Ok everyone, I have an excellent challenge for you. Here is the format of my data :
ID-1 COL-11 COL-12 ... COL-1P
...
ID-N COL-N1 COL-N2 ... COL-NP
ID is my primary key and index. I just use ID to query my database. The datamodel is very simple.
My problem is as follow:
I have 64Go+ of data as defined above and in a real-time application, I need to query my database and retrieve the data instantly. I was thinking about 2 solutions but impossible to set up.
First use sqlite or mysql. One table is needed with one index on ID column. The problem is that the database will be too large to have good performance, especially for sqlite.
Second is to store everything in memory into a huge hashtable. RAM is the limit.
Do you have another suggestion? How about to serialize everything on the filesystem and then, at each query, store queried data into a cache system?
When I say real-time, I mean about 100-200 query/second.
A thorough answer would take into account data access patterns. Since we don't have these, we just have to assume equal probably distribution that a row will be accessed next.
I would first try using a real RDBMS, either embedded or local server, and measure the performance. If this this gives 100-200 queries/sec then you're done.
Otherwise, if the format is simple, then you could create a memory mapped file and handle the reading yourself using a binary search on the sorted ID column. The OS will manage pulling pages from disk into memory, and so you get free use of caching for frequently accessed pages.
Cache use can be optimized more by creating a separate index, and grouping the rows by access pattern, such that rows that are often read are grouped together (e.g. placed first), and rows that are often read in succession are placed close to each other (e.g. in succession.) This will ensure that you get the most back for a cache miss.
Given the way the data is used, you should do the following:
Create a record structure (fixed size) that is large enough to contain one full row of data
Export the original data to a flat file that follows the format defined in step 1, ordering the data by ID (incremental)
Do a direct access on the file and leave caching to the OS. To get record number N (0-based), you multiply N by the size of a record (in byte) and read the record directly from that offset in the file.
Since you're in read-only mode and assuming you're storing your file in a random access media, this scales very well and it doesn't dependent on the size of the data: each fetch is a single read in the file. You could try some fancy caching system but I doubt this would gain you much in terms of performance unless you have a lot of requests for the same data row (and the OS you're using is doing poor caching). make sure you open the file in read-only mode, though, as this should help the OS figure out the optimal caching mechanism.
Related
I'm looking to distribute some information to different machines for efficient and extremely fast access without any network overhead. The data exists in a relational schema, and it is a requirement to "join" on relations between entities, but it is not a requirement to write to the database at all (it will be generated offline).
I had alot of confidence that SQLite would deliver on performance, but RDMBS seems to be unsuitable at a fundamental level: joins are very expensive due to cost of index lookups, and in my read-only context, are an unnecessary overhead, where entities could store direct references to each other in the form of file offsets. In this way, an index lookup is switched for a file seek.
What are my options here? Database doesn't really seem to describe what I'm looking for. I'm aware of Neo4j, but I can't embed Java in my app.
TIA!
Edit, to answer the comments:
The data will be up to 1gb in size, and I'm using PHP so keeping the data in memory is not really an option. I will rely on the OS buffer cache to avoid continually going to disk.
Example would be a Product table with 15 fields of mix type, and a query to list products with a certain make, joining on a Category table.
The solution will have to be some kind of flat file. I'm wondering if there already exists some software that meets my needs.
#Mark Wilkins:
The performance problem is measured. Essentially, it is unacceptable in my situation to replace a 2ms IO bound query to Memcache with an 5ms CPU bound call to SQLite... For example, the categories table has 500 records, containing parent and child categories. The following query takes ~8ms, with no disk IO: SELECT 1 FROM categories a INNER JOIN categories B on b.id = a.parent_id. Some simpler, join-less queries are very fast.
I may not be completely clear on your goals as to the types of queries you are needing. But the part about storing file offsets to other data seems like it would be a very brittle solution that is hard to maintain and debug. There might be some tool that would help with it, but my suspicion is that you would end up writing most of it yourself. If someone else had to come along later and debug and figure out a homegrown file format, it would be more work.
However, my first thought is to wonder if the described performance problem is estimated at this point or actually measured. Have you run the tests with the data in a relational format to see how fast it actually is? It is true that a join will almost always involve more file reads (do the binary search as you mentioned and then get the associated record information and then lookup that record). This could take 4 or 5 or more disk operations ... at first. But in the categories table (from the OP), it could end up cached if it is commonly hit. This is a complete guess on my part, but in many situations the number of categories is relatively small. If that is the case here, the entire category table and its index may stay cached in memory by the OS and thus result in very fast joins.
