I'm running an ETL process and streaming data into a MySQL table.
Now it is being written over a web connection (fairly fast one) -- so that can be a bottleneck.
Anyway, it's a basic insert/ update function. It's a list of IDs as the primary key/ index .... and then a few attributes.
If a new ID is found, insert, otherwise, update ... you get the idea.
Currently doing an "update, else insert" function based on the ID (indexed) is taking 13 rows/ second (which seems pretty abysmal, right?). This is comparing 1000 rows to a database of 250k records, for context.
When doing a "pure" insert everything approach, for comparison, already speeds up the process to 26 rows/ second.
The thing with the pure "insert" approach is that I can have 20 parallel connections "inserting" at once ... (20 is max allowed by web host) ... whereas any "update" function cannot have any parallels running.
Thus 26 x 20 = 520 r/s. Quite greater than 13 r/s, especially if I can rig something up that allows even more data pushed through in parallel.
My question is ... given the massive benefit of inserting vs. updating, is there a way to duplicate the 'update' functionality (I only want the most recent insert of a given ID to survive) .... by doing a massive insert, then running a delete function after the fact, that deletes duplicate IDs that aren't the 'newest' ?
Is this something easy to implement, or something that comes up often?
What else I can do to ensure this update process is faster? I know getting rid of the 'web connection' between the ETL tool and DB is a start, but what else? This seems like it would be a fairly common problem.
Ultimately there are 20 columns, max of probably varchar(50) ... should I be getting a lot more than 13 rows processed/ second?
There are many possible 'answers' to your questions.
13/second -- a lot that can be done...
INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ... ('IODKU') is usually the best way to do "update, else insert" (unless I don't know what you mean by it).
Batched inserts is much faster than inserting one row at a time. Optimal is around 100 rows giving 10x speedup. IODKU can (usually) be batched, too; see the VALUES() pseudo function.
BEGIN;...lots of writes...COMMIT; cuts back significantly on the overhead for transaction.
Using a "staging" table for gathering things up update can have a significant benefit. My blog discussing that. That also covers batch "normalization".
Building Summary Tables on the fly interferes with high speed data ingestion. Another blog covers Summary tables.
Normalization can be used for de-dupping, hence shrinking the disk footprint. This can be important for decreasing I/O for the 'Fact' table in Data Warehousing. (I am referring to your 20 x VARCHAR(50).)
RAID striping is a hardware help.
Batter-Backed-Write-Cache on a RAID controller makes writes seem instantaneous.
SSDs speed up I/O.
If you provide some more specifics (SHOW CREATE TABLE, SQL, etc), I can be more specific.
Do it in the DBMS, and wrap it in a transaction.
To explain:
Load your data into a temporary table in MySQL in the fastest way possible. Bulk load, insert, do whatever works. Look at "load data infile".
Outer-join the temporary table to the target table, and INSERT those rows where the PK column of the target table is NULL.
Outer-join the temporary table to the target table, and UPDATE those rows where the PK column of the target table is NOT NULL.
Wrap steps 2 and 3 in a begin/commit (or [start transaction]/commit pair for a transaction. The default behaviour is probably autocommit, which will mean you're doing a LOT of database work after every insert/update. Use transactions properly, and the work is only done once for each block.
Related
A single insert statement is taking, occasionally, more than 2 seconds. The inserts are potentially concurrent, as it depends on our site traffic which can result in 200 inserts per minute.
The table has more than 150M rows, 4 indexes and is accessed using a simple select statement for reporting purposes.
SHOW INDEX FROM ouptut
How to speed up the inserts considering that all indexes are required?
You haven't provided many details but it seems like you need partitions.
An insertion operation in an database index has, in general, an O(logN) time complexity where N is the number of rows in the table. If your table is really huge even logN may become too much.
So, to address that scalability issue you can make use of index partitions to transparently split up your table indexes in smaller internal pieces and reduce that N without changing your application or SQL scripts.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/partitioning-overview.html
[EDIT]
Considering information initially added in the comments and now updated in the question itself.
200 potentially concurrent inserts per minute
4 indexes
1 select for reporting purposes
There are a few not mutually exclusive improvements:
Check the output of EXPLAIN for that SELECT and remove indexes not being used, or, otherwise, combine them in a single index.
Make the inserts in batch
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/insert-optimization.html
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/optimizing-innodb-bulk-data-loading.html
Partitioning still an option.
