Copying data from PostgreSQL to MySQL - mysql
I currently have a PostgreSQL database, because one of the pieces of software we're using only supports this particular database engine. I then have a query which summarizes and splits the data from the app into a more useful format.
In my MySQL database, I have a table which contains an identical schema to the output of the query described above.
What I would like to develop is an hourly cron job which will run the query against the PostgreSQL database, then insert the results into the MySQL database. During the hour period, I don't expect to ever see more than 10,000 new rows (and that's a stretch) which would need to be transferred.
Both databases are on separate physical servers, continents apart from one another. The MySQL instance runs on Amazon RDS - so we don't have a lot of control over the machine itself. The PostgreSQL instance runs on a VM on one of our servers, giving us complete control.
The duplication is, unfortunately, necessary because the PostgreSQL database only acts as a collector for the information, while the MySQL database has an application running on it which needs the data. For simplicity, we're wanting to do the move/merge and delete from PostgreSQL hourly to keep things clean.
To be clear - I'm a network/sysadmin guy - not a DBA. I don't really understand all of the intricacies necessary in converting one format to the other. What I do know is that the data being transferred consists of 1xVARCHAR, 1xDATETIME and 6xBIGINT columns.
The closest guess I have for an approach is to use some scripting language to make the query, convert results into an internal data structure, then split it back out to MySQL again.
In doing so, are there any particular good or bad practices I should be wary of when writing the script? Or - any documentation that I should look at which might be useful for doing this kind of conversion? I've found plenty of scheduling jobs which look very manageable and well-documented, but the ongoing nature of this script (hourly run) seems less common and/or less documented.
Open to any suggestions.
Use the same database system on both ends and use replication
If your remote end was also PostgreSQL, you could use streaming replication with hot standby to keep the remote end in sync with the local one transparently and automatically.
If the local end and remote end were both MySQL, you could do something similar using MySQL's various replication features like binlog replication.
Sync using an external script
There's nothing wrong with using an external script. In fact, even if you use DBI-Link or similar (see below) you probably have to use an external script (or psql) from a cron job to initiate repliation, unless you're going to use PgAgent to do it.
Either accumulate rows in a queue table maintained by a trigger procedure, or make sure you can write a query that always reliably selects only the new rows. Then connect to the target database and INSERT the new rows.
If the rows to be copied are too big to comfortably fit in memory you can use a cursor and read the rows with FETCH, which can be helpful if the rows to be copied are too big to comfortably fit in memory.
I'd do the work in this order:
Connect to PostgreSQL
Connect to MySQL
Begin a PostgreSQL transaction
Begin a MySQL transaction. If your MySQL is using MyISAM, go and fix it now.
Read the rows from PostgreSQL, possibly via a cursor or with DELETE FROM queue_table RETURNING *
Insert them into MySQL
DELETE any rows from the queue table in PostgreSQL if you haven't already.
COMMIT the MySQL transaction.
If the MySQL COMMIT succeeded, COMMIT the PostgreSQL transaction. If it failed, ROLLBACK the PostgreSQL transaction and try the whole thing again.
The PostgreSQL COMMIT is incredibly unlikely to fail because it's a local database, but if you need perfect reliability you can use two-phase commit on the PostgreSQL side, where you:
PREPARE TRANSACTION in PostgreSQL
COMMIT in MySQL
then either COMMIT PREPARED or ROLLBACK PREPARED in PostgreSQL depending on the outcome of the MySQL commit.
This is likely too complicated for your needs, but is the only way to be totally sure the change happens on both databases or neither, never just one.
BTW, seriously, if your MySQL is using MyISAM table storage, you should probably remedy that. It's vulnerable to data loss on crash, and it can't be transactionally updated. Convert to InnoDB.
Use DBI-Link in PostgreSQL
Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with PostgreSQL, but I'd do this using a PostgreSQL function that used DBI-link via PL/Perlu to do the job.
When replication should take place, I'd run a PL/PgSQL or PL/Perl procedure that uses DBI-Link to connect to the MySQL database and insert the data in the queue table.
Many examples exist for DBI-Link, so I won't repeat them here. This is a common use case.
Use a trigger to queue changes and DBI-link to sync
If you only want to copy new rows and your table is append-only, you could write a trigger procedure that appends all newly INSERTed rows into a separate queue table with the same definition as the main table. When you want to sync, your sync procedure can then in a single transaction LOCK TABLE the_queue_table IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;, copy the data, and DELETE FROM the_queue_table;. This guarantees that no rows will be lost, though it only works for INSERT-only tables. Handling UPDATE and DELETE on the target table is possible, but much more complicated.
Add MySQL to PostgreSQL with a foreign data wrapper
Alternately, for PostgreSQL 9.1 and above, I might consider using the MySQL Foreign Data Wrapper, ODBC FDW or JDBC FDW to allow PostgreSQL to see the remote MySQL table as if it were a local table. Then I could just use a writable CTE to copy the data.
WITH moved_rows AS (
DELETE FROM queue_table RETURNING *
)
INSERT INTO mysql_table
SELECT * FROM moved_rows;
In short you have two scenarios:
1) Make destination pull the data from source into its own structure
2) Make source push out the data from its structure to destination
I'd rather try the second one, look around and find a way to create postgresql trigger or some special "virtual" table, or maybe pl/pgsql function - then instead of external script, you'll be able to execute the procedure by executing some query from cron, or possibly from inside postgres, there are some possibilities of operation scheduling.
