What is the best way to program an immediate reaction to an update to data in a database?
The simplest method I could think of offhand is a thread that checks the database for a particular change to some data and continually waits to check it again for some predefined length of time. This solution seems to be wasteful and suboptimal to me, so I was wondering if there is a better way.
I figure there must be some way, after all, a web application like gmail seems to be able to update my inbox almost immediately after a new email was sent to me. Surely my client isn't continually checking for updates all the time. I think the way they do this is with AJAX, but how AJAX can behave like a remote function call I don't know. I'd be curious to know how gmail does this, but what I'd most like to know is how to do this in the general case with a database.
Edit:
Please note I want to immediately react to the update in the client code, not in the database itself, so as far as I know triggers can't do this. Basically I want the USER to get a notification or have his screen updated once the change in the database has been made.
You basically have two issues here:
You want a browser to be able to receive asynchronous events from the web application server without polling in a tight loop.
You want the web application to be able to receive asynchronous events from the database without polling in a tight loop.
For Problem #1
See these wikipedia links for the type of techniques I think you are looking for:
Comet
Reverse AJAX
HTTP Server Push
EDIT: 19 Mar 2009 - Just came across ReverseHTTP which might be of interest for Problem #1.
For Problem #2
The solution is going to be specific to which database you are using and probably the database driver your server uses too. For instance, with PostgreSQL you would use LISTEN and NOTIFY. (And at the risk of being down-voted, you'd probably use database triggers to call the NOTIFY command upon changes to the table's data.)
Another possible way to do this is if the database has an interface to create stored procedures or triggers that link to a dynamic library (i.e., a DLL or .so file). Then you could write the server signalling code in C or whatever.
On the same theme, some databases allow you to write stored procedures in languages such as Java, Ruby, Python and others. You might be able to use one of these (instead of something that compiles to a machine code DLL like C does) for the signalling mechanism.
Hope that gives you enough ideas to get started.
I figure there must be some way, after
all, web application like gmail seem
to update my inbox almost immediately
after a new email was sent to me.
Surely my client isn't continually
checking for updates all the time. I
think the way they do this is with
AJAX, but how AJAX can behave like a
remote function call I don't know. I'd
be curious to know how gmail does
this, but what I'd most like to know
is how to do this in the general case
with a database.
Take a peek with wireshark sometime... there's some google traffic going on there quite regularly, it appears.
Depending on your DB, triggers might help. An app I wrote relies on triggers but I use a polling mechanism to actually 'know' that something has changed. Unless you can communicate the change out of the DB, some polling mechanism is necessary, I would say.
Just my two cents.
Well, the best way is a database trigger. Depends on the ability of your DBMS, which you haven't specified, to support them.
Re your edit: The way applications like Gmail do it is, in fact, with AJAX polling. Install the Tamper Data Firefox extension to see it in action. The trick there is to keep your polling query blindingly fast in the "no news" case.
Unfortunately there's no way to push data to a web browser - you can only ever send data as a response to a request - that's just the way HTTP works.
AJAX is what you want to use though: calling a web service once a second isn't excessive, provided you design the web service to ensure it receives a small amount of data, sends a small amount back, and can run very quickly to generate that response.
Related
Internet says using database for queues is an anti-pattern, and you should use (RabbitMQ or Beanstalked or etc)
But I want all requests stored. So I can later lookup how long they took, any failed attempts or errors or notes logged, who requested it and with what metadata, what was the end result, etc.
It looks like all the queue libraries don't have this option. You can't persist the data to allow you to query it later.
I want what those queues do, but with a "persist to database" option. Does this not exist? How do people deal with this? Do you use a queue library and copy over all request information into your database when the request finishes?
(the language/database I'm using is anything, whatever works best for this)
If you want to log requests, and meta-data about how long they took etc, then do so - log it to the database when you know the relevant results, and run your analytic queries as you would expect to.
The reason to not be using the database as a temporary store is that under high traffic, the searching for, and locking of unprocessed jobs, and then updating or deleting them when they are complete, can take a great deal of effort. That is especially true if don't remove jobs from the active table, and so have to search ever more completed jobs to find those that have yet to be done.
One can implement the task queue by themselves using a persistent backend (like database) to persist the tasks in queues. But the problem is, it may not scale well and also, it is always better to use a proven implementation instead of reinventing the wheel. These are tougher problems to solve and it is better to use the existent frameworks.
For instance, if you are implementing in Python, the typical choice is to use Celary with Redis/RabbitMQ backend.
We have a requirement for notifying external systems of changes in data in various tables in a SQL Server database. The choice of which data to monitor is somewhat under the control of the user (gets to choose from a list of what we support). The recipients of the notifications may be on a locally connected network (i.e., in the same data center) or they may be remote.
We currently handle this by application code within our data access layer that detects changes and queues notifications on a Service Broker queue which is monitored by a Windows service that performs the actual notification. Not quite real time but close enough.
This has proven to have some maintenance problems so we are looking at using one of the change detection mechanisms that are built into SQL Server. Unfortunately none of the ones I have looked at (I think I looked at them all) seem to fit very well:
Change Data Capture and Change Tracking: Major problem is that they require polling the captured information to determine changes that are to be passed on to recipients. I suspect that will introduce too much overhead.
Notification Services: Essentially uses SQL Server as a web server, which is a horrible waste of licenses. It also requires access through at least two firewalls in the network, which is unacceptable from a security perspective.
Query Notification: Seems the most likely candidate but does not seem to lend itself particularly well to dynamically choosing the data elements to watch. The need to re-register the query after each notification is sent means that we would keep SQL Server busy with managing the registrations
Event Notification: Designed to notify on database or instance level events, not really applicable to data change detection.
