I'm not much of a database guru so I would like some advice.
Background
We have 4 tables that are currently stored in Sybase IQ. We don't currently have any choice over this, we're basically stuck with what someone else decided for us. Sybase IQ is a column-oriented database that is perfect for a data warehouse. Unfortunately, my project needs to do a lot of transactional updating (we're more of an operational database) so I'm looking for more mainstream alternatives.
Question
Given these tables' dimensions, would anyone consider SQL Server or Oracle to be a viable alternative?
Table 1 : 172 columns * 32 million rows
Table 2 : 453 columns * 7 million rows
Table 3 : 112 columns * 13 million rows
Table 4 : 147 columns * 2.5 million rows
Given the size of data what are the things I should be concerned about in terms of database choice, server configuration, memory, platform, etc.?
Yes, both should be able to handle your tables (if your server is suited for it). But, I would consider redesigning your database a bit. Even in a datawarehouse where you denormalize your data, a table with 453 columns is not normal.
It really depends on what's in the columns. If there are lots of big VARCHAR columns -- and they are frequently filled to near capacity -- then you could be in for some problems. If it's all integer data then you should be fine.
453 * 4 = 1812 # columns are 4 byte integers, row size is ~1.8k
453 * 255 = 115,515 # columns are VARCHAR(255), theoretical row size is ~112k
The rule of thumb is that row size should not exceed the disk block size, which is generally 8k. As you can see, your big table is not a problem in this regard if it consists entirely of 4-byte integers but if it consists of 255-char VARCHAR columns then you could be exceeding the limit substantially. This 8k limit used to be a hard limit in SQL Server but I think these days it's just a soft limit and performance guideline.
Note that VARCHAR columns don't necessarily consume memory commensurate with the size you specify for them. That is the max size, but they only consume as much as they need. If the actual data in the VARCHAR columns is always 3-4 chars long then size will be similar to that of integer columns regardless of whether you created them as VARCHAR(4) or VARCHAR(255).
The general rule is that you want row size to be small so that there are many rows per disk block, this reduces the number of disk reads necessary to scan the table. Once you get above 8k you have two reads per row.
Oracle has another potential problem which is that ANSI joins have a hard limit on the total number of columns in all tables in the join. You can avoid this by avoiding the Oracle ANSI join syntax. (There are equivalents that don't suffer from this bug.) I don't recall what the limit is or which versions it applies to (I don't think it's been fixed yet).
The numbers of rows you're talking about should be no problem at all, presuming you have adequate hardware.
With suitable sized hardware and I/O subsystem to meet your demands both are quite adequate - Wihlst you have a lot of columns the row counts are really very low - we regularily use datasets that are expressed in billions, not millions. (Just do not try it on SQL 2000 :) )
If you know your usages and I/O requirements, most I/O vendors will translate that into hardware specs for you. Memory, processors etc again is dependant on workloads that only you can model.
Oracle 11g has no problems with such data and structure.
More info at: http://neworacledba.blogspot.com/2008/05/database-limits.html
Regards.
Oracle limitations
SQL Server limitations
You might be close on SQL Server, depending on what data types you have in that 453 column table (note the bytes per row limitation, but also read the footnote). I know you said that this is normalized, but I suggest looking at your workflow and considering ways of reducing the column count.
Also, these tables are big enough that hardware considerations are a major issue with performance. You'll need an experienced DBA to help you spec and set up the server with either RDBMS. Properly configuring your disk subsystem will be vital. You will probably also want to consider table partitioning among other things to help with performance, but this all depends on exactly how the data is being used.
Based on your comments in the other answers I think what I'd recommend is:
1) Isolate which data is actually updated vs. which data is more or less read only (or infrequently)
2) Move the updated data to separate tables joined on an id to the bigger tables (deleting those columns from the big tables)
3) Do your OLTP transactions against the smaller, more relational tables
4) Use inner joins to hook back up to the big tables to retrieve data when necessary.
