Google App Engine supports a fetch operation based on a list of keys google.appengine.ext.db.get(keys).
I'd be interested to figure out if there is any guarantee that the result list preserves the order of the keys (i.e. keys = [k_1, k_2, k_3] then for the result [r_1, r_2, r_3] is always true that r_i.key() == k_i).
As far as I know, the API is performing the IN selects by internally issuing N sub-selects for each value in IN. I would expect this to happen for db.keys and so the call would preserve the keys order.
Anyways, I am not sure and I cannot find any reference that db.keys is equivalent to an IN select though and if there aren't any optimizations for its execution in place. Otherwise, the workaround would be quite simple (I would iterate and query myself for each key and so I'll have the guarantee that the I don't depend on db.keys implementation).
I have run some basic tests and the results are showing that:
db.get() performs best
db.get() preserves the keys order
the alternative Model.get_by_id (for which the order of results will always be guaranteed) is performing slower
While the results seem to confirm my assumptions, I am wondering if others have investigated this and have reached similar or different conclusions.
tia,
./alex
Doing some more research I have found the following (documentation for both db.get() and Model.get():
If ids is a list, the method returns a list of model instances, with a None value when no entity exists for a corresponding Key.
Even if it doesn't underline it, I think it is clear that the order is guaranteed.
You're correct: db.get returns entities in the same order as the keys you provided. The performance difference you observe is because it only has to make one round-trip to the database instead of many, and because it can simultaneously fetch all the entities, rather than acting serially. It's not equivalent to 'SELECT ... IN ...', however, because it's based on Bigtable, and you're selecting on the primary key, so it can do lookups directly on the table.
One thing to bear in mind when doing performance comparisons: Always do these on the production server, never on dev_appserver. The two have totally different performance characteristics.
The quote from the documentation clarifies my question.
Related
I know the concept of SCD-2 and I'm trying to improve my skills about it doing some practices.
I have the next scenario/experiment:
I'm calling daily to a rest API to extract information about companies.
In my initial load to the DB everything is new, so everything is very easy.
Next day I call to the same rest API, which might returns the same companies, but some of them might have (or not) some changes (i.e., they changed the size, the profits, the location, ...)
I know SCD-2 might be really simple if the rest API returns just records with changes, but in this case it might returns as well records without changes.
In this scenario, how people detect if the data of a company has changes or not in order to apply SCD-2?, do they compare all the fields?.
Is there any example out there that I can see?
There is no standard SCD-2 nor even a unique concept of it. It is a general term for large number of possible approaches. The only chance is to practice and see what is suitable for your use case.
In any case you must identify the natural key of the dimension and the set of the attributes you want to keep the history.
You may of course make it more complex by the decision to use your own surrogate key.
You mentioned that there are two main types of the interface for the process:
• You get periodically a full set of the dimension data
• You get the “changes only” (aka delta interface)
Paradoxically the former is much simple to handle than the latter.
First of all, in the full dimensional snapshot the natural key holds, contrary to the delta interface (where you may get more changes for one entity).
Additionally you have to handle the case of late change delivery or even the wrong order of changes delivery.
Next important decision is if you expect deletes to occur. This is again trivial in the full interface, you must define some convention, how this information would be passed in the delta interface.
Connected is the question whether a previously deleted entity can be reused (i.e. reappear in the data).
If you support delete/reuse you'll have to thing about how to show them in your dimension table.
In any case you will need some additional columns in the dimension to cover the historical information.
Some implementation use a change_timestamp, some other use validity interval valid_from and valid_to.
Even other implementation claim that additional sequence number is required – so you avoid the trap of more changes with the identical timestamp.
So you see that before you look for some particular implementation you need carefully decide the options above. For example the full and delta interface leads to a completely different implementations.
First, I know this is a rather subjective question but I need some kind of formal documentation to help me educate my client.
Background - a large enterprise application with hundreds of tables and SP's, all neatly designed with normalized tables and foreign keys using identity columns.
Our client has a few employees writing complex reports in Crystal enterprise using a replicated copy of our production Db.
We have tables that store what I would classify as 'system' base information, such as a list of office locations, or departments within the company, standard set of roles for users, statuses of other objects (open/closed etc), basically data that doesn't change often.
The issue - the report designers and financial analysts are writing queries with hardcoded identity values inside of them. Something like this
SELECT xxx FROM OFFICE WHERE OFFICE_ID = 6
I'm greatly simplifying here, but basically they're using these hard coded int values inside their procedures all over the place.
For SQL developers seeing this will obviously make you facepalm as it's just a built-in instinct not to do this.
However, surprisingly I can't find any documentation or even best practices articles as to why this shouldn't be done.
They would argue it's fine to do this since the values never change, and they're right, within that single system those values won't change, however across multiple environments (staging/QA/Dev) those values can and are absolutely different, making their reporting design approach non-portable and only able to function in 1 isolated server environment.
Do any of the SQL guru's out there have any more in-depth information/articles etc that I can use to help educate my client on why they should avoid this approach?
Seems to me the strongest argument to your report writers is your second to last sentence "...those values can and are absolutely different [between environments]". That would be pretty much the gist of my response to them.
Of course there's always gray area to any question. Identity columns are essentially magic numbers. They have the benefit to the database of being...
Small
Sequential
Fast to seek and join on, sort by and create
...but have the downside of being of completely meaningless, and in effect, randomly assigned (sort the inserts into that table one way, you get a different identity per row than if you sorted the other way). As such, in cases where you have to look up something specific like that, it's common use also include a "business/natural/alternate" key (e.g. maybe (a completely made up example) [CategoryName] where CatgoryName is something short, unique and human readable, while. [CategoryId] is an identity, but not something intended to be sought on)
If you have a website with, say, a dropdown menu, usually the natural key gets put into the visible part of the drop down, and the surrogate/identity key gets passed around on the back end, invisible to the end user.
