I'm writing a Google App Engine database that once it goes live will probably hold over 10 million records with fairly constant queries, insertions and deletions.
Is this much data going to be a problem? I'm not worried about the cost ($$$) just the performance of the database. The queries will be based on two fields that are both StringProperty and return less than 100 records.
The database has two 'tables', the one that will be getting most of the queries against it has records that take around 100 bytes. The larger table won't get as many queries (maybe 1/10th the number as the small table) and those records are around 30K each.
Are deletions an expensive operation? Is it better to not delete old records and just mark then as deleted and maybe delete them in bulk in a cron job?
I am aware of the distributed nature of Google App Engine and replication and those issues won't be a problem.
10 million records are not a big amount for the datastore, so you don't have to worry, as long as your queries can take advantage of indexes. For instance if you've to walk a larger data set 100 records a time, instead of saying that you want to start from a certain position in the dataset, you can remember the last ORDER BY field value at the end of the page and ask for elements coming after it (WHERE field > '...' -- supposing ascending order).
You can use task queues instead of cron jobs to do deletions, it all depends how fast you want to get back to the user. Datastore operations tends to be slow, but if it's just one record to delete, it could be acceptable. However, if you've to do multiple operations it can get really slow, thus is better to execute these kind of tasks in a task queue and keep great responsiveness in the application.
Datastore records can't exceed 1Mb, 30Kb is a big record size, but shouldń't cause any problems. Remember that only short strings (500 characters or less) can be indexed.
Related
I have an AWS application where DynamoDB is used for most data storage and it works well for most cases. I would like to ask you about one particular case where I feel DynamoDB might not be the best option.
There is a simple table with customers. Each customer can collect virtual coins so each customer has a balance attribute. The balance is managed by 3rd party service keeping up-to-date value and the balance attribute in my table is just a cached version of it. The 3rd party service requires its own id of the customer as an input so customers table contains also this externalId attribute which is used to query the balance.
I need to run the following process once per day:
Update the balance attribute for all customers in a database.
Find all customers with the balance greater than some specified constant value. They need to be sorted by the balance.
Perform some processing for all of the customers - the processing must be performed in proper order - starting from the customer with the greatest balance in descending order (by balance).
Question: which database is the most suitable one for this use case?
My analysis:
In terms of costs it looks to be quite similar, i.e. paying for Compute Units in case of DynamoDB vs paying for hours of micro instances in case of RDS. Not sure though if micro RDS instance is enough for this purpose - I'm going to check it but I guess it should be enough.
In terms of performance - I'm not sure here. It's something I will need to check but wanted to ask you here beforehand. Some analysis from my side:
It involves two scan operations in the case of DynamoDB which
looks like something I really don't want to have. The first scan can be limited to externalId attribute, then balances are queried from 3rd party service and updated in the table. The second scan requires a range key defined for balance attribute to return customers sorted by the balance.
I'm not convinced that any kind of indexes can help here. Basically, there won't be too many read operations of the balance - sometimes it will need to be queried for a single customer using its primary key. The number of reads won't be much greater than number of writes so indexes may slow the process down.
Additional assumptions in case they matter:
There are ca. 500 000 customers in the database, the average size of a single customer is 200 bytes. So the total size of the customers in the database is 100 MB.
I need to repeat step 1 from the above procedure (update the balance of all customers) several times during the day (ca. 20-30 times per day) but the necessity to retrieve sorted data is only once per day.
There is only one application (and one instance of the application) performing the above procedure. Besides that, I need to handle simple CRUD which can read/update other attributes of the customers.
I think people are overly afraid of DynamoDB scan operations. They're bad if used for regular queries but for once-in-a-while bulk operations they're not so bad.
How much does it cost to scan a 100 MB table? That's 25,000 4KB blocks. If doing eventually consistent that's 12,250 read units. If we assume the cost is $0.25 per million (On Demand mode) that's 12,250/1,000,000*$0.25 = $0.003 per full table scan. Want to do it 30 times per day? Costs you less than a dime a day.
The thing to consider is the cost of updating every item in the database. That's 500,000 write units, which if in On Demand at $1.25 per million will be about $0.63 per full table update.
If you can go Provisioned for that duration it'll be cheaper.
Regarding performance, DynamoDB can scan a full table faster than any server-oriented database, because it's supported by potentially thousands of back-end servers operating in parallel. For example, you can do a parallel scan with up to a million segments, each with a client thread reading data in 1 MB chunks. If you write a single-threaded client doing a scan it won't be as fast. It's definitely possible to scan slowly, but it's also possible to scan at speeds that seem ludicrous.
