Would there be any reason to split a hbase table into smaller entities, or can it grow forever (assuming available disk space)?
Background:
We have realtime data (measurements), up to lets say 500,000/s, which consists essentially of timestamp, value, flags. If we distribute the values to different tables, it would also mean to insert each of the entries individually, which is a performance killer. If we insert in bulk it is much faster. The question is, are there any downsides to have a hbase table with an extreme size?
There could be a strong reason behind splitting a table, which is avoiding RegionServer hotspotting, by distributing the load across multiple RegionServers. HBase, by virtue of its nature, stores rows sequentially at one place. Rows with similar keys go to the same server(timeseries data, for example). This is to facilitate better range queries. However, this starts becoming a bottleneck once your data grows too big(and your disk still has space).
In cases like above data will continue to go to the same RegionServer, leading to hotspotting. So, we split tables manually to distribute the data uniformly across the cluster.
I don't see the point in manually splitting an HBase table, HBase does this on his own and extremely well (which called HBase table regions)
HBase has been made to handle extremely large data, so I like to believe that the limit depends on your hardware only (of course so configurations might impact performance such as automatic major compaction etc...)
Related
I find myself dealing with a Redshift cluster with 2 different types of tables: the ones that get fully replaced every day and the ones that receive a merge every day.
From what I understand so far, there are maintenance commands that should be given since all these tables have millions of rows. The 3 commands I've found so far are:
vacuum table_name;
vacuum reindex table_name;
analyze table_name;
Which of those commands should be applied on which circumstance? I'm planning on doing it daily after they load in the middle of the night. The reason to do it daily is because after running some of these manually, there is a huge performance improvement.
After reading the documentation, I feel it's not very clear what the standard procedure should be.
All the tables have interleaved sortkeys regardless of the load type.
A quick summary of the commands, from the VACUUM documentation:
VACUUM: Sorts the specified table (or all tables in the current database) and reclaims disk space occupied by rows that were marked for deletion by previous UPDATE and DELETE operations. A full vacuum doesn't perform a reindex for interleaved tables.
VACUUM REINDEX: Analyzes the distribution of the values in interleaved sort key columns, then performs a full VACUUM operation.
ANALYZE: Updates table statistics for use by the query planner.
It is good practice to perform an ANALYZE when significant quantities of data have been loaded into a table. In fact, Amazon Redshift will automatically skip the analysis if less than 10% of data has changed, so there is little harm in running ANALYZE.
You mention that some tables get fully replaced every day. This should be done either by dropping and recreating the table, or by using TRUNCATE. Emptying a table with DELETE * is less efficient and should not be used to empty a table.
VACUUM can take significant time. In situations where data is being appended in time-order and the table's SORTKEY is based on the time, it is not necessary to vacuum the table. This is because the table is effectively sorted already. This, however, does not apply to interleaved sorts.
Interleaved sorts are more tricky. From the sort key documentation:
An interleaved sort key gives equal weight to each column in the sort key, so query predicates can use any subset of the columns that make up the sort key, in any order.
Basically, interleaved sorts use a fancy algorithm to sort the data so that queries based on any of the columns (individually or in combination) will minimize the number of data blocks that are required to be read from disk. Disk access always takes the most time in a database, so minimizing disk access is the best way to speed-up the database. Amazon Redshift uses Zone Maps to identify which blocks to read from disk and the best way to minimize such access is to sort data and then skip over as many blocks as possible when performing queries.
Interleaved sorts are less performant than normal sorts, but give the benefit that multiple fields are fairly well sorted. Only use interleaved sorts if you often query on many different fields. The overhead in maintaining an interleaved sort (via VACUUM REINDEX) is quite high and should only be done if the reindex effort is worth the result.
So, in summary:
ANALYZE after significant data changes
VACUUM regularly if you delete data from the table
VACUUM REINDEX if you use Interleaved Sorts and significant amounts of data have changed
I am new to Cassandra. As I understand the maximum number of tables that can be stored per keyspace is Integer.Max_Value. However, what are the implications from the performance perspective (speed, storage, etc) of such a big number of tables? Is there any recommendation regarding that?