This gets a little trickier when you have people writing queries directly against the database. If they're owners of the data, they may know things about the larger data structure which they can take advantage of in *cough "clever" ways. If you know the keys wont change and you know what those values are, there might be a case to be made just referencing those. But again, not if they're going to be different when you query a different server.
Of course the flip side is, if you don't want them to use the identity values, you'll have to give them an alternative. And if your tables don't already include a business/natural/alternate key, you're going to have to add one wherever one doesn't already exist.
Also, there's nothing wrong with that alternate key being an integer too (maybe you already have company-wide identifiers for your offices of 1, 2, 3 etc), but the point is that it's deterministic no matter where you run your query.
Every Cloud Datastore query computes its results using one or more indexes, which contain entity keys in a sequence specified by the index's properties and, optionally, the entity's ancestors. The indexes are updated incrementally to reflect any changes the application makes to its entities, so that the correct results of all queries are available with no further computation needed.
Generally, I would like to know if
datastore.get(List<Key> listOfKeys);
is faster or slower than a query with the index file prepared (with the same results).
Query q = new Query("Kind")(.setFilter(someFilter));
My current problem:
My data consists of Layers and Points. Points belong to only one unique layer and have unique ids within a layer. I could load the points in several ways:
1) Have points with a "layer name" property and query with a filter.
- Here I am not sure whether the datastore would have the results prepared because as the layer name changes dynamically.
2) Use only keys. The layer would have to store point ids.
KeyFactory.createKey("Layer", "layer name");
KeyFactory.createKey("Point", "layer name"+"x"+"point id");
3) Use queries without filters: I don't actually need the general kind "Point" and could be more specific: kind would be ("layer name"+"point id")
- What are the costs to creating more kinds? Could this be the fastest way?
Can you actually find out how the datastore works in detail?
faster or slower than a query with the index file prepared (with the same results).
Fundamentally a query and a get by key are not guaranteed to have the same results.
Queries are eventually consistent, while getting data by key is strongly consistent.
Your first challenge, before optimizing for speed, is probably ensuring that you're showing the correct data.
The docs are good for explaining eventual vs strong consistency, it sounds like you have the option of using an ancestor query which can be strongly consistent. I would also strongly recommend avoiding using the 'name' - which is dynamic - as the entity name, this will cause you an excessive amount of grief.
Edit:
In the interests of being specifically helpful, one option for a working solution based on your description would be:
Give a unique id (a uuid probably) to each layer, store the name as a property
Include the layer key as the parent key for each point entity
Use an ancestor query when fetching points for a layer (which is strongly consistent)
An alternative option is to store points as embedded entities and only have one entity for the whole layer - depends on what you're trying to achieve.
In my GAE app I'm doing a query which has to be ordered by date. The query has to containt an IN filter, but this is resulting in the following error:
BadArgumentError: _MultiQuery with cursors requires __key__ order
Now I've read through other SO question (like this one), which suggest to change to sorting by key (as the error also points out). The problem is however that the query then becomes useless for its purpose. It needs to be sorted by date. What would be suggested ways to achieve this?
The Cloud Datastore server doesn't support IN. The NDB client library effectively fakes this functionality by splitting a query with IN into multiple single queries with equality operators. It then merges the results on the client side.
Since the same entity could be returned in 1 or more of these single queries, merging these values becomes computationally silly*, unless you are ordering by the Key**.
Related, you should read into underlying caveats/limitations on cursors to get a better understanding:
Because the NOT_EQUAL and IN operators are implemented with multiple queries, queries that use them do not support cursors, nor do composite queries constructed with the CompositeFilterOperator.or method.
Cursors don't always work as expected with a query that uses an inequality filter or a sort order on a property with multiple values. The de-duplication logic for such multiple-valued properties does not persist between retrievals, possibly causing the same result to be returned more than once.
If the list of values used in IN is a static list rather than determined at runtime, a work around is to compute this as an indexed Boolean field when you write the Entity. This allows you to use a single equality filter. For example, if you have a bug tracker and you want to see a list of open issues, you might use a IN('new', 'open', 'assigned') restriction on your query. Alternatively, you could set a property called is_open to True instead, so you no longer need the IN condition.
* Computationally silly: Requires doing a linear scan over an unbounded number of preceding values to determine if the current retrieved Entity is a duplicate or not. Also known as conceptually not compatible with Cursors.
** Key works because we can alternate between different single queries retrieving the next set of values and not have to worry about doing a linear scan over the entire proceeding result set. This gives us a bounded data set to work with.
I'm evaluating CouchBase for an application, and trying to figure out something about range queries on views. I know I can do a view get for a single key, multiple keys, or a range. Can I do a get for multiple ranges? i.e. I want to retrieve items with view key 0-10, 50-100, 5238-81902. I might simultaneously need 100 different ranges, so having to make 100 requests to the database seems like a lot of overhead.
As far as I know in couchbase there is no way to implement getting values from multiple ranges with one view. May be there are (or will be implemented in future) some features in Couchbase N1QL, but I didn't work with it.
Answering your question 100 requests will not be a big overhead. Couchbase is quiet fast and it's designed to handle a lot of operations per second. Also, if your view is correctly designed, it will not be "recalculated" on each query.
Also there is another way:
1. Determine minimum and maximum value of your range (it will be 0..81902 according to your example)
2. Query view that will return only document ids and a value that range was based on, without including all docs in result.
3. On client side filter array of results from previous step according to your ranges (0-10, 50-100, 5238-81902)
and then use getMulti with document ids that left in array.
I don't know your data structure, so you can try both ways, test them and choose the best one that will fit your demands.