As others have noted you are trying to make the DB do both OLTP and OLAP at the same time and that is difficult. Server settings need to be tweaked differently for either scenario.
Either SQL Server or Oracle should work. I use census data as well and my giganto table has around 300+ columns. I use SQL Server 2005 and it complains that if all the columns were to be filled to their capacity it would exceed that max possible size for a record. We use our census data in an OLAP fashion, so it isn't such a big deal to have so many columns.
Are all of the columns in all of those tables updated by your application?
You could consider having data marts (AKA operational or online data store) that are updated during the day, and then the new records are migrated into the main warehouse at night? I say this because rows with massive amounts of columns are going to be slower to insert and update, so you may want to consider tailoring your specific online architecture to your application's update requirements.
Asking one DB to act as an operational and warehouse system at the same time is still a bit of a tall order. I would consider using SQL server or Oracle for operational system and having a separate DW for reporting and analytic, probably keeping the system you have.
Expect some table re-design and normalization to happen on the operational side to fit one-row per page limitations of row-based storage.
If you need to have fast updates of the DW, you may consider EP for ETL approach, as opposed to standard (scheduled) ETL.
Considering that you are in the early stage of this, take a look at Microsoft project Madison, which is auto-scalable DW appliance up to 100s TB. They have already shipped some installations.
I would very carefully consider switching from a column oriented database to a relational one. Column oriented databases are indeed inadequate for operational work as updates are very slow, but they are more than adequate for reporting and business intelligence support.
More often than not one has to split the operational work into a OLTP database containing the current activity needed for operations (accounts, inventory etc) and use an ETL process to populate the data warehouse (history, trends). A column oriented DW will beat hands down a relational one in almost any circumstance, so I wouldn't give up the Sybase IQ so easily. Perhaps you can design your system to have an operational OLTP side using your relational product of choice (I would choose SQL Server, but I'm biased) and keep the OLAP part you have now.
Sybase have a product called RAP that combines IQ with an in-memory instance of ASE (their relational database) which is designed to help in situations such as this.
Your data isn't so vast that you couldn't consider moving to a row-oriented database but, depending on the structure of the data, you could end up using considerably more disk space and slowing down many kinds of queries.
Disclaimer: I do work for Sybase but not currently on the ASE/IQ/RAP side.
Related
I am using SQLite in my application. The scenario is that I have stock market data and each company is a database with 1 table. That table stores records which can range from couple thousand to half a million.
Currently when I update the data in real time I - open connection, check if that particular data exists or not. If not, I then insert it and close the connection. This is then done in a loop and each database (representing a company) is updated. The number of records inserted is low and is not the problem. But is the process okay?
An alternate way is to have 1 database with many tables (each company can be a table) and each table can have a lot of records. Is this better or not?
You can expect at around 500 companies. I am coding in VS 2010. The language is VB.NET.
The optimal organization for your data is to make it properly normalized, i.e., put all data into a single table with a company column.
This is better for performance because the table- and database-related overhead is reduced.
Queries can be sped up with indexes, but what indexes you need depends on the actual queries.
I did something similar, with similar sized data in another field. It depends a lot on your indexes. Ultimately, separating each large table was best (1 table per file, representing a cohesive unit, in you case one company). Plus you gain the advantage of each company table being the same name, versus having x tables of different names that have the same scheme (and no sanitizing of company names to make new tables required).
Internally, other DBMSs often keep at least one file per table in their internal structure, SQL is thus just a layer of abstraction above that. SQLite (despite its conceptors' boasting) is meant for small projects and querying larger data models will get more finicky in order to make it work well.
Recently we started to get some performance issues on our SQL Server.
On analysis I found the DBA has got 800 millions rows in ONE TABLE (300 GB in size)
No partitioning, no proper indexes - lead to performance going down.
ADVICE:
How many number of rows would one recommended for a table in SQL Server 2005
There is no "recommended" number.