About the best idea I have come up with is to use CDC and put insert triggers on the change data tables. The triggers would queue something to a Service Broker queue that would be handled by some other code to perform the notifications. This is essentially what we do now except using a SQL Server feature to do the change detection. I'm not even sure that you can add triggers to those tables but I thought I'd get feedback before spending a lot of time with a POC.
That seems like an awful roundabout way to get the job done. Is there something I have missed that will make the job easier or have I misinterpreted one of these features?
Thanks and I apologize for the length of this question.
Why don't you use update and insert triggers? A trigger can execute clr code, which is explained enter link description here
How do I get a notification whenever there is a record in a particular table in the database?
If I use a Trigger in MySQL will not work when I change database.
If I make an Ajax request every certain interval, I will make unnecessary requests and I've been punished for it in Hostmonster (escape them).
Another idea?
This guy went through the problem as me:
http://www.schiffner.com/11-excruciating-months-with-hostmonster-have-come-to-an-end/
Thank you.
Sending Ajax requests at regular intervals (long polling) may not be the best solution but I have seen this implementation in many applications and probably it is easy to implement.
One of the solutions that has not been mentioned here is a PHP script running in a scheduler. This question will help you and make things clearer. Schedule alarm notification system php
Do let me know if you need more info.
I work with Oracle and Mysql, and I struggle to understand why the APIs are not written such that I can issue a call, go away and do something else, and then come back and pick it up later eg NIO - I am forced to dedicate a thread to waiting for data. It seems that the SQL interfaces are the only place where sync IO is still forced, which means tying up a thread waiting for the DB.
Can anybody explain the reasons for this? Is there something fundamental that makes this difficult?
It would be great to be able to use 1-2 threads to manage my DB query issue and result fetch, rather than use worker threads to retrieve data.
I do note that there are two experimental attempts (eg: adbcj) at implementing an async API but none seem to be ready for Production use.
Database servers should be able to handle thousands of clients. To provide an asyncronous interface, the DB server will need to keep the resultset from the query in memory, so you can pick it up at later stage. It will quickly become out of resources.
A considerable problem with async is many many libraries use threadlocal for transactions.
For example in Java Much of the JDBC specification relies on a synchronous behavior to achieve single thread per-transaction. That is you write your transaction in procedural order.
To do it right transactions would have to be done through callback but they are not. I know of only node.js that does this but its unclear if its really async.
Of course even if you do async I'm not sure if it will really improve performance as the database itself if is probably doing it synchronous.
There are lots of ways to avoid thread over-population in (Java):
Is asynchronous jdbc call possible?
Personally to get around this issue I use a Message Bus like RabbitMQ.
I'm building a mobile application in VB.NET (compact framework), and I'm wondering what the best way to approach the potential offline interactions on the device. Basically, the devices have cellular and 802.11, but may still be offline (where there's poor reception, etc). A driver will scan boxes as they leave his truck, and I want to update the new location - immediately if there's network signal, or queued if it's offline and handled later. It made me think, though, about how to handle offline-ness in general.
Do I cache as much data to the device as I can so that I use it if it's offline - Essentially, each device would have a copy of the (relevant) production data on it? Or is it better to disable certain functionality when it's offline, so as to avoid the headache of synchronization later? I know this is a pretty specific question that depends on my app, but I'm curious to see if others have taken this route.
Do I build the application itself to act as though it's always offline, submitting everything to a local queue of sorts that's owned by a local class (essentially abstracting away the online/offline thing), and then have the class submit things to the server as it can? What about data lookups - how can those be handled in a "Semi-live" fashion?
Or should I have the application attempt to submit requests to the server directly, in real-time, and handle it if it itself request fails? I can see a potential problem of making the user wait for the timeout, but is this the most reliable way to do it?
I'm not looking for a specific solution, but really just stories of how developers accomplish this with the smoothest user experience possible, with a link to a how-to or heres-what-to-consider or something like that. Thanks for your pointers on this!
We can't give you a definitive answer because there is no "right" answer that fits all usage scenarios. For example if you're using SQL Server on the back end and SQL CE locally, you could always set up merge replication and have the data engine handle all of this for you. That's pretty clean. Using the offline application block might solve it. Using store and forward might be an option.
You could store locally and then roll your own synchronization with a direct connection, web service of WCF service used when a network is detected. You could use MSMQ for delivery.
What you have to think about is not what the "right" way is, but how your implementation will affect application usability. If you disable features due to lack of connectivity, is the app still usable? If you have stale data, is that a problem? Maybe some critical data needs to be transferred when you have GSM/GPRS (which typically isn't free) and more would be done when you have 802.11. Maybe you can run all day with lookup tables pulled down in the morning and upload only transactions, with the device tracking what changes it's made.
Basically it really depends on how it's used, the nature of the data, the importance of data transactions between fielded devices, the effect of data latency, and probably other factors I can't think of offhand.
So the first step is to determine how the app needs to be used, then determine the infrastructure and architecture to provide the connectivity and data access required.
I haven't used it myself, but have you looked into the "store and forward" capabilities of the CF? It may suit your needs. I believe it uses an Exchange mailbox as a message queue to send SOAP packets to and from the device.
The best way to approach this is to always work offline, then use message queues to handle sending changes to and from the device. When the driver marks something as delivered, for example, update the item as delivered in your local store and also place a message in an outgoing queue to tell the server it's been delivered. When the connection is up, send any queued items back to the server and get any messages that have been queued up from the server.