If the performance is indeed a real problem, another possibility might be to denormalize the data. In the categories example, just duplicate the category value/name and store it with each product record. The database size will grow as a result, but you could still use an embedded database (there are a number of possibilities). If done judiciously, it could still be maintained reasonably well and provide the ability to read full object with one lookup/seek and one read.
In general probably the fastest thing you can do at first is to denormalize your data thus avoiding JOINs and other mutli-table lookups.
Using SQLite you can certainly customize all sorts of things and tailor them to your needs. For example, disable all mutexing if you're only accessing via one thread, up the memory cache size, customize indexes (including getting rid of many), custom build to disable unnecessary meta data, debugging, etc.
Take a look at the following:
PRAGMA Statements: http://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html
Custom Builds of SQLite: http://www.sqlite.org/custombuild.html
SQLite Query Planner: http://www.sqlite.org/optoverview.html
SQLite Compile Options: http://www.sqlite.org/compile.html
This is all of course assuming a database is what you need.
I have a table with a column contains HTML content and is relative greater than the other columns.
Having a column with a great size can slow the queries in this table?
I need to put this big fields in another table?
The TOAST Technique should handle this for you, after a given size the storage will be transparently set in a _toast table and some internal things are done to avoid slowing down your queries (check the given link).
But of course if you always retrieve the whole content you'll loose time in the retrieval. And it's also clear that requests on this table where this column is not used won't suffer from this column size.
The bigger the database the slower the queries. Always.
It's likely that if you have large column, there is going to be more disk I/O since caching the column itself takes more space. However, putting these in a different table won't likely alleviate this issue (other than the issue below). When you don't explicitly need the actual HTML data, be sure not to SELECT it.
Sometimes the ordering of the columns can matter because of the way rows are stored, if you're really worried about it, store it as the last column so it doesn't get paged when selecting other columns
You would have to look at how Postgres internally stores things to see if you need to split this out but a very large field could cause the way the data is stored on the disk to be broken up and thus adds to the time it takes to access it.
Further, returning 100 bytes of data vice 10000 bytes of data for one record is clearly going to be slower, the more records the slower. If you are doing SELECT * this is clearly a problem espcially if you usually do not need the HTML.
Another consideration could be ptting the HTML information in a noSQL database. This kind of document information is what they excel at. No reason you can't use both a realtional database for some info and a noSQL database for other info.
We have flat files (CSV) with >200,000,000 rows, which we import into a star schema with 23 dimension tables. The biggest dimension table has 3 million rows. At the moment we run the importing process on a single computer and it takes around 15 hours. As this is too long time, we want to utilize something like 40 computers to do the importing.
My question
How can we efficiently utilize the 40 computers to do the importing. The main worry is that there will be a lot of time spent replicating the dimension tables across all the nodes as they need to be identical on all nodes. This could mean that if we utilized 1000 servers to do the importing in the future, it might actually be slower than utilize a single one, due to the extensive network communication and coordination between the servers.
Does anyone have suggestion?
EDIT:
The following is a simplification of the CSV files:
"avalue";"anothervalue"
"bvalue";"evenanothervalue"
"avalue";"evenanothervalue"
"avalue";"evenanothervalue"
"bvalue";"evenanothervalue"
"avalue";"anothervalue"
After importing, the tables look like this:
dimension_table1
id name
1 "avalue"
2 "bvalue"
dimension_table2
id name
1 "anothervalue"
2 "evenanothervalue"
Fact table
dimension_table1_ID dimension_table2_ID
1 1
2 2
1 2
1 2
2 2
1 1
You could consider using a 64bit hash function to produce a bigint ID for each string, instead of using sequential IDs.
With 64-bit hash codes, you can store 2^(32 - 7) or over 30 million items in your hash table before there is a 0.0031% chance of a collision.
This would allow you to have identical IDs on all nodes, with no communication whatsoever between servers between the 'dispatch' and the 'merge' phases.
You could even increase the number of bits to further lower the chance of collision; only, you would not be able to make the resultant hash fit in a 64bit integer database field.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler_Noll_Vo_hash
http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/MurmurHash
http://www.partow.net/programming/hashfunctions/index.html
Loading CSV data into a database is slow because it needs to read, split and validate the data.
So what you should try is this:
Setup a local database on each computer. This will get rid of the network latency.
Load a different part of the data on each computer. Try to give each computer the same chunk. If that isn't easy for some reason, give each computer, say, 10'000 rows. When they are done, give them the next chunk.