While there are legitimate use cases for having lots of tables in Cassandra, they are rare. Your use case might be one of them, but make sure that it is. Without knowning more about the problem you're trying to solve, it's obviously hard to give guidance. Many tables will require more resources, obviously. How much? That depends on the settings, and the usage.
For example, if you have a thousand tables and write to all of them at the same time there will be contention for RAM since there will be memtables for each of them, and there is a certain overhead for each memtable (how much depends on which version of Cassandra, your settings, etc.).
However, if you have a thousand tables but don't write to all of them at the same time, there will be less contention. There's still a per table overhead, but there will be more RAM to keep the active table's memtables around.
The same goes for disk IO. If you read and write to a lot of different tables at the same time the disk is going to do much more random IO.
Just having lots of tables isn't a big problem, even though there is a limit to how many you can have – you can have as many as you want provided you have enough RAM to keep the structures that keep track of them. Having lots of tables and reading and writing to them all at the same time will be a problem, though. It will require more resources than doing the same number of reads and writes to fewer tables.
In my opinion if you can split the data into multiple tables, even thousands, is beneficial.
Pros:
Suppose you want to scale in future to 10+ nodes and with a RF of 2 will result in having the data evenly distributed across nodes, thus not salable.
Another point is random IO which will be big if you will read from many tables at the same time but I don't see why there is a difference when having just one table. Also you will seek for another partition key, so no difference in IO.
When the compactation takes place it will have to do less work if there is only one table. The values from SSTables must be loaded into memory, merged and saved back.
Cons:
Having multiple tables will result in having multiple memtables. I think the difference added by this to the RAM is insignificant.
Also, check out the links, they helped me A LOT http://manuel.kiessling.net/2016/07/11/how-cassandras-inner-workings-relate-to-performance/
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Apache-Cassandra-Anti-Patterns
Please fell free to edit my post, I am kinda new to Big Data
I have an app, which cycles through a huge number of records in a database table and performs a number of SQL and .Net operations on records within that database (currently I am using Castle.ActiveRecord on PostgreSQL).
I added some basic btree indexes on a couple of the feilds, and as you would expect, the performance of the SQL operations increased substantially. Wanting to make the most of dbms performance I want to make some better educated choices about what I should index on all my projects.
I understand that there is a detrement to performance when doing inserts (as the database needs to update the index, as well as the data), but what suggestions and best practices should I consider with creating database indexes? How do I best select the feilds/combination of fields for a set of database indexes (rules of thumb)?
Also, how do I best select which index to use as a clustered index? And when it comes to the access method, under what conditions should I use a btree over a hash or a gist or a gin (what are they anyway?).
Some of my rules of thumb:
Index ALL primary keys (I think most RDBMS do this when the table is created).
Index ALL foreign key columns.
Create more indexes ONLY if:
Queries are slow.
You know the data volume is going to increase significantly.
Run statistics when populating a lot of data in tables.
If a query is slow, look at the execution plan and:
If the query for a table only uses a few columns, put all those columns into an index, then you can help the RDBMS to only use the index.
Don't waste resources indexing tiny tables (hundreds of records).
Index multiple columns in order from high cardinality to less. This means: first index the columns with more distinct values, followed by columns with fewer distinct values.
If a query needs to access more than 10% of the data, a full scan is normally better than an index.
Here's a slightly simplistic overview: it's certainly true that there is an overhead to data modifications due to the presence of indexes, but you ought to consider the relative number of reads and writes to the data. In general the number of reads is far higher than the number of writes, and you should take that into account when defining an indexing strategy.
When it comes to which columns to index I'v e always felt that the designer ought to know the business well enough to be able to take a very good first pass at which columns are likely to benefit. Other then that it really comes down to feedback from the programmers, full-scale testing, and system monitoring (preferably with extensive internal metrics on performance to capture long-running operations),
As #David Aldridge mentioned, the majority of databases perform many more reads than they do writes and in addition, appropriate indexes will often be utilised even when performing INSERTS (to determine the correct place to INSERT).
