I have a MySQL table which is about 8TB in size. As you can imagine, querying is horrendous.
I am thinking about:
Create a new table with partitions
Loop through a series of queries to dump data into those partitions
But the loop will require lots of queries to be submitted & each will be REALLY slow.
Is there a better way to do this? Repartitioning a production database in-situ isn't going to work - this seemed like an OK option, but slow
And is there a tool that will make life easier? Rather than a Python job looping & submitting jobs?
Thanks a lot in advance
You could use pt-online-schema-change. This free tool allows you to partition the table with an ALTER TABLE statement, but it does not block clients from using the table while it's restructuring it.
Another useful tool could be pt-archiver. You would create a new table with your partitioning idea, then pt-archiver to gradually copy or move data from the old table to the new table.
Of course try out using these tools in a test environment on a much smaller table first, so you get some practice using them. Do not try to use them for the first time on your 8TB table.
Regardless of what solution you use, you are going to need enough storage space to store the entire dataset twice, plus binary logs. The old table will not shrink, even as you remove data from it. So I hope your filesystem is at least 24TB. Or else the new table should be stored on a different server (or ideally several other servers).
It will also take a long time no matter which solution you use. I expect at least 4 weeks, and perhaps longer if you don't have a very powerful server with direct-attached NVMe storage.
If you use remote storage (like Amazon EBS) it may not finish before you retire from your career!
In my opinion, 8TB for a single table is a problem even if you try partitioning. Partitioning doesn't magically fix performance, and could make some queries worse. Do you have experience with querying partitioned tables? And you understand how partition pruning works, and when it doesn't work?
Before you choose partitioning as your solution, I suggest you read the whole chapter on partitioning in the MySQL manual: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/partitioning.html, especially the page on limitations: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/partitioning-limitations.html Then try it out with a smaller table.
A better strategy than partitioning for data at this scale is to split the data into shards, and store each shard on one of multiple database servers. You need a strategy for adding more shards as I assume the data will continue to grow.
Related
I need to store telemetry data that is being generated every few minutes from over 10000 nodes (which may increase), each supplying the data over the internet to a server for logging. I'll also need to query this data from a web application.
I'm having a bit of trouble deciding what the best storage solution would be..
Each node has a unique ID, and there will be a timestamp for each packet of variables. (probably will need to be generated by the server).
The telemetry data has all of the variables in the same packet, so conceptually it could easily be stored in a single database table with a column per variable. The serial number + timestamp would suffice as a key.
The size of each telemetry packet is 64 bytes, including the device ID and timestamp. So around 100Gb+ per year.
I'd want to be able to query the data to get variables across time ranges and also store aggregate reports of this data so that I can draw graphs.
Now, how best to handle this? I'm pretty familiar with using MySQL, so I'm leaning towards this. If I were to go for MySQL would it make sense to have a separate table for each device ID? - Would this make queries much faster or would having 10000s of tables be a problem?
I don't think querying the variables from all devices in one go is going to be needed but it might be. Or should I just stick it all in a single table and use MySQL cluster if it gets really big?
Or is there a better solution? I've been looking around at some non relational databases but can't see anything that perfectly fits the bill or looks very mature. MongoDB for example would have quite a lot of size overhead per row and I don't know how efficient it would be at querying the value of a single variable across a large time range compared to MySQL. Also MySQL has been around for a while and is robust.
I'd also like it to be easy to replicate the data and back it up.
Any ideas or if anyone has done anything similar you input would be greatly appreciated!
Have you looked at time-series databases? They're designed for the use case you're describing and may actually end up being more efficient in terms of space requirements due to built-in data folding and compression.
I would recommend looking into implementations using HBase or Cassandra for raw storage as it gives you proven asynchronous replication capabilities and throughput.
HBase time-series databases:
OpenTSDB
KairosDB
Axibase Time-Series Database - my affiliation
If you want to go with MySQL, keep in mind that although it will keep on going when you throw something like a 100GB per year at it easily on modern hardware, do be advised that you cannot execute schema changes afterwards (on a live system). This means you'll have to have a good, complete database schema to begin with.
