I have to design a traffic database which includes data from different towns (8 towns) 2mb in a period of 10 min for each town 24h. The incoming data is the same for all Town. So my first question is what is better on the performance side: design one database for all towns with many tables (one table for each town) or design many databases (one database for each town)? My second question is what is the best database management system for this scenario, MySQL, Postgres, Oracle, or others?
The amount of data you are receiving each day is quite a lot (~5GB) but the number of rows being inserted is actually rather low. Consequently you need to design your physical model to make database storage adminstration easy and querying efficient.
Having a separate database per town only makes sense if you are going to have a server per database. But you do not need load balancing, as you only have to handle eight inserts every ten minutes. On the other hand that architecture will turn every query which compares one town against another into a distributed query.
Having one table per town in the same database might give you some performance advantages if the majority of your queries are constrained to data from a town rather than comparing towns. But I wouldn't like to put much money on it. Even if it did work, it might make other sorts of queries harder.
Given that the data is the same for all towns my preferred option would be one table with a differentiating column (TOWN_ID). Especially if I had the money to spring for a Oracle license with the Partitioning option.
Differnt databases per town can be difficult to maintain, same with differnt tables. It might be workable if you never have to compare towns though, but sooner or later I'd bet on having to compare data from differnt towns.
Partitioning data is the way to go. Anty database which supports partioning of data such as Oracle or SQL Server would work fine. Not sure if Postgre or Mysql support this, you'd have to ask someone more familiar with those databases.
Related
I'm starting to design a new application that will be used by about 50000 devices. Each device generates about 1440 registries a day, this means that will be stored over 72 million of registries per day. These registries keep coming every minute, and I must be able to query this data by a Java application (J2EE). So it need to be fast to write, fast to read and indexed to allow report generation.
Devices only insert data and the J2EE application will need to read then occasionally.
Now I'm looking to software alternatives to support this kind of operation.
Putting this data on a single table would lead to a catastrophic condition, because I won't be able to use this data due to its amount of data stored over a year.
I'm using Postgres, and database partitioning seems not to be a answer, since I'd need to partition tables by month, or may be more granular approach, days for example.
I was thinking on a solution using SQLite. Each device would have its own SQLite database, than the information would be granular enough for good maintenance and fast insertions and queries.
What do you think?
Record only changes of device positions - most of the time any device will not move - a car will be parked, a person will sit or sleep, a phone will be on unmoving person or charged etc. - this would make you an order of magnitude less data to store.
You'll be generating at most about 1TB a year (even when not implementing point 1), which is not a very big amount of data. This means about 30MB/s of data, which single SATA drive can handle.
Even a simple unpartitioned Postgres database on not too big hardware should manage to handle this. The only problem could be when you'll need to query or backup - this can be resolved by using a Hot Standby mirror using Streaming Replication - this is a new feature in soon to be released PostgreSQL 9.0. Just query against / backup a mirror - if it is busy it will temporarily and automatically queue changes, and catch up later.
When you really need to partition do it for example on device_id modulo 256 instead of time. This way you'd have writes spread out on every partition. If you partition on time just one partition will be very busy on any moment and others will be idle. Postgres supports partitioning this way very well. You can then also spread load to several storage devices using tablespaces, which are also well supported in Postgres.
Time-interval partitioning is a very good solution, even if you have to roll your own. Maintaining separate connections to 50,000 SQLite databases is much less practical than a single Postgres database, even for millions of inserts a day.
Depending on the kind of queries that you need to run against your dataset, you might consider partitioning your remote devices across several servers, and then query those servers to write aggregate data to a backend server.
The key to high-volume tables is: minimize the amount of data you write and the number of indexes that have to be updated; don't do UPDATEs or DELETEs, only INSERTS (and use partitioning for data that you will delete in the future—DROP TABLE is much faster than DELETE FROM TABLE!).
Table design and query optimization becomes very database-specific as you start to challenge the database engine. Consider hiring a Postgres expert to at least consult on your design.
Maybe it is time for a db that you can shard over many machines? Cassandra? Redis? Don't limit yourself to sql db's.