Alternatively, change your approach: save the data to a nosql database like redis and populate the mysql table asynchronously for reporting purpose.
I have a mysql table that keep gaining new records every 5 seconds.
The questions are
can I run query on this set of data that may takes more than 5 seconds?
if SELECT statement takes more than 5s, will it affect the scheduled INSERT statement?
what happen when INSERT statement invoked while SELECT is still running, will SELECT get the newly inserted records?
I'll go over your questions and some of the comments you added later.
can I run query on this set of data that may takes more than 5 seconds?
Can you? Yes. Should you? It depends. In a MySQL configuration I set up, any query taking longer than 3 seconds was considered slow and logged accordingly. In addition, you need to keep in mind the frequency of the queries you intend to run.
For example, if you try to run a 10 second query every 3 seconds, you can probably see how things won't end well. If you run a 10 second query every few hours or so, then it becomes more tolerable for the system.
That being said, slow queries can often benefit from optimizations, such as not scanning the entire table (i.e. search using primary keys), and using the explain keyword to get the database's query planner to tell you how it intends to work on that internally (e.g. is it using PKs, FKs, indices, or is it scanning all table rows?, etc).
if SELECT statement takes more than 5s, will it affect the scheduled INSERT statement?
"Affect" in what way? If you mean "prevent insert from actually inserting until the select has completed", that depends on the storage engine. For example, MyISAM and InnoDB are different, and that includes locking policies. For example, MyISAM tends to lock entire tables while InnoDB tends to lock specific rows. InnoDB is also ACID-compliant, which means it can provide certain integrity guarantees. You should read the docs on this for more details.
what happen when INSERT statement invoked while SELECT is still running, will SELECT get the newly inserted records?
Part of "what happens" is determined by how the specific storage engine behaves. Regardless of what happens, the database is designed to answer application queries in a way that's consistent.
As an example, if the select statement were to lock an entire table, then the insert statement would have to wait until the select has completed and the lock has been released, meaning that the app would see the results prior to the insert's update.
I understand that locking database can prevent messing up the SELECT statement.
It can also put a potentially unacceptable performance bottleneck, especially if, as you say, the system is inserting lots of rows every 5 seconds, and depending on the frequency with which you're running your queries, and how efficiently they've been built, etc.
what is the good practice to do when I need the data for calculations while those data will be updated within short period?
My recommendation is to simply accept the fact that the calculations are based on a snapshot of the data at the specific point in time the calculation was requested and to let the database do its job of ensuring the consistency and integrity of said data. When the app requests data, it should trust that the database has done its best to provide the most up-to-date piece of consistent information (i.e. not providing a row where some columns have been updated, but others yet haven't).
With new rows coming in at the frequency you mentioned, reasonable users will understand that the results they're seeing are based on data available at the time of request.
All of your questions are related to locking of table.
Your all questions depend on the way database is configured.
Read : http://www.mysqltutorial.org/mysql-table-locking/
Perform Select Statement While insert statement working
If you want to perform a select statement during insert SQL is performing, you should check by open new connection and close connection every time. i.e If I want to insert lots of records, and want to know that last record has inserted by selecting query. I must have to open connection and close connection in for loop or while loop.
# send a request to store data
insert statement working // take a long time
# select statement in while loop.
while true:
cnx.open()
select statement
cnx.close
//break while loop if you get the result
I'm using MySQL 5.6. Let's say we have the following two tables:
Every DataSet has a huge amount of child DataEntry records that the number would be 10000 or 100000 or more. DataSet.md5sum and DataSet.version get updated when its child DataEntry records are inserted or deleted, in one transaction. A DataSet.md5sum is calculated against all of its children DataEntry.content s.
Under this situation, What's the most efficient way to fetch consistent data from those two tables?
If I issue the following two distinct SELECTs, I think I might get inconsistent data due to concurrent INSERT / UPDATEs:
SELECT md5sum, version FROM DataSet WHERE dataset_id = 1000
SELECT dataentry_id, content FROM DataEntry WHERE dataset_id = 1000 -- I think the result of this query will possibly incosistent with the md5sum which fetched by former query
I think I can get consistent data with one query as follows:
SELECT e.dataentry_id, e.content, s.md5sum, s.version
FROM DataSet s
INNER JOIN DataEntry e ON (s.dataset_id = e.dataset_id)
WHERE s.dataset_id = 1000
But it produces redundant dataset which filled with 10000 or 100000 duplicated md5sums, So I guess it's not efficient (EDIT: My concerns are high network bandwidth and memory consumption).