You should only hold data the you use. If you don't use it, archive it.
If you do need it and you have performance problems, you DBA should be able to tune the DB. With that number of rows (not unusual), indexing and ensuring the SAN is working properly should do the trick. Horizontal scaling is another option.
Oracle user here (never used MS SQL server with such large number of rows)
I can say that in all the systems I've worked with, all the tables having hundreds of millions of rows just had to be partitioned.
According to this document you should also have such big table partitioned in MS SQL as well. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345146(v=sql.90).aspx
There should be no real limit on the number of rows in a single table as long as it is properly indexed - 800 million doesn't strike me as that many.
What counts as "properly indexed" will depend completely on the application and the table.
I see alot of "no limit" answers, but I'm going to disagree. Unless you have megabucks worth of hardware, this table should be partitioned. The fact that there are 800 million rows tells me that either a.) this is a fact table in the data warehouse (and should be partitioned anyway) OR b.) the dba has been asleep at the wheel.
I'm thinking b (or maybe collectively a and b). I can't imagine being the dba and letting a table get to 800 million records without some sort of intervention. I like to be proactive and this is a big red flag that the dba has no plan for aging the data. It's either growing very quickly or is completely unmanaged.
I am creating a system which polls devices for data on varying metrics such as CPU utilisation, disk utilisation, temperature etc. at (probably) 5 minute intervals using SNMP. The ultimate goal is to provide visualisations to a user of the system in the form of time-series graphs.
I have looked at using RRDTool in the past, but rejected it as storing the captured data indefinitely is important to my project, and I want higher level and more flexible access to the captured data. So my question is really:
What is better, a relational database (such as MySQL or PostgreSQL) or a non-relational or NoSQL database (such as MongoDB or Redis) with regard to performance when querying data for graphing.
Relational
Given a relational database, I would use a data_instances table, in which would be stored every instance of data captured for every metric being measured for all devices, with the following fields:
Fields: id fk_to_device fk_to_metric metric_value timestamp
When I want to draw a graph for a particular metric on a particular device, I must query this singular table filtering out the other devices, and the other metrics being analysed for this device:
SELECT metric_value, timestamp FROM data_instances
WHERE fk_to_device=1 AND fk_to_metric=2
The number of rows in this table would be:
d * m_d * f * t
where d is the number of devices, m_d is the accumulative number of metrics being recorded for all devices, f is the frequency at which data is polled for and t is the total amount of time the system has been collecting data.
For a user recording 10 metrics for 3 devices every 5 minutes for a year, we would have just under 5 million records.
Indexes
Without indexes on fk_to_device and fk_to_metric scanning this continuously expanding table would take too much time. So indexing the aforementioned fields and also timestamp (for creating graphs with localised periods) is a requirement.
Non-Relational (NoSQL)
MongoDB has the concept of a collection, unlike tables these can be created programmatically without setup. With these I could partition the storage of data for each device, or even each metric recorded for each device.
I have no experience with NoSQL and do not know if they provide any query performance enhancing features such as indexing, however the previous paragraph proposes doing most of the traditional relational query work in the structure by which the data is stored under NoSQL.
Undecided
Would a relational solution with correct indexing reduce to a crawl within the year? Or does the collection based structure of NoSQL approaches (which matches my mental model of the stored data) provide a noticeable benefit?
Definitely Relational. Unlimited flexibility and expansion.
Two corrections, both in concept and application, followed by an elevation.
Correction
It is not "filtering out the un-needed data"; it is selecting only the needed data. Yes, of course, if you have an Index to support the columns identified in the WHERE clause, it is very fast, and the query does not depend on the size of the table (grabbing 1,000 rows from a 16 billion row table is instantaneous).
Your table has one serious impediment. Given your description, the actual PK is (Device, Metric, DateTime). (Please don't call it TimeStamp, that means something else, but that is a minor issue.) The uniqueness of the row is identified by:
(Device, Metric, DateTime)
The Id column does nothing, it is totally and completely redundant.