I'd choose 2nd scenario, because postgres is much more flexible, and manipulating data some special, DIY ways - you will simply have more possibilities.
External script probably isn't a good solution, e.g. because you will need to treat binary data with special care, or convert dates× from DATE to VARCHAR and then to DATE again. Inside external script, various text-stored data will be probably just strings, and you will need to quote it too.
Related
mysql automatic replication of partial data
I have to create a dashboard based on a table in mysql, and only on today datas This db is used on a service with a massive data quantity, and continous read and write data, so I'd like to replicate in a "slave" instance part of this table (only today data). Is it possible to do it in Mysql, without scripting? Thanks
MySQL has no built-in feature to replicate a subset of rows. There are replication filters to replicate a subset of schemas or tables, but not rows. One workaround could be to replicate fully to the replica, then on the replica delete any data that is more than one day old. But this would work only for a database that is INSERT-only. If you also have UPDATE and DELETE operations replicated, they might find that they are trying to change rows that are missing. If you use ROW-based binary logs, this would result in a replication error when it can't find the row, and replication would stop. It might work if you only use STATEMENT-based binary logs, but I've never tried it so I can't predict what other problems might occur. Also, you can't fully prevent ROW-based binary logs from occurring, because individual sessions can change their binary log format. I think you're going to need a bespoke solution no matter what. Probably not using replication, but just an ETL job to query the current day's data and import it into another MySQL instance (not a replica).
Best way to conditionally insert using triggers
I want to create a SQL trigger that inserts a new row if and only if it passes a given condition. I can think of a couple ways to do this, but I'm not sure which is the best or correct way. Do an AFTER INSERT trigger and then delete the new row if it fails the condition. Do a BEFORE INSERT trigger and raise an application error if it fails. ???
Option 1 creates a race condition. I would avoid that explicitly. Option 2 is likely to cause significantly slower INSERTs, but can work. Option 3 is a stored procedure, but you'll probably need to call the proc for each row inserted, and unless you set up security correctly you may not actually prevent users from inserting data directly. Option 4 is to insert everything into a staging or transaction table, and then use a broker or procedure with queries or views to move only valid data to the live table. This is extremely old school and relatively nasty, since you're not using an RDBMS like a modern RDBMS anymore. Expect lots of problems with key violation issues and synchronization. And you have the same security problem as Option 3. This method is usually only used today for bulk import and export. Option 5 is to validate your data in the application instead of the DB. This will work, but runs into problems when your customers try to use your RDBMS like an RDBMS. Then you hit the same security problem as Option 3. It won't actually fix problems or prevent storage of invalid data by programs outside your application. Option 6 is to use an RDBMS that supports CHECK constraints, which is just about everything not MySQL or MariaDB. MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, even MS Access and SQLite support CHECK constraints. It's moderately ridiculous that MySQL doesn't.
MySQL cloning aggregated database from an existing database
We have a MySQL database based on InnoDB. We are looking to build an Analytics system for this data. We are thinking to create a cloned database that denormalizes the data to prevent join and uses MyIsam for faster querying. This second database will also facilitate avoiding extra load on the main database to which the data will be written. Apart from this, we are also creating some extra tables that will store aggregated numbers to avoid recalculation. I am wondering how can I sync these tables once every day to keep them updated. It looks similar to Master-slave config of MySQL which uses binary log. But in our case, the second database is not an exact slave. Are there any open-source reliable tools or any other ideas which I can use to write an 'update mechanism'? Thanks in advance.
One-way database sync to MySQL
I have an VFP based application with a directory full of DBFs. I use ODBC in .NET to connect and perform transactions on this database. I want to mirror this data to mySQL running on my webhost. Notes: This will be a one-way mirror only. VFP to mySQL Only inserts and updates must be supported. Deletes don't matter Not all tables are required. In fact, I would prefer to use a defined SELECT statement to only mirror psuedo-views of the necessary data I do not have the luxury of a "timemodified" stamp on any VFP records. I don't have a ton of data records (maybe a few thousand total) nor do I have a ton of concurrent users on the mySQL side, want to be as efficient as possible though. Proposed Strategy for Inserts (doesn't seem that bad...): Build temp table in mySQL, insert all primary keys of the VFP table/view I want to mirror Run "SELECT primaryKey from tempTable not in (SELECT primaryKey from mirroredTable)" on mySQL side to identify missing records Generate and run the necessary INSERT sql for those records Blow away the temp table Proposed Strategy for Updates (seems really heavyweight, probably breaks open queries on mySQL dropped table): Build temp table in mySQL and insert ALL records from VFP table/view I want to mirror Drop existing mySQL table Alter tempTable name to new table name These are just the first strategies that come to mind, I'm sure there are more effective ways of doing it (especially the update side). I'm looking for some alternate strategies here. Any brilliant ideas?
It sounds like you're going for something small, but you might try glancing at some replication design patterns. Microsoft has documented some data replication patterns here and that is a good starting point. My suggestion is to check out the simple Move Copy of Data pattern.
Are your VFP tables in a VFP database (DBC)? If so, you should be able to use triggers on that database to set up the information about what data needs to updated in MySQL.
What is the best way to update (or replace) an entire database table on a live machine?
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.