I think using pessimistic read / write lock (SELECT ... LOCK IN SHARE MODE / FOR UPDATE) would be another option but it seems overkill. Are there any other better approaches?
The join will ensure that the data returned is not affected by any updates that would have occurred between the two separate selects, since they are being executed as a single query.
When you say that md5sum and version are updated, do you mean the child table has a trigger on it for inserts and updates?
When you join the tables, you will get a "duplicate md5sum and version" because you are pulling the matching record for each item in the DataEntry table. It is perfectly fine and isn't going to be an efficiency issue. The alternative would be to use the two individual selects, but depending upon the frequency of inserts/updates, without a transaction, you run the very slight risk of getting data that may be slightly off.
I would just go with the join. You can run explain plans on your query from within mysql and look at how the query is executed and see any differences between the two approaches based upon your data and if you have any indexes, etc...
Perhaps it would be more beneficial to run these groups of records into a staging table of sorts. Before processing, you could call a pre-processor function that takes a "snapshot" of the data about to be processed, putting a copy into a staging table. Then you could select just the version and md5sum alone, and then all of the records, as two different selects. Since these are copied into a separate staging table, you wont have to worry about immediate updates corrupting your session of processing. You could set up timed jobs to do this or have it as an on-demand call. Again though, this would be something you would need to research the best approach given the hardware/network setup you are working with. And any job scheduling software you have available to you.
Use this pattern:
START TRANSACTION;
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE; -- this locks the row
...
UPDATE ...
COMMIT;
(and check for errors after every statement, including COMMIT.)
"100000" is not "huge", but "BIGINT" is. Recomment INT UNSIGNED instead.
For an MD5, make sure you are not using utf8: CHAR(32) CHARACTER SET ascii. This goes for any other hex strings.
Or, use BINARY(16) for half the space. Then use UNHEX(md5...) when inserting, and HEX(...) when fetching.
You are concerned about bandwidth, etc. Please describe your client (PHP? Java? ...). Please explain how much (100K rows?) needs to be fetched to re-do the MD5.
Note that there is a MD5 function in MySQL. If each of your items had an MD5, you could take the MD5 of the concatenation of those -- and do it entirely in the server; no bandwidth needed. (Be sure to increase group_concat_max_len)
I have a MySql DataBase. I have a lot of records (about 4,000,000,000 rows) and I want to process them in order to reduce them(reduce to about 1,000,000,000 Rows).
Assume I have following tables:
table RawData: I have more than 5000 rows per sec that I want to insert them to RawData
table ProcessedData : this table is a processed(aggregated) storage for rows that were inserted at RawData.
minimum rows count > 20,000,000
table ProcessedDataDetail: I write details of table ProcessedData (data that was aggregated )
users want to view and search in ProcessedData table that need to join more than 8 other tables.
Inserting in RawData and searching in ProcessedData (ProcessedData INNER JOIN ProcessedDataDetail INNER JOIN ...) are very slow. I used a lot of Indexes. assume my data length is 1G, but my Index length is 4G :). ( I want to get ride of these indexes, they make slow my process)
How can I Increase speed of this process ?
I think I need a shadow table from ProcessedData, name it ProcessedDataShadow. then proccess RawData and aggregate them with ProcessedDataShadow, then insert the result in ProcessedDataShadow and ProcessedData. What is your idea??
(I am developing the project by C++)
thank you in advance.
Without knowing more about what your actual application is, I have these suggestions:
Use InnoDB if you aren't already. InnoDB makes use of row-locks and are much better at handling concurrent updates/inserts. It will be slower if you don't work concurrently, but the row-locking is probably a must have for you, depending on how many sources you will have for RawData.
Indexes usually speeds up things, but badly chosen indexes can make things slower. I don't think you want to get rid of them, but a lot of indexes can make inserts very slow. It is possible to disable indexes when inserting batches of data, in order to prevent updating indexes on each insert.
If you will be selecting huge amount of data that might disturb the data collection, consider using a replicated slave database server that you use only for reading. Even if that will lock rows /tables, the primary (master) database wont be affected, and the slave will get back up to speed as soon as it is free to do so.