An Id column is never a Key (duplicate rows, which are prohibited in a Relational database, must be prevented by other means).
The Id column requires an additional Index, which obviously impedes the speed of INSERT/DELETE, and adds to the disk space used.
You can get rid of it. Please.
Elevation
Now that you have removed the impediment, you may not have recognised it, but your table is in Sixth Normal Form. Very high speed, with just one Index on the PK. For understanding, read this answer from the What is Sixth Normal Form ? heading onwards.
(I have one index only, not three; on the Non-SQLs you may need three indices).
I have the exact same table (without the Id "key", of course). I have an additional column Server. I support multiple customers remotely.
(Server, Device, Metric, DateTime)
The table can be used to Pivot the data (ie. Devices across the top and Metrics down the side, or pivoted) using exactly the same SQL code (yes, switch the cells). I use the table to erect an unlimited variety of graphs and charts for customers re their server performance.
Monitor Statistics Data Model.
(Too large for inline; some browsers cannot load inline; click the link. Also that is the obsolete demo version, for obvious reasons, I cannot show you commercial product DM.)
It allows me to produce Charts Like This, six keystrokes after receiving a raw monitoring stats file from the customer, using a single SELECT command. Notice the mix-and-match; OS and server on the same chart; a variety of Pivots. Of course, there is no limit to the number of stats matrices, and thus the charts. (Used with the customer's kind permission.)
Readers who are unfamiliar with the Standard for Modelling Relational Databases may find the IDEF1X Notation helpful.
One More Thing
Last but not least, SQL is a IEC/ISO/ANSI Standard. The freeware is actually Non-SQL; it is fraudulent to use the term SQL if they do not provide the Standard. They may provide "extras", but they are absent the basics.
Found very interesting the above answers.
Trying to add a couple more considerations here.
1) Data aging
Time-series management usually need to create aging policies. A typical scenario (e.g. monitoring server CPU) requires to store:
1-sec raw samples for a short period (e.g. for 24 hours)
5-min detail aggregate samples for a medium period (e.g. 1 week)
1-hour detail over that (e.g. up to 1 year)
Although relational models make it possible for sure (my company implemented massive centralized databases for some large customers with tens of thousands of data series) to manage it appropriately, the new breed of data stores add interesting functionalities to be explored like:
automated data purging (see Redis' EXPIRE command)
multidimensional aggregations (e.g. map-reduce jobs a-la-Splunk)
2) Real-time collection
Even more importantly some non-relational data stores are inherently distributed and allow for a much more efficient real-time (or near-real time) data collection that could be a problem with RDBMS because of the creation of hotspots (managing indexing while inserting in a single table). This problem in the RDBMS space is typically solved reverting to batch import procedures (we managed it this way in the past) while no-sql technologies have succeeded in massive real-time collection and aggregation (see Splunk for example, mentioned in previous replies).
You table has data in single table. So relational vs non relational is not the question. Basically you need to read a lot of sequential data. Now if you have enough RAM to store a years worth data then nothing like using Redis/MongoDB etc.
Mostly NoSQL databases will store your data on same location on disk and in compressed form to avoid multiple disk access.
NoSQL does the same thing as creating the index on device id and metric id, but in its own way. With database even if you do this the index and data may be at different places and there would be a lot of disk IO.
Tools like Splunk are using NoSQL backends to store time series data and then using map reduce to create aggregates (which might be what you want later). So in my opinion to use NoSQL is an option as people have already tried it for similar use cases. But will a million rows bring the database to crawl (maybe not , with decent hardware and proper configurations).
Create a file, name it 1_2.data. weired idea? what you get:
You save up to 50% of space because you don't need to repeat the fk_to_device and fk_to_metric value for every data point.
You save up even more space because you don't need any indices.