Database partition management can be automated; time-based partitioning of the data is a standard way of dealihg with this type of problem, and I'm not sure that I can see any reason why this can't be done with PostgreSQL.
You have approximately 72m rows per day - assuming a device ID, datestamp and two floats for coordinates you will have (say) 16-20 bytes per row plus some minor page metadata overhead. A back-of-fag-packet capacity plan suggests around 1-1.5GB of data per day, or 400-500GB per year, plus indexes if necessary.
If you can live with periodically refreshed data (i.e. not completely up to date) you could build a separate reporting table and periodically update this with an ETL process. If this table is stored on separate physical disk volumes it can be queried without significantly affecting the performance of your transactional data.
A separate reporting database for historical data would also allow you to prune your operational table by dropping older partitions, which would probably help with application performance. You could also index the reporting tables and create summary tables to optimise reporting performance.
If you need low latency data (i.e. reporting on up-to-date data), it may also be possible to build a view where the lead partitions are reported off the operational system and the historical data is reported from the data mart. This would allow the bulk queries to take place on reporting tables optimised for this, while relatively small volumes of current data can be read directly from the operational system.
Most low-latency reporting systems use some variation of this approach - a leading partition can be updated by a real-time process (perhaps triggers) and contains relatively little data, so it can be queried quickly, but contains no baggage that slows down the update. The rest of the historical data can be heavily indexed for reporting. Partitioning by date means that the system will automatically start populating the next partition, and a periodic process can move, re-index or do whatever needs to be done for the historical data to optimise it for reporting.
Note: If your budget runs to PostgreSQL rather than Oracle, you will probably find that direct-attach storage is appreciably faster than a SAN unless you want to spend a lot of money on SAN hardware.
That is a bit of a vague question you are asking. And I think you are not facing a choice of database software, but an architectural problem.
Some considerations:
How reliable are the devices, and how
well are they connected to the
querying software?
How failsafe do
you need the storage to be?
How much extra processing power do the devices
have to process your queries?
Basically, your idea of a spatial partitioning is a good idea. That does not exclude a temporal partition, if necessary. Whether you do that in postgres or sqlite depends on other factors, like the processing power and available libraries.
Another consideration would be whether your devices are reliable and powerful enough to handle your queries. Otherwise, you might want to work with a centralized cluster of databases instead, which you can still query in parallel.
There is a web application which is in production mode for 3 years or so by now. Historically, because of different reasons there was made a decision to use database-per customer installation.
Now we came across the fact that now deployments are very slow.
Should we ever consider moving all the databases back to single one to reduce environment complexity? Or is it too risky idea?
The problem I see now is that it's very hard to merge these databases with saving referential integrity(primary keys of different database' tables can not be obviously differentiated).
Databases are not that much big, so we don't have much benefits of reduced load by having multiple databases.
Your question is quite broad.
a) Ensure that merged databases don't suffer from degraded performance with things like JOIN statements when, say, 1000 databases are merged even though each is small. As for your referential integrity ... which I assume is auto_increment based ... you can replace these relationships by altering the schema and supplanting UUID or a similar unique, non-sequential value. Or even a surrogate key pair in addition to your auto increment PK.
b) Do benchmarking to ensure your application would respond within performance limits
c) Is there a direct ROI for doing this? What are the long term cost benefits vs the expense of migration? Is the decreased complexity worth increased (if any) cost?
d) How does this impact your backup and disaster recovery plans? Does it make them cheaper? Slower? More expensive?
Abstraction and management tools approach:
if it were me, depending on the situation, I would keep the scalability that comes with per-client sharding and create a set of management tools to abstractly create one virtual database. Using these tools you can acquire the simplified management without loosing technical flexibility. I suspect you want to simplify the cost of managing all these databases (based on your deployment statement). Creating a 'control panel' for your farm can be a good way to simplify a complex system (especially when deployments may use different schema versions).
For the migrated data... customer one database UUIDs can start with 10000000, Customer two database UUIDs can start with 20000000. Customer three database UUIDs can start with 30000000.....
