I have a very specific problem that requires multiple MYSQL DB instances, and I need to "sync" all data from each DB/table into one DB/table.
Basically, [tableA.db1, tableB.db2, tableC.db3] into [TableAll.db4].
Some of the DB instances are on the same machine, and some are on a separate machine.
About 80,000 rows are added to a table per day, and there are 3 tables(DB).
So, about 240,000 would be "synced" to a single table per day.
I've just been using Event Schedule to copy the data from each DB into the "All-For-One" DB every hour.
However, I've been wondering lately if that's the best solution.
I considered using Trigger, but I've been told it puts heavy burden on DB.
Using statement trigger may be better, but it depends too much on how the statement is formed.
Then I heard about Federated (in Oracle term, "DBLink"),
and I thought I could use it to link each table and create a VIEW table on those tables.
But I don't know much about databases, so I don't really know the implication of each method.
So, my question is..
Considering the "All-For-One" DB only needs to be Read-Only,
which method would be better, performance and resource wise, in order to copy data from multiple databases into one database regularly?
Thanks!
Related
My boss is having me create a database table that keeps track of some of our inventory with various parameters. It's meant to be implemented as a cron job that runs every half hour or so, but the scheduling part isn't important since we've already discussed that we're handling it later.
What I'm want to know is if it's more efficient to just delete everything in the table each time the script is called and repopulate it, or go through each record to determine if any changes were made and update each entry accordingly. It's easier to do the former, but given that we have over 700 separate records to keep track of, I don't know if the time it takes to do this would put a huge load on the server. The script is written in PHP.
700 records is an extremely small number of records to have performance concerns. Don't even think about it, do whichever is easier for you.
But if it is performance that you are after, updating rows is slower than inserting rows, (especially if you are not expecting any generated keys, so an insertion is a one-way operation to the database instead of a roundtrip to and from the database,) and TRUNCATE TABLE tends to be faster than DELETE * FROM.
If you have IDs for the proper inventory talking about SQL DB, then it would be good practice to update them, since in theory your IDs will get exhausted (overflow).
Another approach would be to use some NoSQL DB like MongoDB and simply update the DB with given json bodies apparently with existing IDs, and the DB itself will figure it out on its own.
At my work my colleagues always build report cronjobs for heavy tables. With the cronjob we get all data from 1 day per user and insert the totals in a report table. The report overview page is not correct because it has a delay for at most 1 hour.
The cronjob runs 24 times a day (every hour).
Is it better to use a MySQL view? When a record has been added to the master table the MySQL view will updated, right? This is a very though action. Will that affect the users using the dashboard?
Kind regards,
Joost
Okay so some terminology first.
The cron jobs are most likely appending data to existing tables (perhaps using an upsert method like INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE). These data you are writing to the existing tables may be indexed, just like normal MySQL tables, and they are also persistent on disk
Views, on the other hand, are really nothing more than saved queries in MySQL. Every time you open a view, you run the query again. Views aren't really useful for performance optimization as much as they are useful for small, efficient queries that otherwise might be a pain to remember. Views cannot have indices (although they are effectively saved queries, so the query itself can make use of the indices on the tables it's referencing) and they are not persistent to disk. Every time you load the view, you will be running the query that makes up the view again
Now, in between views and tables populated by Cron jobs, you also could install a plugin for MySQL called Flexviews (https://github.com/greenlion/swanhart-tools). Flexviews allows MySQL to use what are called materialized views (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialized_view). Materialized views are basically views that are persisted to disk as tables. And, since they are tables, they can also use indices.
Materialized views are not native to MySQL, but the developer who maintains that plugin is well known in the MySQL community, and he tends to write good, reliable SQL tools . Obviously it would be a mistake to test the plugin in a production environment, or without using backups. But there are plenty of folks who use Flexviews in production to accomplish exactly what it seems like you'd like to do... obtain near real time updates of dashboard/summary tables in a way that doesn't murder DB performance.
I'd definitely check Flexviews out... you can learn more about it
here: http://www.percona.com/blog/2011/03/23/using-flexviews-part-one-introduction-to-materialized-views/
and here: http://www.percona.com/blog/2011/03/25/using-flexviews-part-two-change-data-capture/
I have a mysql query that is taking 8 seconds to execute/fetch (in workbench).
I won't go into the details of why it may be slow (I think GROUPBY isnt helping though).