I don't know if this telemetry data might grow more features, but if they do, you don't want to have to lock your database for hours if you need to add a column or index.
However, some tools such as http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/pt-online-schema-change.html are available nowadays which make such changes somewhat easier. No performance problems to be expected here, as long as you stay with InnoDB.
Another option might be to go with PostgreSQL, which allows you to change schemas online, and sometimes is somewhat smarter about the use of indexes. (For example, http://kb.askmonty.org/en/index-condition-pushdown is a new trick for MySQL/MariaDB, and allows you to combine two indices at query time. PostgreSQL has been doing this for a long time.)
Regarding overhead: you will be storing your 64 bytes of telemetry data in an unpacked form, probably, so your records will take more than 64 bytes on disk. Any kind of structured storage will suffer from this.
If you go with an SQL solution, backups are easy: just dump the data and you can restore it afterwards.
I'm looking for some general advice on the best way to perform heavy crunching/data-mining on a database table, without affecting the performance of regular site queries on the table. Some of the calculations may involve joining several tables, and involve complex sorting and ordering. So "use better indexes" isn't always the solution.
This question isn't really specific. I'm looking for a general way to solve a problem that's come up many times over the years. So I don't have a specific table schema to show, a specific query to show. I've considered dumping the table first using mysqldump, and then re-importing the table under a different name, and then performing my heavy crunching on that temp table. My sysadmin hates the idea, so I'm looking for any other solutions people have come up with to deal with this type of problem.
If your "heavy crunching" is all read only and you are not doing anything that needs to be written back into your production data, use a Master/Slave replication and use the Slave for all your reporting and data analysis needs. The replication link will keep the values up to date on the Slave, and you can hit the Slave with as much load as you want without slowing down the Master which is serving your production system.
If you want to avoid affecting performance of your production database, the only solution I have used previously is to run your queries on another database server.
I would take a backup of the entire database and then restore it on a separate server.
Obviously, you cannot do this if you want to analyze real-time data. But for most analysis, a snapshot from the previous day is sufficient.
I have a MySQL database with a few (five to be precise) huge tables. It is essentially a star topology based data warehouse. The table sizes range from 700GB (fact table) to 1GB and whole database goes upto 1 terabyte. Now I have been given a task of running analytics on these tables which might even include joins.
A simple analytical query on this database can be "find number of smokers per state and display it in descending order" this requirement could be converted in a simple query like
select state, count(smokingStatus) as smokers
from abc
having smokingstatus='current smoker'
group by state....
This query (and many other of same nature) takes a lot of time to execute on this database, time taken is in order of tens of hours.
This database is also heavily used for insertion which means every few minutes there are thousands of rows getting added.
In such a scenario how can I tackle this querying problem?
I have looked in Cassandra which seemed easy to implement but I am not sure if it is going to be as easy for running analytical queries on the database especially when I have to use "where clause and group by construct"
Have Also looked into Hadoop but I am not sure how can I implement RDBMS type queries. I am not too sure if I want to right away invest in getting at least three machines for name-node, zookeeper and data-nodes!! Above all our company prefers windows based solutions.
I have also thought of pre-computing all the data in a simpler summary tables but that limits my ability to run different kinds of queries.
Are there any other ideas which I can implement?
EDIT
Following is the mysql environment setup
1) master-slave setup
2) master for inserts/updates
3) slave for reads and running stored procedures
4) all tables are innodb with files per table
5) indexes on string as well as int columns.
Pre-calculating values is an option but since requirements for this kind of ad-hoc aggregated values keeps changing.
Looking at this from the position of attempting to make MySQL work better rather than positing an entirely new architectural system:
Firstly, verify what's really happening. EXPLAIN the queries which are causing issues, rather than guessing what's going on.
Having said that, I'm going to guess as to what's going on since I don't have the query plans. I'm guessing that (a) your indexes aren't being used correctly and you're getting a bunch of avoidable table scans, (b) your DB servers are tuned for OLTP, not analytical queries, (c) writing data while reading is causing things to slow down greatly, (d) working with strings just sucks and (e) you've got some inefficient queries with horrible joins (everyone has some of these).
