Are documents in Couchbase stored in key order? In other words, would they allow efficient queries for retrieving all documents with keys falling in a certain range? In particular I need to know if this is true for Couchbase lite.
Query efficiency is correlated with the construction of the views that are added to the server.
Couchbase/Couchbase Lite only stores the indexes specified and generated by the programmer in these views. As Couchbase rebalances it moves documents between nodes, so it seems impractical that key order could be guaranteed or consistent.
(Few databases/datastores guarantee document or row ordering on disk, as indexes provide this functionality more cheaply.)
Couchbase document retrieval is performed via map/reduce queries in views:
A view creates an index on the data according to the defined format and structure. The view consists of specific fields and information extracted from the objects in Couchbase. Views create indexes on your information that enables search and select operations on the data.
source: views intro
A view is created by iterating over every single document within the Couchbase bucket and outputting the specified information. The resulting index is stored for future use and updated with new data stored when the view is accessed. The process is incremental and therefore has a low ongoing impact on performance. Creating a new view on an existing large dataset may take a long time to build but updates to the data are quick.
source: Views Basics
source
and finally, the section on Translating SQL to map/reduce may be helpful:
In general, for each WHERE clause you need to include the corresponding field in the key of the generated view, and then use the key, keys or startkey / endkey combinations to indicate the data you want to select.
In conclusion, Couchbase views constantly update their indexes to ensure optimal query performance. Couchbase Lite is similar to query, however the server's mechanics differ slightly:
View indexes are updated on demand when queried. So after a document changes, the next query made to a view will cause that view's map function to be called on the doc's new contents, updating the view index. (But remember that you shouldn't write any code that makes assumptions about when map functions are called.)
How to improve your view indexing: The main thing you have control over is the performance of your map function, both how long it takes to run and how many objects it allocates. Try profiling your app while the view is indexing and see if a lot of time is spent in the map function; if so, optimize it. See if you can short-circuit the map function and give up early if the document isn't a type that will produce any rows. Also see if you could emit less data. (If you're emitting the entire document as a value, don't.)
from Couchbase Lite - View
Related
I have roughly 50M documents, 90 (stored(20) + non- stored(70)) fields in schema.xml indexed in single core. The queries are quiet complex along with faceting and highlighting. Out of this 90 fields, there are 3-4 fields (all stored) which are very frequently uploaded. Now, updating these field normally would require populating all the fields again which is heavy task. If I use atomic/partial update, we have to update the non-stored fields again.
Our Solution:
To overcome the above problems, we decided to use SolrCloud and Join queries. We split the index into two separate indexes/collection i.e one for stored fields and one for non-stored fields. The relation b/w the documents being the id of the doc. We kept the frequently updated fields in stored index. By doing this we were able to leverage atomic updates. Also to overcome the limitation of join queries in cloud, we sharded & replicated the stored fields across all nodes but the non-stored was not sharded but replicated across all nodes.we have a 5 node cluster with additional 3 instances of zookeeper. Considering the number of docs, the only area of concern is that will join queries eventually degrade search performance? If so, what other options I can consider.
Thinking about Joins makes Solr more like a Relational database. I have found an article on this from the Lucidworks team Solr and Joins. Even they are saying that if your solution includes the use of Join then it means you need to rethink about that.
I think I have a solution for you guys. First of all, forget two collections.You create one collection and You are going to have two Solr document for every single document. Now one document will have the stored fields and the other has the non-stored fields. At the time of updating you will update the document which has stored field and perform a search-related operation on the other document.
Now all you need to do is at the time of query you need to merge both the documents into a single document which can be done by writing service layer over the Solr.
I have a issue with partial/atomic updates and index operations on fields in the background, I did not modify. This is different to the question, but maybe the use of nested documents is worth thinking about.
I was checking the use of nested documents to separate document header data from text content to be indexed, since processing the text content is consuming a lot resources. According to the docs, parent and childs are indexed as blocks and always have to be indexed together.
This is stated in https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_0/indexing-nested-documents.html:
With the exception of in-place updates, the whole block must be updated or deleted together, not separately. For some applications this may result in tons of extra indexing and thus may be a deal-breaker.
So as long as you are not able to perform in-place updates (which have their own restrictions in terms of indexed, stored and <copyField...> directives), the use of nested documents does not seem to be a valid approach.
I'm currently trying to figure out if Solr is the right tool for me. I have the following setup:
There is the primary document type "blog". Then there are two additional document types "user" and "category". Both of these are parents of the "blog" document type.