What I really want to know is, how I can basically cache it to work more quickly because the tables only change like 5-10 times/hr, while users access the site 1000s times/hour.
Is there a way to just have the results regenerated/cached when the db changes so results are not constantly regenerated?
I'm quite new to sql so any basic thought may go a long way.
I am not familiar with such a caching facility in MySQL. There are alternatives.
One mechanism would be to use application level caching. The application would store the previous result and use that if possible. Note this wouldn't really work well for multiple users.
What you might want to do is store the report in a separate table. Then you can run that every five minutes or so. This would be a simple mechanism using a job scheduler to run the job.
A variation on this would be to have a stored procedure that first checks if the data has changed. If the underlying data has changed, then the stored procedure would regenerate the report table. When the stored procedure is done, the report table would be up-to-date.
An alternative would be to use triggers, whenever the underlying data changes. The trigger could run the query, storing the results in a table (as above). Alternatively, the trigger could just update the rows in the report that would have changed (harder, because it involves understanding the business logic behind the report).
All of these require some change to the application. If your application query is stored in a view (something like vw_FetchReport1) then the change is trivial and all on the server side. If the query is embedded in the application, then you need to replace it with something else. I strongly advocate using views (or in other databases user defined functions or stored procedures) for database access. This defines the API for the database application and greatly facilitates changes such as the ones described here.
EDIT: (in response to comment)
More information about scheduling jobs in MySQL is here. I would expect the SQL code to be something like:
truncate table ReportTable;
insert into ReportTable
select * from <ReportQuery>;
(In practice, you would include column lists in the select and insert statements.)
A simple solution that can be used to speed-up the response time for long running queries is to periodically generate summarized tables, based on underlying data refreshing or business needs.
For example, if your business don't care about sub-minute "accuracy", you can run the process once each minute and make your user interface to query this calculated table, instead of summarizing raw data online.
I have an application where I receive each data 40.000 rows. I have 5 million rows to handle (500 Mb MySQL 5.0 database).
Actually, those rows are stored in the same table => slow to update, hard to backup, etc.
Which kind of scheme is used in such application to allow long term accessibility to the data without problems with too big tables, easy backup, fast read/write ?
Is postgresql better than mysql for such purpose ?
1 - 40000 rows / day is not that big
2 - Partition your data against the insert date : you can easily delete old data this way.
3 - Don't hesitate to go through a datamart step. (compute often asked metrics in intermediary tables)
FYI, I have used PostgreSQL with tables containing several GB of data without any problem (and without partitioning). INSERT/UPDATE time was constant
We're having log tables of 100-200million rows now, and it is quite painful.
backup is impossible, requires several days of down time.
purging old data is becoming too painful - it usually ties down the database for several hours
So far we've only seen these solutions:
backup , set up a MySQL slave. Backing up the slave doesn't impact the main db. (We havn't done this yet - as the logs we load and transform are from flat files - we back up these files and can regenerate the db in case of failures)
Purging old data, only painless way we've found is to introduce a new integer column that identifies the current date, and partition the tables(requires mysql 5.1) on that key, per day. Dropping old data is a matter of dropping a partition, which is fast.
If in addition you need to do continuously transactions on these tables(as opposed to just load data every now and then and mostly query that data), you probably need to look into InnoDB and not the default MyISAM tables.
The general answer is: you probably don't need all that detail around all the time.
For example, instead of keeping every sale in a giant Sales table, you create records in a DailySales table (one record per day), or even a group of tables (DailySalesByLocation = one record per location per day, DailySalesByProduct = one record per product per day, etc.)
First, huge data volumes are not always handled well in a relational database.
What some folks do is to put huge datasets in files. Plain old files. Fast to update, easy to back up.
The files are formatted so that the database bulk loader will work quickly.
Second, no one analyzes huge data volumes. They rarely summarize 5,000,000 rows. Usually, they want a subset.
So, you write simple file filters to cut out their subset, load that into a "data mart" and let them query that. You can build all the indexes they need. Views, everything.
This is one way to handle "Data Warehousing", which is that your problem sounds like.
First, make sure that your logging table is not over-indexed. By that i mean that every time you insert/update/delete from a table any indexes that you have also need to be updated which slows down the process. If you have a lot of indexes specified on your log table you should take a critical look at them and decide if they are indeed necessary. If not, drop them.