To improve things, I'd investigate the following (in roughly this order):
Check the query plans, make sure the existing indexes are being used correctly - look at the table scans, make sure the queries actually make sense.
Move the analytical queries off the OLTP system - the tunings required for fast inserts and short queries are very different to those for the sorts of queries which potentially read most of a large table. This might mean having another analytic-only slave, with a different config (and possibly table types - I'm not sure what the state of the art with MySQL is right now).
Move the strings out of the fact table - rather than having the smoking status column with string values of (say) 'current smoker', 'recently quit', 'quit 1+ years', 'never smoked', push these values out to another table, and have the integer keys in the fact table (this will help the sizes of the indexes too).
Stop the tables from being updated while the queries are running - if the indexes are moving while the query is running I can't see good things happening. It's (luckily) been a long time since I cared about MySQL replication, so I can't remember if you can batch up the writes to the analytical query slave without too much drama.
If you get to this point without solving the performance issues, then it's time to think about moving off MySQL. I'd look at Infobright first - it's open source/$$ & based on MySQL, so it's probably the easiest to put into your existing system (make sure the data is going to the InfoBright DB, then point your analytical queries to the Infobright server, keep the rest of the system as it is, job done), or if Vertica ever releases its Community Edition. Hadoop+Hive has a lot of moving parts - its pretty cool (and great on the resume), but if it's only going to be used for the analytic portion of you system it may take more care & feeding than other options.
1 TB is not that big. MySQL should be able to handle that. At least simple queries like that shouldn't take hours! Can't be very helpful without knowing the larger context, but I can suggest some questions that you might ask yourself, mostly related to how you use your data:
Is there a way you can separate the reads and writes? How many read so you do per day and how many writes? Can you live with some lag, e.g write to a new table each day and merge it to the existing table at the end of the day?
What are most of your queries like? Are they mostly aggregation queries? Can you do some partial aggregation beforehand? Can you pre-calculate number of new smokers every day?
Can you use hadoop for the aggregation process above? Hadoop is kinda good at that stuff. Basically use hadoop just for daily or batch processing and store the results into the DB.
On the DB side, are you using InnoDB or MyISAM? Are the indices on String columns? Can you make it ints etc.?
Hope that helps
MySQL is have a serious limitation what prevent him to be able to perform good on such scenarious. The problem is a lack of parralel query capability - it can not utilize multiple CPUs in the single query.
Hadoop has an RDMBS like addition called Hive. It is application capable of translate your queries in Hive QL (sql like engine) into the MapReduce jobs. Since it is actually small adition on top of Hadoop it inherits its linear scalability
I would suggest to deploy hive alongside MySQL, replicate daily data to there and run heavy aggregations agains it. It will offload serious part of the load fro MySQL. You still need it for the short interactive queries, usually backed by indexes. You need them since Hive is iherently not-interactive - each query will take at least a few dozens of seconds.
Cassandra is built for the Key-Value type of access and does not have scalable GroupBy capability build-in. There is DataStax's Brisk which integrate Cassandra with Hive/MapReduce but it might be not trivial to map your schema into Cassandra and you still not get flexibility and indexing capabiilties of the RDBMS.
As a bottom line - Hive alongside MySQL should be good solution.
We're having problems with Mysql. When I search around, I see many people having the same problem.
I have joined up with a product where the database has some tables with as many as 150 million rows. One example of our problem is that one of these tables has over 30 columns and about half of them are no longer used. When trying to remove columns or renaming columns, mysql wants to copy the entire table and rename. With this amount of data, it would take many hours to do this and the site would be offline pretty much the whole time. This is just the first of several large migrations to improve the schema. These aren't intended as a regular thing. Just a lot of cleanup I inherited.
I tried searching to see if people have the same problem with Postgres and I find almost nothing in comparison talking about this issue. Is this because Postgres is a lot better at it, or just that less people are using postgres?