In my opinion when you host the database for your customers, a single database that handles multiple customers is a better idea overall. Of course you need to add a "customers" table to record the customers, and a "customer_id" column on all top-level data that is within the table, and include checks in all your SQL to ensure the customer's view is limited to their own data.
I'd set up a new database with the additional columns, and then test it with a dummy customer or three for a while to ensure all bugs are wiped out. Then I'd migrate all the customers across, one by one, doing checks that the data will fit.
Currently I am designing a database for use in our company. We are using SQL Server 2008. The database will hold data gathered from several customers. The goal of the database is to acquire aggregate benchmark numbers over several customers.
Recently, I have become worried with the fact that one table in particular will be getting very big. Each customer has approximately 20.000.000 rows of data, and there will soon be 30 customers in the database (if not more). A lot of queries will be done on this table. I am already noticing performance issues and users being temporarily locked out.
My question, will we be able to handle this table in the future, or is it better to split this table up into smaller tables for each customer?
Update: It has now been about half a year since we first created the tables. Following the advices below, I created a handful of huge tables. Since then, I have been experimenting with indexes and decided on a clustered index on the first two columns (Hospital code and Department code) on which we would have partitioned the table had we had Enterprise Edition. This setup worked fine until recently, as Galwegian predicted, performance issues are springing up. Rebuilding an index takes ages, users lock each other out, queries frequently take longer than they should, and for most queries it pays off to first copy the relevant part of the data into a temp table, create indices on the temp table and run the query. This is not how it should be. Therefore, we are considering to buy Enterprise Edition for use of partitioned tables. If the purchase cannot go through I plan to use a workaround to accomplish partitioning in Standard Edition.
Start out with one large table, and then apply 2008's table partitioning capabilities where appropriate, if performance becomes an issue.
Datawarehouses are supposed to be big (the clue is in the name). Twenty million rows is about medium by warehousing standards, although six hundred million can be considered large.
The thing to bear in mind is that such large tables have a different physics, like black holes. So tuning them takes a different set of techniques. The other thing is, users of a datawarehouse must understand that they are dealing with huge amounts of data, and so they must not expect sub-second response (or indeed sub-minute) for every query.
Partitioning can be useful, especially if you have clear demarcations such as, as in your case, CUSTOMER. You have to be aware that partitioning can degrade the performance of queries which cut across the grain of the partitioning key. So it is not a silver bullet.
Splitting tables for performance reasons is called sharding. Also, a database schema can be more or less normalized. A normalized schema has separate tables with relations between them, and data is not duplicated.
I am assuming you have your database properly normalized. It shouldn't be a problem to deal with the data volume you refer to on a single table in SQL Server; what I think you need to do is review your indexes.
Since you've tagged your question as 'datawarehouse' as well I assume you know some things about the subject. Depending on your goals you could go for a star-schema (a multidemensional model with a fact and dimensiontables). Store all fastchanging data in 1 table (per subject) and the slowchaning data in another dimension/'snowflake' tables.
An other option is the DataVault method by Dan Lindstedt. Which is a bit more complex but provides you with full flexibility.
http://danlinstedt.com/category/datavault/
In a properly designed database, that is not a huge anmout of records and SQl server should handle with ease.
A partioned single table is usually the best way to go. Trying to maintain separate indivudal customer tables is very costly in termas of time and effort and far more probne to errors.
Also examine you current queries if you are experiencing performance issues. If you don't have proper indexing (did you for instance index the foreign key fields?) queries will be slow, if you don't have sargeable queries they will be slow if you used correlated subqueries or cursors, they will be slow. Are you returning more data than is striclty needed? If you have select * anywhere in your production code, get rid of it and only return the fields you need. If you used views that call views that call views or if you used EAV table, you willhave performance iisues at this level. If you allowed a framework to autogenerate SQl code, you may well have badly perforimng queries. Remember Profiler is your friend. Of course you could also have a hardware issue, you need a pretty good sized dedicated server for that number of records. It won't work to run this on your web server or a small box.