Save pairs of (timestamp,metric_value) to the file by appending the data so you get a order by timestamp for free. (assuming that your sources don't send out of order data for a device)
=> Queries by timestamp run amazingly fast because you can use binary search to find the right place in the file to read from.
if you like it even more optimized start thinking about splitting your files like that;
1_2_january2014.data
1_2_february2014.data
1_2_march2014.data
or use kdb+ from http://kx.com because they do all this for you:) column-oriented is what may help you.
There is a cloud-based column-oriented solution popping up, so you may want to have a look at: http://timeseries.guru
You should look into Time series database. It was created for this purpose.
A time series database (TSDB) is a software system that is optimized for handling time series data, arrays of numbers indexed by time (a datetime or a datetime range).
Popular example of time-series database InfluxDB
I think that the answer for this kind of question should mainly revolve about the way your Database utilize storage.
Some Database servers use RAM and Disk, some use RAM only (optionally Disk for persistency), etc.
Most common SQL Database solutions are using memory+disk storage and writes the data in a Row based layout (every inserted raw is written in the same physical location).
For timeseries stores, in most cases the workload is something like: Relatively-low interval of massive amount of inserts, while reads are column based (in most cases you want to read a range of data from a specific column, representing a metric)
I have found Columnar Databases (google it, you'll find MonetDB, InfoBright, parAccel, etc) are doing terrific job for time series.
As for your question, which personally I think is somewhat invalid (as all discussions using the fault term NoSQL - IMO):
You can use a Database server that can talk SQL on one hand, making your life very easy as everyone knows SQL for many years and this language has been perfected over and over again for data queries; but still utilize RAM, CPU Cache and Disk in a Columnar oriented way, making your solution best fit Time Series
5 Millions of rows is nothing for today's torrential data. Expect data to be in the TB or PB in just a few months. At this point RDBMS do not scale to the task and we need the linear scalability of NoSql databases. Performance would be achieved for the columnar partition used to store the data, adding more columns and less rows kind of concept to boost performance. Leverage the Open TSDB work done on top of HBASE or MapR_DB, etc.
I face similar requirements regularly, and have recently started using Zabbix to gather and store this type of data. Zabbix has its own graphing capability, but it's easy enough to extract the data out of Zabbix's database and process it however you like. If you haven't already checked Zabbix out, you might find it worth your time to do so.
I am looking for a database that could handle (create an index on a column in a reasonable time and provide results for select queries in less than 3 sec) more than 500 millions rows. Would Postgresql or Msql on low end machine (Core 2 CPU 6600, 4GB, 64 bit system, Windows VISTA) handle such a large number of rows?
Update: Asking this question, I am looking for information which database I should use on a low end machine in order to provide results to select questions with one or two fields specified in where clause. No joins. I need to create indices -- it can not take ages like on mysql -- to achieve sufficient performance for my select queries. This machine is a test PC to perform an experiment.
The table schema:
create table mapper {
key VARCHAR(1000),
attr1 VARCHAR (100),
attr1 INT,
attr2 INT,
value VARCHAR (2000),
PRIMARY KEY (key),
INDEX (attr1),
INDEX (attr2)
}
MSSQL can handle that many rows just fine. The query time is completely dependent on a lot more factors than just simple row count.
For example, it's going to depend on:
how many joins those queries do
how well your indexes are set up
how much ram is in the machine
speed and number of processors
type and spindle speed of hard drives
size of the row/amount of data returned in the query
Network interface speed / latency
It's very easy to have a small (less than 10,000 rows) table which would take a couple minutes to execute a query against. For example, using lots of joins, functions in the where clause, and zero indexes on a Atom processor with 512MB of total ram. ;)
It takes a bit more work to make sure all of your indexes and foreign key relationships are good, that your queries are optimized to eliminate needless function calls and only return the data you actually need. Also, you'll need fast hardware.
It all boils down to how much money you want to spend, the quality of the dev team, and the size of the data rows you are dealing with.