Dump the data with the DB tools
Load all dumps into a single DB
Make sure that your loader tool can import data into a table which already contains data. If you can't do this, check your DB documentation for "remote table". A lot of databases allow to make a table from another DB server visible locally.
That allows you to run commands like insert into TABLE (....) select .... from REMOTE_SERVER.TABLE
If you need primary keys (and you should), you will also have the problem to assign PKs during the import into the local DBs. I suggest to add the PKs to the CSV file.
[EDIT] After checking with your edits, here is what you should try:
Write a small program which extract the unique values in the first and second column of the CSV file. That could be a simple script like:
cut -d";" -f1 | sort -u | nawk ' { print FNR";"$0 }'
This is a pretty cheap process (a couple of minutes even for huge files). It gives you ID-value files.
Write a program which reads the new ID-value files, caches them in memory and then reads the huge CSV files and replaces the values with the IDs.
If the ID-value files are too big, just do this step for the small files and load the huge ones into all 40 per-machine DBs.
Split the huge file into 40 chunks and load each of them on each machine.
If you had huge ID-value files, you can use the tables created on each machine to replace all the values that remained.
Use backup/restore or remote tables to merge the results.
Or, even better, keep the data on the 40 machines and use algorithms from parallel computing to split the work and merge the results. That's how Google can create search results from billions of web pages in a few milliseconds.
See here for an introduction.
This is a very generic question and does not take the database backend into account. Firing with 40 or 1000 machines on a database backend that can not handle the load will give you nothing. Such a problem is truly to broad to answer it in a specific way..you should get in touch with people inside your organization with enough skills on the DB level first and then come back with a more specific question.
Assuming N computers, X files at about 50GB files each, and a goal of having 1 database containing everything at the end.
Question: It takes 15 hours now. Do you know which part of the process is taking the longest? (Reading data, cleansing data, saving read data in tables, indexing… you are inserting data into unindexed tables and indexing after, right?)
To split this job up amongst the N computers, I’d do something like (and this is a back-of-the-envelope design):
Have a “central” or master database. Use this to mangae the overall process, and to hold the final complete warehouse.
It contains lists of all X files and all N-1 (not counting itself) “worker” databases
Each worker database is somehow linked to the master database (just how depends on RDBMS, which you have not specified)
When up and running, a "ready" worker database polls the master database for a file to process. The master database dolls out files to worker systems, ensuring that no file gets processed by more than one at a time. (Have to track success/failure of loading a given file; watch for timeouts (worker failed), manage retries.)
Worker database has local instance of star schema. When assigned a file, it empties the schema and loads the data from that one file. (For scalability, might be worth loading a few files at a time?) “First stage” data cleansing is done here for the data contained within that file(s).
When loaded, master database is updated with a “ready flagy” for that worker, and it goes into waiting mode.
Master database has it’s own to-do list of worker databases that have finished loading data. It processes each waiting worker set in turn; when a worker set has been processed, the worker is set back to “check if there’s another file to process” mode.
At start of process, the star schema in the master database is cleared. The first set loaded can probably just be copied over verbatim.
For second set and up, have to read and “merge” data – toss out redundant entries, merge data via conformed dimensions, etc. Business rules that apply to all the data, not just one set at a time, must be done now as well. This would be “second stage” data cleansing.
Again, repeat the above step for each worker database, until all files have been uploaded.
Advantages:
Reading/converting data from files into databases and doing “first stage” cleansing gets scaled out across N computers.
Ideally, little work (“second stage”, merging datasets) is left for the master database
Limitations:
Lots of data is first read into worker database, and then read again (albeit in DBMS-native format) across the network
Master database is a possible chokepoint. Everything has to go through here.
Shortcuts:
It seems likely that when a workstation “checks in” for a new file, it can refresh a local store of data already loaded in the master and add data cleansing considerations based on this to its “first stage” work (i.e. it knows code 5484J has already been loaded, so it can filter it out and not pass it back to the master database).
SQL Server table partitioning or similar physical implementation tricks of other RDBMSs could probably be used to good effect.
Other shortcuts are likely, but it totally depends upon the business rules being implemented.
Unfortunately, without further information or understanding of the system and data involved, one can’t tell if this process would end up being faster or slower than the “do it all one one box” solution. At the end of the day it depends a lot on your data: does it submit to “divide and conquer” techniques, or must it all be run through a single processing instance?
The simplest thing is to make one computer responsible for handing out new dimension item id's. You can have one for each dimension. If the dimension handling computers are on the same network, you can have them broadcast the id's. That should be fast enough.