I suggest you need to hire a professional dba with performance tuning experience. It is quite complex stuff. Databases desigend by application programmers often are bad performers when they get a real number of users and records. Database MUST be designed with data integrity, performance and security in mind. If you didn't do that the changes of having them are slim indeed.
Partioning is definately something to look into. I had a database that had 2 tables sharded. Each table contained around 30-35million records. I have since merged this into one large table and assigned some good indexes. So far, I've not had to partition this table as it's working a treat, but I'm keep partitioning in mind. One thing that I have noticed, compared to when the data was sharded, and that's the data import. It is now slower, but I can live with that as the Import tool can be re-written ;o)
One table and use table partitioning.
I think the advice to use NOLOCK is unjustified based on the information given. NOLOCK means you will get inaccurate and unreliable results from your queries (dirty and phantom reads). Before using NOLOCK you need to be sure that's not going to be a problem for your customers.
Is this a single flat table (no particular model)? Typically in data warehouses, you either have a normalized data model (third normal form at least - usually in an entity-relationship-model) or you have dimensional data (Kimball method or variations - usually fact tables with associated dimension tables in a set of stars).
In both cases, indexes play a large part, and partitioning can also play a part in getting queries to perform (but partitioning is not usually about performance but about maintenance being able to add and drop partitions quickly) over very large data sets - but it really depends on the order of aggregation and the types of queries.
One table, then worry about performance. That is, assuming you are collecting the exact same information for each customer. That way, if you have to add/remove/modify a column, you are only doing it in one place.
If you're on MS SQL server and you want to keep the single table, table partitioning could be one solution.
Keep one table - 20M rows isn't huge, and customers aren't exactly the kind of table that you can easily 'archive off', and the aggrevation of searching multiple tables to find a customer isn't worth the effort (SQL is likely to be much more efficient at BTree searching than your own invention is)
You will need to look into the performance and locking issues however - this will prevent your db from scaling.
You can also create supplemental tables that hold already calculated details on historical information if there are common queries.
As part of my role at the firm I'm at, I've been forced to become the DBA for our database. Some of our tables have rowcounts approaching 100 million and many of the things that I know how to do SQL Server(like joins) simply break down at this level of data. I'm left with a couple options
1) Go out and find a DBA with experience administering VLDBs. This is going to cost us a pretty penny and come at the expense of other work that we need to get done. I'm not a huge fan of it.
2) Most of our data is historical data that we use for analysis. I could simply create a copy of our database schema and start from scratch with data putting on hold any analysis of our current data until I find a proper way to solve the problem(this is my current "best" solution).
3) Reach out to the developer community to see if I can learn enough about large databases to get us through until I can implement solution #1.
Any help that anyone could provide, or any books you could recommend would be greatly appreciated.
Here are a few thoughts, but none of them are quick fixes:
Develop an archival strategy for the
data in your large tables. Create
tables with similar formats to the
existing transactional table and
copy the data out into those tables
on a periodic basis. If you can get
away with whacking the data out of
the tx system, then fine.
Develop a relational data warehouse
to store the large data sets,
complete with star schemas
consisting of fact tables and
dimensions. For an introduction to
this approach there is no better
book (IMHO) than Ralph Kimball's
Data Warehouse Toolkit.
For analysis, consider using MS
Analysis Services for
pre-aggregating this data for fast
querying.
Of course, you could also look at
your indexing strategy within the
existing database. Be careful with
any changes as you could add indexes
that would improve querying at the
cost of insert and transactional
performance.
You could also research
partitioning in SQL Server.
Don't feel bad about bringing in a DBA on contract basis to help out...
To me, your best bet would be to begin investigating movement of that data out of the transactional system if it is not necessary for day to day use.
Of course, you are going to need to pick up some new skills for dealing with these amounts of data. Whatever you decide to do, make a backup first!
One more thing you should do is ensure that your I/O is being spread appropriately across as many spindles as possible. Your data files, log files and sql server temp db data files should all be on separate drives with a database system that large.
DBA's are worth their weight in gold, if you can find a good one. They specialize in doing the very thing that you are describing. If this is a one time problem, maybe you can subcontract one.
