Context
I'm currently developing a tool for managing orders and communicating between technicians and services. The industrial context is broadcast and TV. Multiple clients expecting media files each made to their own specs imply widely varying workflows even within the restricted scope of a single client's orders.
One client can ask one day for a single SD file and the next for a full-blown HD package containing up to fourteen files... In a MySQL db I am trying to store accurate information about all the small tasks composing the workflow, in multiple forms:
DATETIME values every time a task is accomplished, for accurate tracking
paths to the newly created files in the company's file system in VARCHARs
archiving background info in TEXT values (info such as user comments, e.g. when an incident happens and prevents moving forward, they can comment about it in this feed)
Multiply that by 30 different file types and this is way too much for a single table. So I thought I'd break it up by client: one table per client so that any order only ever requires the use of that one table that doesn't manipulate more than 15 fields. Still, this a pretty rigid solution when a client has 9 different transcoding specs and that a particular order only requires one. I figure I'd need to add flags fields for each transcoding field to indicate which ones are required for that particular order.
Concept
I then had this crazy idea that maybe I could create a temporary table to last while the order is running (that can range from about 1 day to 1 month). We rarely have more than 25 orders running simultaneously so it wouldn't get too crowded.
The idea is to make a table tailored for each order, eliminating the need for flags and unnecessary forever empty fields. Once the order is complete the table would get flushed, JSON-encoded, into a TEXT or BLOB so it can be restored later if changes need made.
Do you have experience with DBMS's (MySQL in particular) struggling from such practices if it has ever existed? Does this sound like a viable option? I am happy to try (which I already started) and I am seeking advice so as to keep going or stop right here.
Thanks for your input!
Well, of course that is possible to do. However, you can not use the MySQL temporary tables for such long-term storage, you will have to use "normal" tables, and have some clean-up routine...
However, I do not see why that amount of data would be too much for a single table. If your queries start to run slow due to much data, then you should add some indexes to your database. I also think there is another con: It will be much harder to build reports later on, when you have 25 tables with the same kind of data, you will have to run 25 queries and merge the data.
I do not see the point, really. The same kinds of data should be in the same table.
Related
I currently already have a website running using CodeIgniter and MySQL. The MySQL database is around 110 tables big and contains mainly website specific data, like user data, vacancy data, etc.
Now I want to extend this website to include a complete statistical module as well. We would capture a lot of user actions and other aggregations from the data gather on our own website, and would also pull in some data from google analytics API to use in our statistics (we will generate a report in Excel but also show statistical graphs and numbers on a page (using chart.js)).
We are not thinking (in a forseeable future) to use this data in other programs, but we need to be able to open some data to the public using an API.
We expect to start with about 300.000-350.000 data points gathered per day, but this amount will keep on growing every day of course, the more users we get.
Using multiple databases in CodeIgniter seems to not be an issue, so the main problem I am left with is how I should create the architecture for this statistical module.
I have a couple of idea's on how to start doing this, but I am not aware if there is performance impact from one to another solution or other things to take into consideration.
My main idea boils down to having a table containing all "events", which just insert in that table every time an action is performed, eg "user is registered", "user put account on private", "user clicked on X", ...
Then once a day (probably at around midnight), a CRON job would run over that table for the past day and aggregate all the values into a format usable for our statistical metrics. Those aggregated values would be stored in a new table. This way we can clean up the "event" table quite regularly since that will become very big very fast.
Idea 1: Extend the current MySQL database architecture with new tables to incorporate the statistics. I would keep on using the current database architecture and add 2 new tables for the events and the aggregated values.
Idea 2: Create a new database, separate from the current existing one, and use this to insert all the events in a table there and the aggregated values in a new table there.
Note: we already have quite a few CRONS running on our current database, updating statusses and dates, sending emails, ...
Note2: sync issues between databases is not an issue since we will never be storing statistics on a per-user level.
MySQL does not care whether tables are in the same database or separate databases. It is just a convenience for the user. Some things:
You might need db1.tbla JOIN db2.tblb to talk across dbs.
It is convenient to have different GRANTs for different databases, but clumsy to have different GRANTs for 110 tables.
I can't think of any performance differences.
Nightly aggregation is a middle-of-the road approach. Using IODKU gives you 'immediate' aggregation, but is probably more burden on the system.
My blog on Summary Tables .
350K rows inserted per day is about 5/second, which is comfortably low, so I don't think we need to discuss performance issues there.
"Summarize and toss" (for events) -- Yes. I like that approach. (Most people fail to think of this option.)
Do the math. Which table is the largest after a year? How many GB will it be? Then think about whether you can shrink any of the columns in it: SMALLINT instead of INT, normalization of long, oft-repeated, strings, etc.
I would love to hear some opinions or thoughts on a mysql database design.
Basically, I have a tomcat server which recieves different types of data from about 1000 systems out in the field. Each of these systems are unique, and will be reporting unique data.