What database did you plan on using with a 23-dimensional starscheme? Importing might not be the only performance bottleneck. You might want to do this in a distributed main-memory system. That avoids a lot of the materalization issues.
You should investigate if there are highly correlating dimensions.
In general, with a 23 dimensional star scheme with large dimensions a standard relational database (SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL) is going to perform extremely bad with datawarehouse questions. In order to avoid having to do a full table scan, relational databases use materialized views. With 23 dimensions you cannot afford enough of them. A distributed main-memory database might be able to do full table scans fast enough (in 2004 I did about 8 million rows/sec/thread on a Pentium 4 3 GHz in Delphi). Vertica might be an other option.
Another question: how large is the file when you zip it? That provides a good first order estimate of the amount of normalization you can do.
[edit] I've taken a look at your other questions. This does not look like a good match for PostgreSQL (or MySQL or SQL server). How long are you willing to wait for query results?
Rohita,
I'd suggest you eliminate a lot of the work from the load by sumarising the data FIRST, outside of the database. I work in a Solaris unix environment. I'd be leaning towards a korn-shell script, which cuts the file up into more managable chunks, then farms those chunks out equally to my two OTHER servers. I'd process the chunks using a nawk script (nawk has an efficient hashtable, which they call "associative arrays") to calculate the distinct values (the dimensions tables) and the Fact table. Just associate each new-name-seen with an incrementor-for-this-dimension, then write the Fact.
If you do this through named pipes you can push, process-remotely, and readback-back the data 'on the fly' while the "host" computer sits there loading it straight into tables.
Remember, No matter WHAT you do with 200,000,000 rows of data (How many Gig is it?), it's going to take some time. Sounds like you're in for some fun. It's interesting to read how other people propose to tackle this problem... The old adage "there's more than one way to do it!" has never been so true. Good luck!
Cheers. Keith.
On another note you could utilize Windows Hyper-V Cloud Computing addon for Windows Server:http://www.microsoft.com/virtualization/en/us/private-cloud.aspx
It seems that your implementation is very inefficient as it's loading at the speed of less than 1 MB/sec (50GB/15hrs).
Proper implementation on a modern single server (2x Xeon 5690 CPUs + RAM that's enough for ALL dimensions loaded in hash tables + 8GB ) should give you at least 10 times better speed i.e at least 10MB/sec.
Suppose you have a really large table, say a few billion unordered rows, and now you want to index it for fast lookups. Or maybe you are going to bulk load it and order it on the disk with a clustered index. Obviously, when you get to a quantity of data this size you have to stop assuming that you can do things like sorting in memory (well, not without going to virtual memory and taking a massive performance hit).
Can anyone give me some clues about how databases handle large quantities of data like this under the hood? I'm guessing there are algorithms that use some form of smart disk caching to handle all the data but I don't know where to start. References would be especially welcome. Maybe an advanced databases textbook?
Multiway Merge Sort is a keyword for sorting huge amounts of memory
As far as I know most indexes use some form of B-trees, which do not need to have stuff in memory. You can simply put nodes of the tree in a file, and then jump to varios position in the file. This can also be used for sorting.
Are you building a database engine?
Edit: I built a disc based database system back in the mid '90's.
Fixed size records are the easiest to work with because your file offset for locating a record can be easily calculated as a multiple of the record size. I also had some with variable record sizes.
My system needed to be optimized for reading. The data was actually stored on CD-ROM, so it was read-only. I created binary search tree files for each column I wanted to search on. I took an open source in-memory binary search tree implementation and converted it to do random access of a disc file. Sorted reads from each index file were easy and then reading each data record from the main data file according to the indexed order was also easy. I didn't need to do any in-memory sorting and the system was way faster than any of the available RDBMS systems that would run on a client machine at the time.
For fixed record size data, the index can just keep track of the record number. For variable length data records, the index just needs to store the offset within the file where the record starts and each record needs to begin with a structure that specifies it's length.
You would have to partition your data set in some way. Spread out each partition on a separate server's RAM. If I had a billion 32-bit int's - thats 32 GB of RAM right there. And thats only your index.
For low cardinality data, such as Gender (has only 2 bits - Male, Female) - you can represent each index-entry in less than a byte. Oracle uses a bit-map index in such cases.
Hmm... Interesting question.
I think that most used database management systems using operating system mechanism for memory management, and when physical memory ends up, memory tables goes to swap.
Suppose you have a dense table with an integer primary key, where you know the table will contain 99% of all values from 0 to 1,000,000.
