Let's say you're creating a database to store messages for a chat room application. There's an infinite number of chat rooms (they're created at run-time on-demand), and all messages need to be stored in the database.
Would it be a mistaken to create one giant table to store messages for all chat rooms, knowing that there could eventually be billions of records in that one table?
Would it be more prudent to dynamically create a table for each room created, and store that room's messages only in that table?
It would be proper to have a single table. When you have n tables which grows by application usage, you're describing using the database itself as a table of tables, which is not how an RDBMS is designed to work. Billions of records in a single table is trivial on a modern database. At that level, your only performance concerns are good indexes and how you do joins.
Billions of records?
Assuming you have constantly 1000 active users with 1 message per minute, this results in 1.5mio messages per day, and approx 500mio messages per year.
If you still need to store chat messages several years old (what for?), you could archive them into year-based tables.
I would definitely argue against dynamic creation of room-based tables.
Whilst a table per chat room could be performed, each database has limits over the number of tables that may be created, so given an infinite number of chat rooms, you are required to create an infinite number of tables, which is not going to work.
You can on the other hand store billions of rows of data, storage is not normally the issue given the space - retrieval of the information within a sensible time frame is however and requires careful planning.
You could partition the messages by a date range, and if planned out, you can use LUN migration to move older data onto slower storage, whilst leaving more recent data on the faster storage.
Strictly speaking, your design is right, a single table. fields with low entropy {e.g 'userid' - you want to link from ID tables, i.e following normal database normalization patterns}
you might want to think about range based partitioning. e.g 'copies' of your table with a year prefix. Or maybe even a just a 'current' and archive table
Both of these approaches mean that your query semantic is more complex {consider if someone did a multi-year search}, you would have to query multiple tables.
however, the upside is that your 'current' table will remain at a roughly constant size, and archiving is more straightforward. - {you can just drop table 2005_Chat when you want to archive 2005 data}
-Ace
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.
I'm a long time programmer who has little experience with DBMSs or designing databases.
I know there are similar posts regarding this, but am feeling quite discombobulated tonight.
I'm working on a project which will require that I store large reports, multiple times per day, and have not dealt with storage or tables of this magnitude. Allow me to frame my problem in a generic way:
The process:
A script collects roughly 300 rows of information, set A, 2-3 times per day.
The structure of these rows never change. The rows contain two columns, both integers.
The script also collects roughly 100 rows of information, set B, at the same time. The
structure of these rows does not change either. The rows contain eight columns, all strings.
I need to store all of this data. Set A will be used frequently, and daily for analytics. Set B will be used frequently on the day that it is collected and then sparingly in the future for historical analytics. I could theoretically store each row with a timestamp for later query.
If stored linearly, both sets of data in their own table, using a DBMS, the data will reach ~300k rows per year. Having little experience with DBMSs, this sounds high for two tables to manage.
I feel as though throwing this information into a database with each pass of the script will lead to slow read times and general responsiveness. For example, generating an Access database and tossing this information into two tables seems like too easy of a solution.
I suppose my question is: how many rows is too many rows for a table in terms of performance? I know that it would be in very poor taste to create tables for each day or month.
Of course this only melts into my next, but similar, issue, audit logs...
300 rows about 50 times a day for 6 months is not a big blocker for any DB. Which DB are you gonna use? Most will handle this load very easily. There are a couple of techniques for handling data fragmentation if the data rows exceed more than a few 100 millions per table. But with effective indexing and cleaning you can achieve the performance you desire. I myself deal with heavy data tables with more than 200 million rows every week.
Make sure you have indexes in place as per the queries you would issue to fetch that data. Whats ever you have in the where clause should have an appropriate index in db for it.
If you row counts per table exceed many millions you should look at partitioning of tables DBs store data in filesystems as files actually so partitioning would help in making smaller groups of data files based on some predicates e.g: date or some unique column type. You would see it as a single table but on the file system the DB would store the data in different file groups.
Then you can also try table sharding. Which actually is what you mentioned....different tables based on some predicate like date.
Hope this helps.
You are over thinking this. 300k rows is not significant. Just about any relational database or NoSQL database will not have any problems.
Your design sounds fine, however, I highly advise that you utilize the facility of the database to add a primary key for each row, using whatever facility is available to you. Typically this involves using AUTO_INCREMENT or a Sequence, depending on the database. If you used a nosql like Mongo, it will add an id for you. Relational theory depends on having a primary key, and it's often helpful to have one for diagnostics.
So your basic design would be:
Table A tableA_id | A | B | CreatedOn
Table B tableB_id | columns… | CreatedOn
The CreatedOn will facilitate date range queries that limit data for summarization purposes and allow you to GROUP BY on date boundaries (Days, Weeks, Months, Years).
Make sure you have an index on CreatedOn, if you will be doing this type of grouping.
Also, use the smallest data types you can for any of the columns. For example, if the range of the integers falls below a particular limit, or is non-negative, you can usually choose a datatype that will reduce the amount of storage required.
This is the re-submission of my previous question:
I have a collection of ordered time-series data(stock minute price information). My current database structure using PostgreSQL is below:
symbol_table - where I keep the list of the symbols with the symbol_id as a primary key(serial).
time_table, date_table - time/date values are stored there. time_id/date_id are primary keys(serial/serial).