The critical indexes under an unknown production workload are often hard to guess/estimate, and a set of indexes should not be viewed as set once and forget. Indexes should be monitored and altered with changing workloads (that new killer report, for instance).
Nothing beats profiling; if you guess your indexes, you will often miss the really important ones.
As a general rule, if I have little idea how the database will be queried, then I will create indexes on all Foriegn Keys, profile under a workload (think UAT release) and remove those that are not being used, as well as creating important missing indexes.
Also, make sure that a scheduled index maintenance plan is also created.
I'm creating an app that will have to put at max 32 GB of data into my database. I am using B-tree indexing because the reads will have range queries (like from 0 < time < 1hr).
At the beginning (database size = 0GB), I will get 60 and 70 writes per millisecond. After say 5GB, the three databases I've tested (H2, berkeley DB, Sybase SQL Anywhere) have REALLY slowed down to like under 5 writes per millisecond.
Questions:
Is this typical?
Would I still see this scalability issue if I REMOVED indexing?
What are the causes of this problem?
Notes:
Each record consists of a few ints
Yes; indexing improves fetch times at the cost of insert times. Your numbers sound reasonable - without knowing more.
You can benchmark it. You'll need to have a reasonable amount of data stored. Consider whether or not to index based upon the queries - heavy fetch and light insert? index everywhere a where clause might use it. Light fetch, heavy inserts? Probably avoid indexes. Mixed workload; benchmark it!
When benchmarking, you want as real or realistic data as possible, both in volume and on data domain (distribution of data, not just all "henry smith" but all manner of names, for example).
It is typical for indexes to sacrifice insert speed for access speed. You can find that out from a database table (and I've seen these in the wild) that indexes every single column. There's nothing inherently wrong with that if the number of updates is small compared to the number of queries.
However, given that:
1/ You seem to be concerned that your writes slow down to 5/ms (that's still 5000/second),
2/ You're only writing a few integers per record; and
3/ You're queries are only based on time queries,
you may want to consider bypassing a regular database and rolling your own sort-of-database (my thoughts are that you're collecting real-time data such as device readings).
If you're only ever writing sequentially-timed data, you can just use a flat file and periodically write the 'index' information separately (say at the start of every minute).
This will greatly speed up your writes but still allow a relatively efficient read process - worst case is you'll have to find the start of the relevant period and do a scan from there.
This of course depends on my assumption of your storage being correct:
1/ You're writing records sequentially based on time.
2/ You only need to query on time ranges.
Yes, indexes will generally slow inserts down, while significantly speeding up selects (queries).
Do keep in mind that not all inserts into a B-tree are equal. It's a tree; if all you do is insert into it, it has to keep growing. The data structure allows for some padding, but if you keep inserting into it numbers that are growing sequentially, it has to keep adding new pages and/or shuffle things around to stay balanced. Make sure that your tests are inserting numbers that are well distributed (assuming that's how they will come in real life), and see if you can do anything to tell the B-tree how many items to expect from the beginning.
Totally agree with #Richard-t - it is quite common in offline/batch scenarios to remove indexes completely before bulk updates to a corpus, only to reapply them when update is complete.
The type of indices applied also influence insertion performance - for example with SQL Server clustered index update I/O is used for data distribution as well as index update, where as nonclustered indexes are updated in seperate (and therefore more expensive) I/O operations.
As with any engineering project - best advice is to measure with real datasets (skews page distribution, tearing etc.)
I think somewhere in the BDB docs they mention that page size greatly affects this behavior in btree's. Assuming you arent doing much in the way of concurrency and you have fixed record sizes, you should try increasing your page size
Im trying to squeeze some extra performance from searching through a table with many rows.
My current reasoning is that if I can throw away some of the seldom used member from the searched table thereby reducing rowsize the amount of pagesplits and hence IO should drop giving a benefit when data start to spill from memory.
Any good resource detailing such effects?
Any experiences?
Thanks.
Tuning the size of a row is only a major issue if the RDBMS is performing a full table scan of the row, if your query can select the rows using only indexes then the row size is less important (unless you are returning a very large number of rows where the IO of returning the actual result is significant).