Now when searching the "blog" documents, I not only want to search in those fields (e.g. title and content), but also in the parent fields (user>name and category>name.
Of course, I could just flatten that down to a single document for Solr, which would ease the search a lot. The downside to this is though, that when e.g. a user updates their name, I have to run through all blog posts of them and update the documents for that in Solr, instead of just updating a single document.
This becomes even worse when the user has another parent, on which I need to search as well.
Do you have any recommendations about how to handle this use case? Maybe my Google foo is just not good enough, but what I found (block joins, etc.) don't seem to do the trick.
The absolutely most performant and easiest solution would be to flatten everything to a single document. It turns out that these relations aren't updated as often as people think, and that searches are performed more often than the documents update. And even if one of the values that are identical across a large set of documents change, reindexing from the most recent documents (for a blog) and then going backwards will appear rather performant for most users. The assumes that you have to actually search the values and don't just need the values - which you could look up from secondary storage when displaying an item (and just store the never changing id in the document).
Another option is to divide this into a multi-search problem. One collection for blog posts, one collection for users and one collection for categories. You then search through each of the collections for the relevant data and merge it in your search model. You can also use [Streaming Expressions] to hand off most of this processing to a Solr cluster for you.
The reason why I always recommend flattening if possible is that most features in Solr (and Lucene) are written for a flat document structure, and allows you to fully leverage the features available. Since Lucene by design is a flat document store, most other features require special care to support blockjoins and parent/child relationships, and you end up experimenting a lot to get the correct queries and feature set you want (if possible). If the documents are flat, it just works.
Every Cloud Datastore query computes its results using one or more indexes, which contain entity keys in a sequence specified by the index's properties and, optionally, the entity's ancestors. The indexes are updated incrementally to reflect any changes the application makes to its entities, so that the correct results of all queries are available with no further computation needed.
Generally, I would like to know if
datastore.get(List<Key> listOfKeys);
is faster or slower than a query with the index file prepared (with the same results).
Query q = new Query("Kind")(.setFilter(someFilter));
My current problem:
My data consists of Layers and Points. Points belong to only one unique layer and have unique ids within a layer. I could load the points in several ways:
1) Have points with a "layer name" property and query with a filter.
- Here I am not sure whether the datastore would have the results prepared because as the layer name changes dynamically.
2) Use only keys. The layer would have to store point ids.
KeyFactory.createKey("Layer", "layer name");
KeyFactory.createKey("Point", "layer name"+"x"+"point id");
3) Use queries without filters: I don't actually need the general kind "Point" and could be more specific: kind would be ("layer name"+"point id")
- What are the costs to creating more kinds? Could this be the fastest way?
Can you actually find out how the datastore works in detail?
faster or slower than a query with the index file prepared (with the same results).
Fundamentally a query and a get by key are not guaranteed to have the same results.
Queries are eventually consistent, while getting data by key is strongly consistent.
Your first challenge, before optimizing for speed, is probably ensuring that you're showing the correct data.
The docs are good for explaining eventual vs strong consistency, it sounds like you have the option of using an ancestor query which can be strongly consistent. I would also strongly recommend avoiding using the 'name' - which is dynamic - as the entity name, this will cause you an excessive amount of grief.
Edit:
In the interests of being specifically helpful, one option for a working solution based on your description would be:
Give a unique id (a uuid probably) to each layer, store the name as a property
Include the layer key as the parent key for each point entity
Use an ancestor query when fetching points for a layer (which is strongly consistent)
An alternative option is to store points as embedded entities and only have one entity for the whole layer - depends on what you're trying to achieve.
I’m building what can be treated as a slideshow app with CouchDB/PouchDB: each “slide” is its own Couch document, and slides can be reordered or deleted, and new slides can be added in between existing slides or at the beginning or end of the slideshow. A slideshow could grow from one to ≲10,000 slides, so I am sensitive to space- and time-efficiency.