The data sent can be categorized as frequent, and unfrequent data. The unfrequent data is only sent about once a day and doesn't change much - it is basically just configuration based data.
Frequent data, is sent every 2-3 minutes while the system is turned on. And represents the current state of the system.
This data needs to be databased for each system, and be accessible at any given time from a php page. Essentially for any system in the field, a PHP page needs to be able to access all the data on that client system and display it. In other words, the database needs to show the state of the system.
The information itself is all text-based, and there is a lot of it. The config data (that doesn't change much) is key-value pairs and there is currently about 100 of them.
My idea for the design was to have 100+ columns, and 1 row for each system to hold the config data. But I am worried about having that many columns, mainly because it isn't too future proof if I need to add columns in the future. I am also worried about insert speed if I do it that way. This might blow out to a 2000row x 200column table that gets accessed about 100 times a second so I need to cater for this in my initial design.
I am also wondering, if there is any design philosophies out there that cater for frequently changing, and seldomly changing data based on the engine. This would make sense as I want to keep INSERT/UPDATE time low, and I don't care too much about the SELECT time from php.
I would also love to know how to split up data. I.e. if frequently changing data can be categorised in a few different ways should I have a bunch of tables, representing the data and join them on selects? I am worried about this because I will probably have to make a report to show common properties between all systems (i.e. show all systems with a certain condition).
I hope I have provided enough information here for someone to point me in the right direction, any help on the matter would be great. Or if someone has done something similar and can offer advise I would be very appreciative. Thanks heaps :)
~ Dan
I've posted some questions in a comment. It's hard to give you advice about your rapidly changing data without knowing more about what you're trying to do.
For your configuration data, don't use a 100-column table. Wide tables are notoriously hard to handle in production. Instead, use a four-column table containing these columns:
SYSTEM_ID VARCHAR System identifier
POSTTIME DATETIME The time the information was posted
NAME VARCHAR The name of the parameter
VALUE VARCHAR The value of the parameter
The first three of these columns are your composite primary key.
This design has the advantage that it grows (or shrinks) as you add to (or subtract from) your configuration parameter set. It also allows for the storing of historical data. That means new data points can be INSERTed rather than UPDATEd, which is faster. You can run a daily or weekly job to delete history you're no longer interested in keeping.
(Edit if you really don't need history, get rid of the POSTTIME column and use MySQL's nice extension feature INSERT ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE when you post stuff. See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert-on-duplicate.html)
If your rapidly changing data is similar in form (name/value pairs) to your configuration data, you can use a similar schema to store it.
You may want to create a "current data" table using the MEMORY access method for this stuff. MEMORY tables are very fast to read and write because the data is all in RAM in your MySQL server. The downside is that a MySQL crash and restart will give you an empty table, with the previous contents lost. (MySQL servers crash very infrequently, but when they do they lose MEMORY table contents.)
You can run an occasional job (every few minutes or hours) to copy the contents of your MEMORY table to an on-disk table if you need to save history.
(Edit: You might consider adding memcached http://memcached.org/ to your web application system in the future to handle a high read rate, rather than constructing a database design for version 1 that handles a high read rate. That way you can see which parts of your overall app design have trouble scaling. I wish somebody had convinced me to do this in the past, rather than overdesigning for early versions. )
Situation: We are working on a project that reads datafeeds into the database at our company. These datafeeds can contain a high number of fields. We match those fields with certain columns.
At this moment we have about 120 types of fields. Those all needs a column. We need to be able to filter and sort all columns.
The problem is that I'm unsure what database design would be best for this. I'm using MySQL for the job but I'm are open for suggestions. At this moment I'm planning to make a table with all 120 columns since that is the most natural way to do things.
Options: My other options are a meta table that stores key and values. Or using a document based database so I have access to a variable schema and scale it when needed.
Question:
What is the best way to store all this data? The row count could go up to 100k rows and I need a storage that can select, sort and filter really fast.
Update:
Some more information about usage. XML feeds will be generated live from this table. we are talking about 100 - 500 requests per hours but this will be growing. The fields will not change regularly but it could be once every 6 months. We will also be updating the datafeeds daily. So checking if items are updated and deleting old and adding new ones.
120 columns at 100k rows is not enough information, that only really gives one of the metrics: size. The other is transactions. How many transactions per second are you talking about here?
Is it a nightly update with a manager running a report once a week, or a million page-requests an hour?
I don't generally need to start looking at 'clever' solutions until hitting a 10m record table, or hundreds of queries per second.
Oh, and do not use a Key-Value pair table. They are not great in a relational database, so stick to proper typed fields.
I personally would recommend sticking to a conventional one-column-per-field approach and only deviate from this if testing shows it really isn't right.
With regards to retrieval, if the INSERTS/UPDATES are only happening daily, then I think some careful indexing on the server side, and good caching wherever the XML is generated, should reduce the server hit a good amount.