If you are doing a full table scan or partial scans of large numbers of rows because you have predicates that are not using indexes then rowsize can be a major factor. One example I remember, On a table of the order of 100,000,000 rows splitting the largish 'data' columns into a different table from the columns used for querying resulted in an order of magnitude performance improvement on some queries.
I would only expect this to be a major factor in a relatively small number of situations.
I don't now what else you tried to increase performance, this seems like grasping at straws to me. That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid approach. From my experience the benefit can be significant. It's just that it's usually dwarfed by other kinds of optimization.
However, what you are looking for are iostatistics. There are several methods to gather them. A quite good introduction can be found ->here.
The sql server query plan optimizer is a very complex algorithm and decision what index to use or what type of scan depends on many factors like query output columns, indexes available, statistics available, statistic distribution of you data values in the columns, row count, and row size.
So the only valid answer to your question is: It depends :)
Give some more information like what kind of optimization you have already done, what does the query plan looks like, etc.
Of cause, when sql server decides to do a table scna (clustered index scan if available), you can reduce io-performance by downsize row size. But in that case you would increase performance dramatically by creating a adequate index (which is a defacto a separate table with smaller row size).
If the application is transactional then look at the indexes in use on the table. Table partitioning is unlikely to be much help in this situation.
If you have something like a data warehouse and are doing aggregate queries over a lot of data then you might get some mileage from partitioning.
If you are doing a join between two large tables that are not in a 1:M relationship the query optimiser may have to resolve the predicates on each table separately and then combine relatively large intermediate result sets or run a slow operator like nested loops matching one side of the join. In this case you may get a benefit from a trigger-maintained denormalised table to do the searches. I've seen good results obtained from denormalised search tables for complex screens on a couple of large applications.
If you're interested in minimizing IO in reading data you need to check if indexes are covering the query or not. To minimize IO you should select column that are included in the index or indexes that cover all columns used in the query, this way the optimizer will read data from indexes and will never read data from actual table rows.
If you're looking into this kind of details maybe you should consider upgrading HW, changing controllers or adding more disk to have more disk spindle available for the query processor and so allowing SQL to read more data at the same time
SQL Server disk I/O is frequently the cause of bottlenecks in most systems. The I/O subsystem includes disks, disk controller cards, and the system bus. If disk I/O is consistently high, consider:
Move some database files to an additional disk or server.
Use a faster disk drive or a redundant array of inexpensive disks (RAID) device.
Add additional disks to a RAID array, if one already is being used.
Tune your application or database to reduce disk access operations.
Consider index coverage, better indexes, and/or normalization.
Microsoft SQL Server uses Microsoft Windows I/O calls to perform disk reads and writes. SQL Server manages when and how disk I/O is performed, but the Windows operating system performs the underlying I/O operations. Applications and systems that are I/O-bound may keep the disk constantly active.
Different disk controllers and drivers use different amounts of CPU time to perform disk I/O. Efficient controllers and drivers use less time, leaving more processing time available for user applications and increasing overall throughput.
First thing I would do is ensure that your indexes have been rebuilt; if you are dealing with huge amount of data and an index rebuild is not possible (if SQL server 2005 onwards you can perform online rebuilds without locking everyone out), then ensure that your statistics are up to date (more on this later).
If your database contains representative data, then you can perform a simple measurement of the number of reads (logical and physical) that your query is using by doing the following:
SET STATISTICS IO ON
GO
-- Execute your query here
SET STATISTICS IO OFF
GO
On a well setup database server, there should be little or no physical reads (high physical reads often indicates that your server needs more RAM). How many logical reads are you doing? If this number is high, then you will need to look at creating indexes. The next step is to run the query and turn on the estimated execution plan, then rerun (clearing the cache first) displaying the actual execution plan. If these differ, then your statistics are out of date.
I think you're going to be farther ahead using standard optimization techniques first -- check your execution plan, profiler trace, etc. and see whether you need to adjust your indexes, create statistics etc. -- before looking at the physical structure of your table.