I made the slide creation/editing functionality first, completely underestimating how tricky it is to keep track of slide ordering. This is hard because the order of each slide-document is completely independent of the slide-doc itself, i.e., it’s not something I can sort by time or some number contained in the document. I see numerous questions on StackOverflow about how to keep track of ordering in relational databases:
Efficient way to store reorderable items in a database
What would be the best way to store records order in SQL
How can I reorder rows in sql database
Storing item positions (for ordering) in a database efficiently
How to keep ordering of records in a database table
Linked List in SQL
but all these involve either
using a floating-point secondary key for reordering/creation/deletion, with periodic normalization of indexes (i.e., imagine two documents are order-index 1.0 and 2.0, then a third document in between gets key 1.5, then a fourth gets 1.25, …, until ~31 docs are inserted in between and you get floating-point accuracy problems);
a linked list approach where a slide-document has a previous and next field containing the primary key of the documents on either side of it;
a very straightforward approach of updating all documents for each document reordering/insertion/deletion.
None of these are appropriate for CouchDB: #1 incurs a huge amount of incidental complexity in SQL or CouchDB. #2 is unreliable due to lack of atomic transactions (CouchDB might update the previous document with its new next but another client might have updated the new next document meanwhile, so updating the new next document will fail with 409, and your linked list is left in an inconsistent state). For the same reason, #3 is completely unworkable.
One CouchDB-oriented approach I’m evaluating would create a document that just contains the ordering of the slides: it might contain a primary-key-to-order-number hash object as well as an array that converts order-number-to-primary-key, and just update this object when slides are reordered/inserted/deleted. The downside to this is that Couch will keep a copy of this potentially large document for every order change (reorder/insert/delete)—CouchDB doesn’t support compacting just a single document, and I don’t want to run compaction on my entire database since I love preserving the history of each slide-document. Another downside is that after thousands of slides, each change to ordering involves transmitting the entire object (hundreds of kilobytes) from PouchDB/client to Couch.
A tweak to this approach would be to make a second database just to hold this ordering document and turn on auto-compaction on it. It’ll be more work to keep track of two database connections, and I’ll eventually have to put a lot of data down the wire, but I’ll have a robust way to order documents in CouchDB.
So my questions are: how do CouchDB people usually store the order of documents? And can more experienced CouchDB people see any flaws in my approach outlined above?
Thanks to a tip by #LynHeadley, I wound up writing a library that could subdivide the lexicographical interval between strings: Mudder.js. This allows me to infinitely insert and move around documents in CouchDB, by creating new keys at will, without any overhead of a secondary document to store the ordering. I think this is the right way to solve this problem!
Based on what I've read, I would choose the "ordering document" approach. (ie: slideshow document that has an array of ids for each slide document) This is really straightforward and accomplishes the use-case, so I wouldn't let these concerns get in the way of clean/intuitive code.
You are right that this document can grow potentially very large, compounded by the write-heavy nature of that specific document. This is why compaction exists and is the solution here, so you should not fight against CouchDB on this point.
It is a common misconception that you can use CouchDB's revision history to keep a comprehensive history to your database. The revisions are merely there to aid in write concurrency, not as a full version control system.
CouchDB has auto-compaction enabled by default, and without it your database will grow in size unchecked. Thus, you should abandon the idea of tracking document history using this approach, and instead adopt another, safer alternative. (a list of these alternatives is beyond the scope of this answer)
I'm trying to make a general purpose data structure. Essentially, it will be an append-only list of updates that clients can subscribe to. Clients can also send updates.
I'm curious for suggestions on how to implement this. I could have a ndb.Model, 'Update' that contains the data and an index, or I could use a StructuredProperty with Repeated=true on the main Entity. I could also just store a list of keys somehow and then the actual update data in a not-strongly-linked structure.
I'm not sure how the repeated properties work - does appending to the list of them (via the Python API) have to rewrite them all?
I'm also worried abut consistency. Since multiple clients might be sending updates, I don't want them to overwrite eachother and lose an update or somehow end up with two updates with the same index.
The problem is that you've a maximum total size for each model in the datastore.
So any single model that accumulates updates (storing the data directly or via collecting keys) will eventually run out of space (not sure how the limit applies with regard to structured properties however).
Why not have a model "update", as you say, and a simple version would be to have each provided update create and save a new model. If you track the save date as a field in the model you can sort them by time when you query for them (presumably there is an upper limit anyway at some level).
Also that way you don't have to worry about simultaneous client updates overwriting each other, the data-store will worry about that for you. And you don't need to worry about what "index" they've been assigned, it's done automatically.
As that might be costly for datastore reads, I'm sure you could implement a version that used repeated properties in a single, moving to a new model after N keys are stored but then you'd have to wrap it in a transaction to be sure mutiple updates don't clash and so on.
You can also cache the query generating the results and invalidate it only when a new update is saved. Look at NDB also as it provides some automatic caching (not for a query however).