UPDATE
Updating due to changes in the question.
The amount of information here is still not enough to give a real world answer. You are going to just have to test it and adjust your database design and hardware as necessary.
For example, I could very easily have 1 billion rows in a table on a machine with those specs and run a "select top(1) id from tableA (nolock)" query and get an answer in milliseconds. By the same token, you can execute a "select * from tablea" query and it take a while because although the query executed quickly, transferring all of that data across the wire takes awhile.
Point is, you have to test. Which means, setting up the server, creating some of your tables, and populating them. Then you have to go through performance tuning to get your queries and indexes right. As part of the performance tuning you're going to uncover not only how the queries need to be restructured but also exactly what parts of the machine might need to be replaced (ie: disk, more ram, cpu, etc) based on the lock and wait types.
I'd highly recommend you hire (or contract) one or two DBAs to do this for you.
Most databases can handle this, it's about what you are going to do with this data and how you do it. Lots of RAM will help.
I would start with PostgreSQL, it's for free and has no limits on RAM (unlike SQL Server Express) and no potential problems with licences (too many processors, etc.). But it's also my work :)
Pretty much every non-stupid database can handle a billion rows today easily. 500 million is doable even on 32 bit systems (albeit 64 bit really helps).
The main problem is:
You need to have enough RAM. How much is enough depends on your queries.
You need to have a good enough disc subsystem. This pretty much means if you want to do large selects, then a single platter for everything is totally out of the question. Many spindles (or a SSD) are needed to handle the IO load.
Both Postgres as well as Mysql can easily handle 500 million rows. On proper hardware.
What you want to look at is the table size limit the database software imposes. For example, as of this writing, MySQL InnoDB has a limit of 64 TB per table, while PostgreSQL has a limit of 32 TB per table; neither limits the number of rows per table. If correctly configured, these database systems should not have trouble handling tens or hundreds of billions of rows (if each row is small enough), let alone 500 million rows.
For best performance handling extremely large amounts of data, you should have sufficient disk space and good disk performance—which can be achieved with disks in an appropriate RAID—and large amounts of memory coupled with a fast processor(s) (ideally server-grade Intel Xeon or AMD Opteron processors). Needless to say, you'll also need to make sure your database system is configured for optimal performance and that your tables are indexed properly.
The following article discusses the import and use of a 16 billion row table in Microsoft SQL.
https://www.itprotoday.com/big-data/adventures-big-data-how-import-16-billion-rows-single-table.
From the article:
Here are some distilled tips from my experience:
The more data you have in a table with a defined clustered index, the
slower it becomes to import unsorted records into it. At some point,
it becomes too slow to be practical. If you want to export your table
to the smallest possible file, make it native format. This works best
with tables containing mostly numeric columns because they’re more
compactly represented in binary fields than character data. If all
your data is alphanumeric, you won’t gain much by exporting it in
native format. Not allowing nulls in the numeric fields can further
compact the data. If you allow a field to be nullable, the field’s
binary representation will contain a 1-byte prefix indicating how many
bytes of data will follow. You can’t use BCP for more than
2,147,483,647 records because the BCP counter variable is a 4-byte
integer. I wasn’t able to find any reference to this on MSDN or the
Internet. If your table consists of more than 2,147,483,647 records,
you’ll have to export it in chunks or write your own export routine.
Defining a clustered index on a prepopulated table takes a lot of disk
space. In my test, my log exploded to 10 times the original table size
before completion. When importing a large number of records using the
BULK INSERT statement, include the BATCHSIZE parameter and specify how
many records to commit at a time. If you don’t include this parameter,
your entire file is imported as a single transaction, which requires a
lot of log space. The fastest way of getting data into a table with a
clustered index is to presort the data first. You can then import it
using the BULK INSERT statement with the ORDER parameter.
Even that is small compared to the multi-petabyte Nasdaq OMX database, which houses tens of petabytes (thousands of terabytes) and trillions of rows on SQL Server.