You should also consider an archiving procedure such that "old" log information is moved to a separate database at some arbitrary interval, say once a month or once a year. It all depends on how your logs are used.
This is the sort of thing that NoSQL DBs might be useful for, if you're not doing the sort of reporting that requires complicated joins.
CouchDB, MongoDB, and Riak are document-oriented databases; they don't have the heavyweight reporting features of SQL, but if you're storing a large log they might be the ticket, as they're simpler and can scale more readily than SQL DBs.
They're a little easier to get started with than Cassandra or HBase (different type of NoSQL), which you might also look into.
From this SO post:
http://carsonified.com/blog/dev/should-you-go-beyond-relational-databases/
I'm being given a data source weekly that I'm going to parse and put into a database. The data will not change much from week to week, but I should be updating the database on a regular basis. Besides this weekly update, the data is static.
For now rebuilding the entire database isn't a problem, but eventually this database will be live and people could be querying the database while I'm rebuilding it. The amount of data isn't small (couple hundred megabytes), so it won't load that instantaneously, and personally I want a bit more of a foolproof system than "I hope no one queries while the database is in disarray."
I've thought of a few different ways of solving this problem, and was wondering what the best method would be. Here's my ideas so far:
Instead of replacing entire tables, query for the difference between my current database and what I want to place in the database. This seems like it could be an unnecessary amount of work, though.
Creating dummy data tables, then doing a table rename (or having the server code point towards the new data tables).
Just telling users that the site is going through maintenance and put the system offline for a few minutes. (This is not preferable for obvious reasons, but if it's far and away the best answer I'm willing to accept that.)
Thoughts?
I can't speak for MySQL, but PostgreSQL has transactional DDL. This is a wonderful feature, and means that your second option, loading new data into a dummy table and then executing a table rename, should work great. If you want to replace the table foo with foo_new, you only have to load the new data into foo_new and run a script to do the rename. This script should execute in its own transaction, so if something about the rename goes bad, both foo and foo_new will be left untouched when it rolls back.
The main problem with that approach is that it can get a little messy to handle foreign keys from other tables that key on foo. But at least you're guaranteed that your data will remain consistent.
A better approach in the long term, I think, is just to perform the updates on the data directly (your first option). Once again, you can stick all the updating in a single transaction, so you're guaranteed all-or-nothing semantics. Even better would be online updates, just updating the data directly as new information becomes available. This may not be an option for you if you need the results of someone else's batch job, but if you can do it, it's the best option.
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM TABLE;
INSERT INTO TABLE;
COMMIT;
Users will see the changeover instantly when you hit commit. Any queries started before the commit will run on the old data, anything afterwards will run on the new data. The database will actually clear the old table once the last user is done with it. Because everything is "static" (you're the only one who ever changes it, and only once a week), you don't have to worry about any lock issues or timeouts. For MySQL, this depends on InnoDB. PostgreSQL does it, and SQL Server calls it "snapshotting," and I can't remember the details off the top of my head since I rarely use the thing.
If you Google "transaction isolation" + the name of whatever database you're using, you'll find appropriate information.
We solved this problem by using PostgreSQL's table inheritance/constraints mechanism.
You create a trigger that auto-creates sub-tables partitioned based on a date field.
This article was the source I used.
Which database server are you using? SQL 2005 and above provides a locking method called "Snapshot". It allows you to open a transaction, do all of your updates, and then commit, all while users of the database continue to view the pre-transaction data. Normally, your transaction would lock your tables and block their queries, but snapshot locking would be perfect in your case.
More info here: http://blogs.msdn.com/craigfr/archive/2007/05/16/serializable-vs-snapshot-isolation-level.aspx
But it requires SQL Server, so if you're using something else....
Several database systems (since you didn't specify yours, I'll keep this general) do offer the SQL:2003 Standard statement called MERGE which will basically allow you to
insert new rows into a target table from a source which don't exist there yet
update existing rows in the target table based on new values from the source
optionally even delete rows from the target that don't show up in the import table anymore
SQL Server 2008 is the first Microsoft offering to have this statement - check out more here, here or here.
Other database system probably will have similar implementations - it's a SQL:2003 Standard statement after all.
Marc
Use different table names(mytable_[yyyy]_[wk]) and a view for providing you with a constant name(mytable). Once a new table is completely imported update your view so that it uses that table.