My main minute_table contains the minute pricing information where
date_id|time_id|symbol_id are primary keys(also foreign keys from the corresponding tables)
Using this main minute_table I'm performing different statistical analyses and keep the results in a separate tables, like one_minute_std - where one minute standard deviation measures are kept.
Every night I'm updating the tables with the current price information from the last day's closing prices.
With the current implementation my tables contain all the symbols with around 50m records each.
Primary keys are indexed.
If I want to query for all the symbols where closing price > x and one_minute_std >2 and one_minute_std < 4 for the specific date it takes about 3-4 minutes for the search.
To speed up the process I was thinking of separating each symbol to its own table but not 100% sure if this is a 'proper' way of doing it.
Could you advise me on how I can speed up the query process?
It sounds like you want a combination of approaches.
First, you should look into table partitioning. This stores a single table across multiple storage units ("files"), but still gives you the flexibility of a single table. (Here is postgres documentation http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html).
You would want to partition either by day or by ticker symbol. My first reaction would be by time (day/week/month), since that is the unit of updates. However, if you analyses are only by a single ticker and often span multiple days, then there is an argument for using that instead.
After partitioning, you may want to consider indexes. However, I suspect that partitioning will solve your performance problems.
Since your updates are at night, you should be folding in your summarization process in with the updates. For instance, one_minute_std should be calculated during this process. You might find it best to load the nightly data into a temporary table, do the calculation for summaries such as one_minute_std, and then load the data into the final partitioned table scheme.
With so many rows that have so few columns, you are probably better off with a good partitioning scheme than an indexing scheme. In particular, indexes have a space overhead, and the smaller the record in each row, the more that using the index incurs an overhead comparable to scanning the entire table.
I have a database that increases every month. The schema remains the same, so I think I use one of these two methods:
Use only one table, new data will be appended to this table, and will be identified by a date column. The increasing data every month is about 20,000 rows, but in long term, I think this should be problem to search and analyze this data
create dynamically one table per month, the table name will indicate which data it contains (for example, Usage-20101125), this will force us to use dynamic SQL, but in long term, it seems fine.
I must confess that I have no experiences about designing this kind of database. Which one should I use in real world?
Thank you so much
20 000 rows per month is not a lot. Go with your first option. You didn't mention which database you'll be using, but SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase and PostgreSQL, to name just a few, can handle millions of rows comfortably.
You will need to investigate a proper maintenance plan, including indexing and statistics, but that will come with lots of reading and experience.
Look into partitioning your table.
That way you can physically store the data on different disks for performance while logically it would be one table so your database stays well designed.
DBA (with only 2 years of google for training) has created a massive data management table (108 columns and growing) containing all neccessary attribute for any data flow in the system. Well call this table BFT for short.
Of these columns:
10 are for meta-data references.
15 are for data source and temporal tracking
1 instance of new/curr columns for textual data
10 instances of new/current/delta/ratio/range columns for multi-value numeric updates
:totaling 50 columns.
Multi valued numeric updates usually only need 2-5 of the update groups.
Batches of 15K-1500K records are loaded into the BFT and processed by stored procs with logic to validate those records shuffle them off to permanent storage in about 30 other tables.
In most of the record loads, 50-70 of the columns are empty through out the entire process.
I am no database expert, but this model and process seems to smell a little, but I don't know enough to say why, and don't want to complain without being able to offer an alternative.
Given this very small insight to the data processing model, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions? Can the database (SQL Server) be trusted to handle records with mostly empty columns efficiently, or does processing in this manner wasted lots of cycles/memory,etc.
Sounds like he reinvented BizTalk.
I typically have multiple staging tables corresponding to the input loads. These may or may not correspond to the destination tables, but we don't do what you're talking about. If he doesn't like to have a lot of what are basically temporary work tables, they could be put into their own schema or even a separate database.
As far as the columns which are empty, if they aren't referenced in the particular query which is processing BFT it doesn't matter - HOWEVER, what will happen is that the indexing becomes much more crucial that the index chosen is a non-clustered covering index. When your BFT is used and a table scan or clustered index scan is chosen, the unused column have to be read and ignored or skipped, and this definitely seems to affect processing in my experience. Whereas with a non-clustered index scan or seek, less columns are read, and hopefully this doesn't include (m)any of the unused columns.
Normalization is the keyword here. If you have so many NULL values, chances are high that you're wasting a lot of space. Normalizing the table should also make data integrity in this table easier to enforce.
One thing that might make things a little more flexible (other than normalizing) could be to create one or more views or table functions to present the data. Particularly if the table is outside your control, these would enable you to filter the spurious crap out and grab only what you need from the table.
However, if you're going to be one of the people who will be working with (and frowning every time you have to crack open) that massive table, you might want to trump the DBA's "design" and normalize that beast, and maybe give the DBA the task of creating some views and/or table functions to help you out.
I currently work with a similar but not so huge table which has been around on our system for years and has had new fields and indices and constraints rather hastily tacked on Frankenstein-style. Unfortunately some other workgroups rely on the structure as gospel, so we've created such views and functions to enable us to "shape" the data the way we need it.