)
You could always take the approach of normalizing and providing a wide-view for readers if that's what they want to see.
Without knowing more about the situation it's not really possible to say more about the pros and cons in your particular circumstance.
Edit:
Given what you've said in your comments, have you considered just having a long & skinny name=value pair table so you'd just have UserId, PropertyName, PropertyValue columns? You might want to add in some other meta-attributes into it too; timestamp, version, or whatever. SQL Server is quite efficient at handling these sorts of tables so don't discount a simple solution like this out-of-hand.