If your table is 100 MB, was created in On Demand mode, has never hit a high water mark to auto-increase capacity (just the starter capacity), and you use a multi-threaded pull with 4+ segments, I predict you'll be done in low single digit seconds.
Problem: I am developing a reporting engine that displays data about how many bees a farm detected (Bees is just an example here)
I have 100 devices that each minute count how many bees were detected on the farm. Here is how the DB looks like:
So there can be hundreds of thousands of rows in a given week.
The farmer wants a report that shows for a given day how many bees came each hour. I developed two ways to do this:
The server takes all 100,000 rows for that day from the DB and filters it down. The server uses a large amount of memory to do this and I feel this is a brute force solution
I have a Stored Procedure that returns a temporarily created table, with every hour the amount of bees collected for each device totaled. The server takes this table and doesn't need to process 100,000 rows.
This return (24 * 100) rows. However it takes much longer than I expected to do this ~
What are some good candidate solutions for developing a solution that can consolidate and sum this data without taking 30 seconds just to sum a day of data (where I may need a months worth divided between days)?
If performance is your primary concern here, there's probably quite a bit you can do directly on the database. I would try indexing the table on time_collected_bees so it can filter down to 100K lines faster. I would guess that that's where your slowdown is happening, if the database is scanning the whole table to find the relevant entries.
If you're using SQL Server, you can try looking at your execution plan to see what's actually slowing things down.
Give database optimization more of a look before you architect something really complex and hard to maintain.
I'd like to load lots of data from a Google Datastore table. For performance, I'd like to run, in parallel, a few queries that each loads a lot of objects. Cursors are not suitable for the parallel execution.
QuerySplitter is. However, for QuerySplitter you have to tell it how many splits you want, and what I care about is loading a certain number of objects. The number is chosen for the needs of my application, large but not not too large, say 800 objects. It's OK if the number of objects returned by each query is only very roughly the same; nothing worse would happen that different threads running different amounts of time.
How do I do this? I could query all objects keys-only in order to count them, and divide by 800. Is there a better way.
Querying all your entities (even keys only) might not scale so well, but you could run your query/ies periodically and save the counts in datastore or memcache, depending on how frequently you need to run your job.
However, to find all the entities of a given kind you can use the Datastore Statistics API which should be a lot quicker. I don't know how frequently the stats are updated but it's probably the same as the stats in the console.
If you are going to more frequent counts, or figures for filtered queries, you might consider sharded counters. Since you only need an approximate number, you could update them asynchronously on each new put.
What is the maximum number of records within a single custom object in salesforce.com?
There does not seem to be a limit indicated in https://login.salesforce.com/help/doc/en/limits.htm
But of course, there has to be a limit of some kind. EG: Could 250 million records be stored in a single salesforce.com custom object?
As far as I'm aware the only limit is your data storage, you can see what you've used by going to Setup -> Administration Setup -> Data Management -> Storage Usage.
In one of the Orgs I work with I can see one object has almost 2GB of data for just under a million records, and this accounts for a little over a third of the storage available. Your storage space depends on your Salesforce Edition and number of users. See here for details.
I've seen the performance issue as well, though after about 1-2M records the performance hit appears magically to plateau, or at least it didn't appear to significantly slow down between 1M and 10M. I wonder if orgs are tier-tuned based on volume... :/
But regardless of this, there are other challenges which make it less than ideal for big data. Even though they've increased the SOQL governor limit to permit up to 50 million records to be retrieved in one call, you're still strapped with a 200,000 line execution limit in Apex and a 10K DML limit (per execution thread). These can be bypassed through Batch Apex, yet this has limitations as well. You can only execute 250K batches in 24 hours and only have 5 batches running at any given time.
So... the moral of the story seems to be that even if you managed to get a billion records into a custom object, you really can't do much with the data at that scale anyway. Therefore, it's effectively not the right tool for that job in its current state.
2-cents
LaceySnr is correct. However, there is an inverse relationship between the number of records for an object and performance. Any part of the system that filters on that object will be impacted, such as views, reports, SOQL queries, etc.
It's hard to talk specific numbers since salesforce has upwards of a dozen server clusters, each with their own performance characteristics. And there's probably a lot of dynamic performance management that occurs regularly. But, in the past I've seen performance issues start to creep in around 2M records. One possible remedy is you can ask salesforce to index fields that you plan to filter on.
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