I believe Microsoft offers a similar service. You might want to ask.
You'll want to get a DBA in there, at least on contract to performance tune the database.
Joining to a 100 Million record table shouldn't bring the database serer to its knees. My company customers do it many hundreds (possibly thousands) of times per minute on our system.
This question is related to another:
Will having multiple filegroups help speed up my database?
The software we're developing is an analytical tool that uses MS SQL Server 2005 to store relational data. Initial analysis can be slow (since we're processing millions or billions of rows of data), but there are performance requirements on recalling previous analyses quickly, so we "save" results of each analysis.
Our current approach is to save analysis results in a series of "run-specific" tables, and the analysis is complex enough that we might end up with as many as 100 tables per analysis. Usually these tables use up a couple hundred MB per analysis (which is small compared to our hundreds of GB, or sometimes multiple TB, of source data). But overall, disk space is not a problem for us. Each set of tables is specific to one analysis, and in many cases this provides us enormous performance improvements over referring back to the source data.
The approach starts to break down once we accumulate enough saved analysis results -- before we added more robust archive/cleanup capability, our testing database climbed to several million tables. But it's not a stretch for us to have more than 100,000 tables, even in production. Microsoft places a pretty enormous theoretical limit on the size of sysobjects (~2 billion), but once our database grows beyond 100,000 or so, simple queries like CREATE TABLE and DROP TABLE can slow down dramatically.
We have some room to debate our approach, but I think that might be tough to do without more context, so instead I want to ask the question more generally: if we're forced to create so many tables, what's the best approach for managing them? Multiple filegroups? Multiple schemas/owners? Multiple databases?
Another note: I'm not thrilled about the idea of "simply throwing hardware at the problem" (i.e. adding RAM, CPU power, disk speed). But we won't rule it out either, especially if (for example) someone can tell us definitively what effect adding RAM or using multiple filegroups will have on managing a large system catalog.
Without first seeing the entire system, my first recommendation would be to save the historical runs in combined tables with a RunID as part of the key - a dimensional model may also be relevant here. This table can be partitioned for improvement, which will also allow you to spread the table into other filegroups.
Another possibility it to put each run in its own database and then detach them, only attaching them as needed (and in read-only form)
CREATE TABLE and DROP TABLE are probably performing poorly because the master or model databases are not optimized for this kind of behavior.
I also recommend talking to Microsoft about your choice of database design.
Are the tables all different structures? If they are the same structure you might get away with a single partitioned table.
If they are different structures, but just subsets of the same set of dimension columns, you could still store them in partitions in the same table with nulls in the non-applicable columns.
If this is analytic (derivative pricing computations perhaps?) you could dump the results of a computation run to flat files and reuse your computations by loading from the flat files.
This seems to be a very interesting problem/application that you are working with. I would love to work on something like this. :)
You have a very large problem surface area, and that makes it hard to start helping. There are several solution parameters that are not evident in your post. For example, how long do you plan to keep the run analysis tables? There's a LOT other questions that need to be asked.
You are going to need a combination of serious data warehousing, and data/table partitioning. Depending on how much data you want to keep and archive you may need to start de-normalizing and flattening the tables.
This would be pretty good case where contacting Microsoft directly can be mutually beneficial. Microsoft gets a good case to show other customers, and you get help directly from the vendor.
We ended up splitting our database into multiple databases. So the main database contains a "databases" table that refers to one or more "run" databases, each of which contains distinct sets of analysis results. Then the main "run" table contains a database ID, and the code that retrieves a saved result includes the relevant database prefix on all queries.
This approach allows the system catalog of each database to be more reasonable, it provides better separation between the core/permanent tables and the dynamic/run tables, and it also makes backups and archiving more manageable. It also allows us to split our data across multiple physical disks, although using multiple filegroups would have done that too. Overall, it's working well for us now given our current requirements, and based on expected growth we think it will scale well for us too.
We've also noticed that SQL 2008 tends to handle large system catalogs better than SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 did. (We hadn't upgraded to 2008 when I posted this question.)