Have you checked out Cassandra? http://cassandra.apache.org/
As mentioned pretty much all DB's today can handle this situation - what you want to concentrate on is your disk i/o subsystem. You need to configure a RAID 0 or RAID 0+1 situation throwing as many spindles to the problem as you can. Also, divide up your Log/Temp/Data logical drives for performance.
For example, let say you have 12 drives - in your RAID controller I'd create 3 RAID 0 partitions of 4 drives each. In Windows (let's say) format each group as a logical drive (G,H,I) - now when configuring SQLServer (let's say) assign the tempdb to G, the Log files to H and the data files to I.
I don't have much input on which is the best system to use, but perhaps this tip could help you get some of the speed you're looking for.
If you're going to be doing exact matches of long varchar strings, especially ones that are longer than allowed for an index, you can do a sort of pre-calculated hash:
CREATE TABLE BigStrings (
BigStringID int identity(1,1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED,
Value varchar(6000) NOT NULL,
Chk AS (CHECKSUM(Value))
);
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_BigStrings_Chk ON BigStrings(Chk);
--Load 500 million rows in BigStrings
DECLARE #S varchar(6000);
SET #S = '6000-character-long string here';
-- nasty, slow table scan:
SELECT * FROM BigStrings WHERE Value = #S
-- super fast nonclustered seek followed by very fast clustered index range seek:
SELECT * FROM BigStrings WHERE Value = #S AND Chk = CHECKSUM(#S)
This won't help you if you aren't doing exact matches, but in that case you might look into full-text indexing. This will really change the speed of lookups on a 500-million-row table.
I need to create indices (that does not take ages like on mysql) to achieve sufficient performance for my select queries
I'm not sure what you mean by "creating" indexes. That's normally a one-time thing. Now, it's typical when loading a huge amount of data as you might do, to drop the indexes, load your data, and then add the indexes back, so the data load is very fast. Then as you make changes to the database, the indexes would be updated, but they don't necessarily need to be created each time your query runs.
That said, databases do have query optimization engines where they will analyze your query and determine the best plan to retrieve the data, and see how to join the tables (not relevant in your scenario), and what indexes are available, obviously you'd want to avoid a full table scan, so performance tuning, and reviewing the query plan is important, as others have already pointed out.
The point above about a checksum looks interesting, and that could even be an index on attr1 in the same table.
I've really been struggling to make SQL Server into something that, quite frankly, it will never be. I need a database engine for my analytical work. The DB needs to be fast and does NOT need all the logging and other overhead found in typical databases (SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, etc.)
Yesterday I listened to Michael Stonebraker speak at the Money:Tech conference and I kept thinking, "I'm not really crazy. There IS a better way!" He talks about using column stores instead of row oriented databases. I went to the Wikipedia page for column stores and I see a few open source projects (which I like) and a few commercial/open source projects (which I don't fully understand).
My question is this: In an applied analytical environment, how do the different column based DB's differ? How should I be thinking about them? Anyone have practical experience with multiple column based systems? Can I leverage my SQL experience with these DBs or am I going to have to learn a new language?
I am ultimately going to be pulling data into R for analysis.
EDIT: I was requested for some clarification in what exactly I am trying to do. So, here's an example of what I would like to do:
Create a table that has 4 million rows and 20 columns (5 dims, 15 facts). Create 5 aggregation tables that calculate max, min, and average for each of the facts. Join those 5 aggregations back to the starting table. Now calculate the percent deviation from mean, percent deviation of min, and percent deviation from max for each row and add it to the original table. This table data does not get new rows each day, it gets TOTALLY replaced and the process is repeated. Heaven forbid if the process must be stopped. And the logs... ohhhhh the logs! :)
The short answer is that for analytic data, a column store will tend to be faster, with less tuning required.
