I am doing benchmark on a "supercomputer" (not a literal one but a computer stuff with tons of ram and cpu).
The problem is the computer is shared by many people.
Is any measure to obtain a more accurate measurement of functional execution time (written in C)
Or can I measure the "background" noise and discount it from the measurement?
My current scheme is to use the function in
http://nadeausoftware.com/articles/2012/03/c_c_tip_how_measure_cpu_time_benchmarking
It uses POSIX timer to get cpu time, but I find this still still affected by the "background noise" of the computer
scenario:
I reimplement the sorting routine in SQLite with linear time sorting function. I tried to benchmark it in the in-memory database of SQLite. Every Time I insert 5 million rows of random record, I execute an "order by" query (sorted by random 64-bit integer), and only time the query time. And below is the result. You can observe, there a lot of sudden sharp drop on the graph.
Related
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.
Currently I have a project (written in Java) that reads sensor output from a micro controller and writes it across several Postgres tables every second using Hibernate. In total I write about 130 columns worth of data every second. Once the data is written it will stay static forever.This system seems to perform fine under the current conditions.
My question is regarding the best way to query and average this data in the future. There are several approaches I think would be viable but am looking for input as to which one would scale and perform best.
Being that we gather and write data every second we end up generating more than 2.5 million rows per month. We currently plot this data via a JDBC select statement writing to a JChart2D (i.e. SELECT pressure, temperature, speed FROM data WHERE time_stamp BETWEEN startTime AND endTime). The user must be careful to not specify too long of a time period (startTimem and endTime delta < 1 day) or else they will have to wait several minutes (or longer) for the query to run.
The future goal would be to have a user interface similar to the Google visualization API that powers Google Finance. With regards to time scaling, i.e. the longer the time period the "smoother" (or more averaged) the data becomes.
Options I have considered are as follows:
Option A: Use the SQL avg function to return the averaged data points to the user. I think this option would get expensive if the user asks to see the data for say half a year. I imagine the interface in this scenario would scale the amount of rows to average based on the user request. I.E. if the user asks for a month of data the interface will request an avg of every 86400 rows which would return ~30 data points whereas if the user asks for a day of data the interface will request an avg of every 2880 rows which will also return 30 data points but of more granularity.
Option B: Use SQL to return all of the rows in a time interval and use the Java interface to average out the data. I have briefly tested this for kicks and I know it is expensive because I'm returning 86400 rows/day of interval time requested. I don't think this is a viable option unless there's something I'm not considering when performing the SQL select.
Option C: Since all this data is static once it is written, I have considered using the Java program (with Hibernate) to also write tables of averages along with the data it is currently writing. In this option, I have several java classes that "accumulate" data then average it and write it to a table at a specified interval (5 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour, 6 hours and so on). The future user interface plotting program would take the interval of time specified by the user and determine which table of averages to query. This option seems like it would create a lot of redundancy and take a lot more storage space but (in my mind) would yield the best performance?
Option D: Suggestions from the more experienced community?
Option A won't tend to scale very well once you have large quantities of data to pass over; Option B will probably tend to start relatively slow compared to A and scale even more poorly. Option C is a technique generally referred to as "materialized views", and you might want to implement this one way or another for best performance and scalability. While PostgreSQL doesn't yet support declarative materialized views (but I'm working on that this year, personally), there are ways to get there through triggers and/or scheduled jobs.
To keep the inserts fast, you probably don't want to try to maintain any views off of triggers on the primary table. What you might want to do is to periodically summarize detail into summary tables from crontab jobs (or similar). You might also want to create views to show summary data by using the summary tables which have been created, combined with detail table where the summary table doesn't exist.
The materialized view approach would probably work better for you if you partition your raw data by date range. That's probably a really good idea anyway.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-partitioning.html
I'm working on a web application where the user provides parameters, and these are used to produce a list of the top 1000 items from a database of up to 20 million rows. I need all top 1000 items at once, and I need this ranking to happen more or less instantaneously from the perspective of the user.
Currently, I'm using a MySQL with a user-defined function to score and rank the data, then PHP takes it from there. Tested on a database of 1M rows, this takes about 8 seconds, but I need performance around 2 seconds, even for a database of up to 20M rows. Preferably, this number should be lower still, so that decent throughput is guaranteed for up to 50 simultaneous users.
I am open to any process with any software that can process this data as efficiently as possible, whether it is MySQL or not. Here are the features and constraints of the process:
The data for each row that is relevant to the scoring process is about 50 bytes per item.
Inserts and updates to the DB are negligible.
Each score is independent of the others, so scores can be computed in parallel.
Due to the large number of parameters and parameter values, the scores cannot be pre-computed.
The method should scale well for multiple simultaneous users
The fewer computing resources this requires, in terms of number of servers, the better.
Thanks
A feasible approach seems to be to load (and later update) all data into about 1GB RAM and perform the scoring and ranking outside MySQL in a language like C++. That should be faster than MySQL.
The scoring must be relatively simple for this approache because your requirements only leave a tenth of a microsecond per row for scoring and ranking without parallelization or optimization.