Do you need to process data in the database? If possible, maybe collect all data in the application and only insert ProcessedData.
You've not said what the structure of the data is, how its consolidated, how promptly data needs to be available to users nor how lumpy the consolidation process can be.
However the most immediate problem will be sinking 5000 rows per second. You're going to need a very big, very fast machine (probably a sharded cluster).
If possible I'd recommend writing a consolidating buffer (using an in-memory hash table - not in the DBMS) to put the consolidated data into - even if it's only partially consolidated - then update from this into the processedData table rather than trying to populate it directly from the rawData.
Indeed, I'd probably consider seperating the raw and consolidated data onto seperate servers/clusters (the MySQL federated engine is handy for providing a unified view of the data).
Have you analysed your queries to see which indexes you really need? (hint - this script is very useful for this).
I have a C program that mines a huge data source (20GB of raw text) and generates loads of INSERTs to execute on simple blank table (4 integer columns with 1 primary key). Setup as a MEMORY table, the entire task completes in 8 hours. After finishing, about 150 million rows exist in the table. Eight hours is a completely-decent number for me. This is a one-time deal.
The problem comes when trying to convert the MEMORY table back into MyISAM so that (A) I'll have the memory freed up for other processes and (B) the data won't be killed when I restart the computer.
ALTER TABLE memtable ENGINE = MyISAM
I've let this ALTER TABLE query run for over two days now, and it's not done. I've now killed it.
If I create the table initially as MyISAM, the write speed seems terribly poor (especially due to the fact that the query requires the use of the ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE technique). I can't temporarily turn off the keys. The table would become over 1000 times larger if I were to and then I'd have to reprocess the keys and essentially run a GROUP BY on 150,000,000,000 rows. Umm, no.
One of the key constraints to realize: The INSERT query UPDATEs records if the primary key (a hash) exists in the table already.
At the very beginning of an attempt at strictly using MyISAM, I'm getting a rough speed of 1,250 rows per second. Once the index grows, I imagine this rate will tank even more.
I have 16GB of memory installed in the machine. What's the best way to generate a massive table that ultimately ends up as an on-disk, indexed MyISAM table?
Clarification: There are many, many UPDATEs going on from the query (INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE val=val+whatever). This isn't, by any means, a raw dump problem. My reasoning for trying a MEMORY table in the first place was for speeding-up all the index lookups and table-changes that occur for every INSERT.
If you intend to make it a MyISAM table, why are you creating it in memory in the first place? If it's only for speed, I think the conversion to a MyISAM table is going to negate any speed improvement you get by creating it in memory to start with.
You say inserting directly into an "on disk" table is too slow (though I'm not sure how you're deciding it is when your current method is taking days), you may be able to turn off or remove the uniqueness constraints and then use a DELETE query later to re-establish uniqueness, then re-enable/add the constraints. I have used this technique when importing into an INNODB table in the past, and found even with the later delete it was overall much faster.
Another option might be to create a CSV file instead of the INSERT statements, and either load it into the table using LOAD DATA INFILE (I believe that is faster then the inserts, but I can't find a reference at present) or by using it directly via the CSV storage engine, depending on your needs.
Sorry to keep throwing comments at you (last one, probably).
I just found this article which provides an example of a converting a large table from MyISAM to InnoDB, while this isn't what you are doing, he uses an intermediate Memory table and describes going from memory to InnoDB in an efficient way - Ordering the table in memory the way that InnoDB expects it to be ordered in the end. If you aren't tied to MyISAM it might be worth a look since you already have a "correct" memory table built.
I don't use mysql but use SQL server and this is the process I use to handle a file of similar size. First I dump the file into a staging table that has no constraints. Then I identify and delete the dups from the staging table. Then I search for existing records that might match and put the idfield into a column in the staging table. Then I update where the id field column is not null and insert where it is null. One of the reasons I do all the work of getting rid of the dups in the staging table is that it means less impact on the prod table when I run it and thus it is faster in the end. My whole process runs in less than an hour (and actually does much more than I describe as I also have to denormalize and clean the data) and affects production tables for less than 15 minutes of that time. I don't have to wrorry about adjusting any constraints or dropping indexes or any of that since I do most of my processing before I hit the prod table.
Consider if a simliar process might work better for you. Also could you use some sort of bulk import to get the raw data into the staging table (I pull the 22 gig file I have into staging in around 16 minutes) instead of working row-by-row?