A row store, the traditional database architecture, is good at inserting small numbers of rows, updating rows in place, and querying small numbers of rows. In a row store, these operations can be done with one or two disk block I/Os.
Analytic databases typically load thousands of records at a time; sometimes, as in your case, they reload everything. They tend to be denormalized, so have a lot of columns. And at query time, they often read a high proportion of the rows in the table, but only a few of these columns. So, it makes sense from an I/O standpoint to store values of the same column together.
Turns out that this gives the database a huge opportunity to do value compression. For instance, if a string column has an average length of 20 bytes but has only 25 distinct values, the database can compress to about 5 bits per value. Column store databases can often operate without decompressing the data.
Often in computer science there is an I/O versus CPU time tradeoff, but in column stores the I/O improvements often improve locality of reference, reduce cache paging activity, and allow greater compression factors, so that CPU gains also.
Column store databases also tend to have other analytic-oriented features like bitmap indexes (yet another case where better organization allows better compression, reduces I/O, and allows algorithms that are more CPU-efficient), partitions, and materialized views.
The other factor is whether to use a massively parallel (MMP) database. There are MMP row-store and column-store databases. MMP databases can scale up to hundreds or thousands of nodes, and allow you to store humungous amounts of data, but sometimes have compromises like a weaker notion of transactions or a not-quite-SQL query language.
I'd recommend that you give LucidDB a try. (Disclaimer: I'm a committer to LucidDB.) It is open-source column store database, optimized for analytic applications, and also has other features such as bitmap indexes. It currently only runs on one node, but utilizes several cores effectively and can handle reasonable volumes of data with not much effort.
4 million rows times 20 columns times 8 bytes for a double is 640 mb. Following the rule of thumb that R creates three temporary copies for every object, we get to around 2 gb. That is not a lot by today's standard.
So this should be doable in memory on a suitable 64-bit machine with a 'decent' amount of ram (say 8 gb or more). Installing Ubuntu or Debian (possibly in the server version) can be done in a few minutes.
I have some experience with Infobright Community edition --- column-or. db, based on mysql.
Pro:
you can use mysql interfaces/odbc mysql drivers, from R too
fast enough queries on big chunks of data selection (because of KnowledgeGrid & data packs)
very fast native data loader and connectors for ETL (talend, kettle)
optimized exactly that operations what I (and I think most of us) use (selection by factor levels, joining etc)
special "lookup" option for optimized storing R factor variables ;) (ok, char/varchar variables with relatively small levels number/rows number)
FOSS
paid support option
?
Cons:
no insert/update operations in Community edition (yet?), data loading only via native data loader/ETL connectors
no utf-8 official support (collation/sort etc), planned for q3 2009
no functions in aggregate queries f.e. select month (date) from ...) yet, planned for July(?) 2009, but because of column storage, I prefer simply create date columns for every aggregation levels (week number, month, ...) I need
cannot installed on existing mysql server as storage engine (because of own optimizer, if I understood correctly), but you may install Infobright & mysql on different ports if you need
?
Resume:
Good FOSS solution for daily analytical tasks, and, I think, your tasks as well.
Here is my 2 cents: SQL server does not scale well. We attempted to use SQL server to store financial data in real time (i.e. prices ticks coming in for 100 symbols). It worked perfectly for the first 2 weeks - then it went slower and slower as the database size increased, and finally ground to a halt, too slow to insert each price as it was received. We tried to work around it by moving data from the active database to offline storage every night, but ultimately the project was abandoned as it just didn't work.
Bottom line: if you're planning on storing a lot of data ( >1GB) you need something that scales properly, and that probably means a column database.
It looks like an implementation change (2-D array in column-major order, instead of row-major order), rather than an interface change.
Think "strategy" pattern, rather than being an entire paradigm shift. Of course, I've never used these products, so they may in fact force a paradigm shift down your throat. I don't know why, though.
We might be better able to help you reach an informed decision if you described [1] your specific goal and [2] the issues you're running into with SQL Server.