If you could post query you are having issue with can help.
Although here are some things.
Make sure you have indexes created on database.
Make sure to use optimized queries and using joins instead of inner queries.
Based on your criteria, the possibility of improving performance would depend on whether or not you can use the input criteria to pre-filter the number of rows for which you need to calculate scores. I.e. if one of the user-provided parameters automatically disqualifies a large fraction of the rows, then applying that filtering first would improve performance. If none of the parameters have that characteristic, then you may need either much more hardware or a database with higher performance.
I'd say for this sort of problem, if you've done all the obvious software optimizations (and we can't know that, since you haven't mentioned anything about your software approaches), you should try for some serious hardware optimization. Max out the memory on your SQL servers, and try to fit your tables into memory where possible. Use an SSD for your table / index storage, for speedy deserialization. If you're clustered, crank up the networking to the highest feasible network speeds.
Language: C++
Development Environment: Microsoft Visual C++
Libraries Used: MFC
Problem: This should be fairly simple, but I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'm attempting to calculate a rolling average over a given amount of time - let's say five seconds. Every second, my program receives a data message containing some numerical information, including the CPU idle time during the process.
I want to be able to show the user an average CPU idle time over a five second period. I was thinking about using just an array and storing a value every five seconds, but I'm not sure how to do the rolling portion. Unless there is some other built-in method for doing rolling calculations?
As it turns out, it would actually be better to implement immediate feedback regarding idle percentage, which is much easier to code.
I will try to describe my challenge and operation:
I need to calculate stocks price indices over historical period. For example, I will take 100 stocks and calc their aggregated avg price each second (or even less) for the last year.
I need to create many different indices like this where the stocks are picked dynamically out of 30,000~ different instruments.
The main consideration is speed. I need to output a few months of this kind of index as fast as i can.
For that reason, i think a traditional RDBMS are too slow, and so i am looking for a sophisticated and original solution.
Here is something i had In mind, using NoSql or column oriented approach:
Distribute all stocks into some kind of a key value pairs of time:price with matching time rows on all of them. Then use some sort of a map reduce pattern to select only the required stocks and aggregate their prices while reading them line by line.
I would like some feedback on my approach, suggestion for tools and use cases, or suggestion of a completely different design pattern. My guidelines for the solution is price (would like to use open source), ability to handle huge amounts of data and again, fast lookup (I don't care about inserts since it is only made one time and never change)
Update: by fast lookup i don't mean real time, but a reasonably quick operation. Currently it takes me a few minutes to process each day of data, which translates to a few hours per yearly calculation. I want to achieve this within minutes or so.
In the past, I've worked on several projects that involved the storage and processing of time series using different storage techniques (files, RDBMS, NoSQL databases). In all these projects, the essential point was to make sure that the time series samples are stored sequentially on the disk. This made sure reading several thousand consecutive samples was quick.
Since you seem to have a moderate number of time series (approx. 30,000) each having a large number of samples (1 price a second), a simple yet effective approach could be to write each time series into a separate file. Within the file, the prices are ordered by time.
You then need an index for each file so that you can quickly find certain points of time within the file and don't need to read the file from the start when you just need a certain period of time.
With this approach you can take full advantage of today's operating systems which have a large file cache and are optimized for sequential reads (usually reading ahead in the file when they detect a sequential pattern).
Aggregating several time series involves reading a certain period from each of these files into memory, computing the aggregated numbers and writing them somewhere. To fully leverage the operating system, read the full required period of each time series one by one and don't try to read them in parallel. If you need to compute a long period, then don’t break it into smaller periods.
You mention that you have 25,000 prices a day when you reduce them to a single one per second. It seems to me that in such a time series, many consecutive prices would be the same as few instruments are traded (or even priced) more than once a second (unless you only process S&P 500 stocks and their derivatives). So an additional optimization could be to further condense your time series by only storing a new sample when the price has indeed changed.
On a lower level, the time series files could be organized as a binary files consisting of sample runs. Each run starts with the time stamp of the first price and the length of the run. After that, the prices for the several consecutive seconds follow. The file offset of each run could be stored in the index, which could be implemented with a relational DBMS (such as MySQL). This database would also contain all the meta data for each time series.
(Do stay away from memory mapped files. They're slower because they aren’t optimized for sequential access.)
If the scenario you described is the ONLY requirement, then there are "low tech" simple solutions which are cheaper and easier to implement. The first that comes to mind is LogParser. In case you haven't heard of it, it is a tool which runs SQL queries on simple CSV files. It is unbelievably fast - typically around 500K rows/sec, depending on row size and the IO throughput of the HDs.
Dump the raw data into CSVs, run a simple aggregate SQL query via the command line, and you are done. Hard to believe it can be that simple, but it is.
More info about logparser:
Wikipedia
Coding Horror
What you really need is a relational database that has built in time series functionality, IBM released one very recently Informix 11.7 ( note it must be 11.7 to get this feature). What is even better news is that for what you are doing the free version, Informix Innovator-C will be more than adequate.
http://www.freeinformix.com/time-series-presentation-technical.html