A super-efficient way to implement such a table is an array (or a flat file on disk), assuming a fixed record size.
Is there a way to achieve similar efficiency using a database?
Clarification - When stored in a simple table / array, access to entries are O(1) - just a memory read (or read from disk). As I understand, all databases store their nodes in trees, so they cannot achieve identical performance - access to an average node will take a few hops.
Perhaps I don't understand your question but a database is designed to handle data. I work with database all day long that have millions of rows. They are efficiency enough.
I don't know what your definition of "achieve similar efficiency using a database" means. In a database (from my experience) what are exactly trying to do matters with performance.
If you simply need a single record based on a primary key, the the database should be naturally efficient enough assuming it is properly structure (For example, 3NF).
Again, you need to design your database to be efficient for what you need. Furthermore, consider how you will write queries against the database in a given structure.
In my work, I've been able to cut query execution time from >15 minutes to 1 or 2 seconds simply by optimizing my joins, the where clause and overall query structure. Proper indexing, obviously, is also important.
Also, consider the database engine you are going to use. I've been assuming SQL server or MySql, but those may not be right. I've heard (but have never tested the idea) that SQLite is very quick - faster than either of the a fore mentioned. There are also many other options, I'm sure.
Update: Based on your explanation in the comments, I'd say no -- you can't. You are asking about mechanizes designed for two completely different things. A database persist data over a long amount of time and is usually optimized for many connections and data read/writes. In your description the data in an array, in memory is for a single program to access and that program owns the memory. It's not (usually) shared. I do not see how you could achieve the same performance.
Another thought: The absolute closest thing you could get to this, in SQL server specifically, is using a table variable. A table variable (in theory) is held in memory only. I've heard people refer to table variables as SQL server's "array". Any regular table write or create statements prompts the RDMS to write to the disk (I think, first the log and then to the data files). And large data reads can also cause the DB to write to private temp tables to store data for later or what-have.
There is not much you can do to specify how data will be physically stored in database. Most you can do is to specify if data and indices will be stored separately or data will be stored in one index tree (clustered index as Brian described).
But in your case this does not matter at all because of:
All databases heavily use caching. 1.000.000 of records hardly can exceed 1GB of memory, so your complete database will quickly be cached in database cache.
If you are reading single record at a time, main overhead you will see is accessing data over database protocol. Process goes something like this:
connect to database - open communication channel
send SQL text from application to database
database analyzes SQL (parse SQL, checks if SQL command is previously compiled, compiles command if it is first time issued, ...)
database executes SQL. After few executions data from your example will be cached in memory, so execution will be very fast.
database packs fetched records for transport to application
data is sent over communication channel
database component in application unpacks received data into some dataset representation (e.g. ADO.Net dataset)
In your scenario, executing SQL and finding records needs very little time compared to total time needed to get data from database to application. Even if you could force database to store data into array, there will be no visible gain.
If you've got a decent amount of records in a DB (and 1MM is decent, not really that big), then indexes are your friend.
You're talking about old fixed record length flat files. And yes, they are super-efficient compared to databases, but like structure/value arrays vs. classes, they just do not have the kind of features that we typically expect today.
Things like:
searching on different columns/combintations
variable length columns
nullable columns
editiablility
restructuring
concurrency control
transaction control
etc., etc.
Create a DB with an ID column and a bit column. Use a clustered index for the ID column (the ID column is your primary key). Insert all 1,000,000 elements (do so in order or it will be slow). This is kind of inefficient in terms of space (you're using nlgn space instead of n space).
I don't claim this is efficient, but it will be stored in a similar manner to how an array would have been stored.
Note that the ID column can be marked as being a counter in most DB systems, in which case you can just insert 1000000 items and it will do the counting for you. I am not sure if such a DB avoids explicitely storing the counter's value, but if it does then you'd only end up using n space)
When you have your primary key as a integer sequence it would be a good idea to have reverse index. This kind of makes sure that the contiguous values are spread apart in the index tree.
However, there is a catch - with reverse indexes you will not be able to do range searching.
The big question is: efficient for what?
for oracle ideas might include:
read access by id: index organized table (this might be what you are looking for)
insert only, no update: no indexes, no spare space
read access full table scan: compressed
high concurrent write when id comes from a sequence: reverse index
for the actual question, precisely as asked: write all rows in a single blob (the table contains one column, one row. You might be able to access this like an array, but I am not sure since I don't know what operations are possible on blobs. Even if it works I don't think this approach would be useful in any realistic scenario.