In PostgreSQL, adding a new column without default value to a table is instantaneous, because the new column is only registered in the system catalog, not actually added on disk.
When the only tool you know is a hammer, all your problems look like a nail. For this problem, PostgreSQL is much much better at handling these types of changes. And the fact is, it doesn't matter how well you designed your app, you WILL have to change the schema on a live database someday. While MySQL's various engines really are amazing for certain corner cases, here none of them help. PostgreSQL's very close integration between the various layers means that you can have things like transactional ddl that allow you to roll back anything that isn't an alter / create database / tablespace. Or very very fast alter tables. Or non-impeding create indexes. And so on. It limits PostgreSQL to the things it does well (traditional transactional db load handling is a strong point) and not so great at the things that MySQL often fills in the gaps on, like live networked clustered storage with the ndb engine.
In this case none of the different engines in MySQL allow you to easily solve this problem. The very versatility of multiple storage engines means that the lexer / parser / top layer of the DB cannot be as tightly integrated to the storage engines, and therefore a lot of the cool things pgsql can do here mysql can't.
I've got a 118Gigabyte table in my stats db. It has 1.1 billion rows in it. It really should be partitioned but it's not read a whole lot, and when it is we can wait on it. At 300MB/sec (the speed the array it's on can read) it takes approximately 118*~3seconds to read, or right around 5 minutes. This machine has 32Gigs of RAM, so it cannot hold the table in memory.
When I ran the simple statement on this table:
alter table mytable add test text;
it hung waiting for a vacuum. I killed the vacuum (select pg_cancel_backend(12345) (<-- pid in there) and it finished immediately. A vacuum on this table takes a long time to run btw. Normally it's not a big deal, but when making changes to table structure, you have to wait on vacuums, or kill them.
Dropping a column is just as simple and fast.
Now we come to the problem with postgresql, and that is the in-heap MVCC storage. If you add that column, then do an update table set test='abc' it updates each row, and exactly doubles the size of the table. Unless HOT can update the rows in place, but then you need a 50% fill factor table which is double sized to begin with. The only way to get the space back is to either wait and let vacuum reclaim it over time and reuse it one update at a time, or to run cluster or vacuum full to shrink it back down.
you can get around this by running updates on parts of the table at a time (update where pkid between 1 and 10000000; ...) and running vacuum between each run to reclaim the space.
So, both systems have warts and bumps to deal with.
maybe because this should not be a regualr occurrence.
perhaps, reading between the lines, you need to be adding a row to another table, instead of columns to a large existing table..?
What I have:
A MySQL database running on Ubuntu that maintains a
large table of articles (similar to
wordpress).
Need to relate a given article to
another set of data. This set of data
will be fairly large.
There maybe various sets of data that
will be related.
The query:
Is it better to contain these various large sets of data within the same database of articles, which will have a large set of traffic on it?
or
Is it better to create different databases (on the same server) that
relate by a primary key to the main database with the articles?
Put them all in the same DB initially, until you find that there is a performance issue. Much easier than prematurely optimising.
Modern RDBMS are very good at optimising data access.
If you need to connect frequently and read both of the records, you should put in a the same database. The server then won't have to run permission checks twice for each of your databases.
If you have serious traffic, you should consider using persistent connection for that query.
If you don't need to read them together frequently, consider to put on different machine. As the high traffic for the bigger database won't cause slow downs on the other.
Different databases on the same server gives you all the problems of a distributed architecture without any of the benefits of scaling out. One database per server is the way to go.
When you say 'same database' and 'different databases related' don't you mean 'same table' vs 'different tables'?
if that's the question, i'd say:
one table for articles
if these 'other sets of data' are all of the same structure, put them all in the same table. if not, one table per kind of data.
everything on the same database
if you grow big enough to make database size a performance issue (after many million records and lots of queries a second), consider table partitioning or maybe replacing the biggest table with a key/value store (couchDB, mongoDB, redis, tokyo cabinet, [etc][6]), which can be a little faster than MySQL but a lot easier to distribute for performance.
[6]:key-value store