For example, you say 'we will be updating the datafeeds daily', then there shouldn't be any need to query the database every time. Although, 1000 per hour is only 17 per minute. That probably rounds down to nothing.
I'm working on a similar project right now, downloading dumps from the net and loading them into the database, merging changes into the main table and properly adjusting the dictionary tables.
First, you know the data you'll be working with. So it is necessary to analyze it in advance and pick the best table/column layout. If you have all your 120 columns containing textual data, then a single row will take several K-bytes of disk space. In such situation you will want to make all queries highly selective, so that indexes are used to minimize IO. Full scans might take significant time with such a design. You've said nothing about how big your 500/h requests will be, will each request extract a single row, a small bunch of rows or a big portion (up to whole table)?
Second, looking at the data, you might outline a number of columns that will have a limited set of values. I prefer to do the following transformation for such columns:
setup a dictionary table, making an integer PK for it;
replace the actual value in a master table's column with PK from the dictionary.
The transformation is done by triggers written in C, so although it gives me upload penalty, I do have some benefits:
decreased total size of the database and master table;
better options for the database and OS to cache frequently accessed data blocks;
better query performance.
Third, try to split data according to the extracts you'll be doing. Quite often it turns out that only 30-40% of the fields in the table are typically being used by the all queries, the rest 60-70% are evenly distributed among all of them and used partially. In this case I would recommend splitting main table accordingly: extract the fields that are always used into single "master" table, and create another one for the rest of the fields. In fact, you can have several "another ones", logically grouping data in a separate tables.
In my practice we've had a table that contained customer detailed information: name details, addresses details, status details, banking details, billing details, financial details and a set of custom comments. All queries on such a table were expensive ones, as it was used in the majority of our reports (reports typically perform Full scans). Splitting this table into a set of smaller ones and building a view with rules on top of them (to make external application happy) we've managed to gain a pleasant performance boost (sorry, don't have numbers any longer).
To summarize: you know the data you'll be working with and you know the queries that will be used to access your database, analyze and design accordingly.
In an application at our company we collect statistical data from our servers (load, disk usage and so on). Since there is a huge amount of data and we don't need all data at all times we've had a "compression" routine that takes the raw data and calculates min. max and average for a number of data-points, store these new values in the same table and removes the old ones after some weeks.
Now I'm tasked with rewriting this compression routine and the new routine must keep all uncompressed data we have for one year in one table and "compressed" data in another table. My main concerns now are how to handle the data that is continuously written to the database and whether or not to use a "transaction table" (my own term since I cant come up with a better one, I'm not talking about the commit/rollback transaction functionality).
As of now our data collectors insert all information into a table named ovak_result and the compressed data will end up in ovak_resultcompressed. But are there any specific benefits or drawbacks to creating a table called ovak_resultuncompressed and just use ovak_result as a "temporary storage"? ovak_result would be kept minimal which would be good for the compressing routine, but I would need to shuffle all data from one table into another continually, and there would be constant reading, writing and deleting in ovak_result.
Are there any mechanisms in MySQL to handle these kind of things?
(Please note: We are talking about quite large datasets here (about 100 M rows in the uncompressed table and about 1-10 M rows in the compressed table). Also, I can do pretty much what I want with both software and hardware configurations so if you have any hints or ideas involving MySQL configurations or hardware set-up, just bring them on.)
Try reading about the ARCHIVE storage engine.
Re your clarification. Okay, I didn't get what you meant from your description. Reading more carefully, I see you did mention min, max, and average.
So what you want is a materialized view that updates aggregate calculations for a large dataset. Some RDBMS brands such as Oracle have this feature, but MySQL doesn't.
One experimental product that tries to solve this is called FlexViews (http://code.google.com/p/flexviews/). This is an open-source companion tool for MySQL. You define a query as a view against your raw dataset, and FlexViews continually monitors the MySQL binary logs, and when it sees relevant changes, it updates just the rows in the view that need to be updated.
It's pretty effective, but it has a few limitations in the types of queries you can use as your view, and it's also implemented in PHP code, so it's not fast enough to keep up if you have really high traffic updating your base table.
So, at my workplace, they have a huge access file (used with MS Access 2003 and 2007). The file size is about 1.2GB, so it takes a while to open the file. We cannot delete any of the records, and we have about 100+ tables (each month we create 4 more tables, don't ask!). How do I improve this, i.e. downsizing the file?
You can do two things:
use linked tables
"compact" the database(s) every once in a while
The linked tables will not in of themselves limit the overall size of the database, but it will "package" it in smaller, more manageable files. To look in to this:
'File' menu + 'Get External data' + 'Linked tables'
Linked tables also have many advantages such as allowing one to keep multiple versions of data subset, and selecting a particular set by way of the linked table manager.
Compacting databases reclaims space otherwise lost as various CRUD operations (Insert, Delete, Update...) fragment the storage. It also regroup tables and indexes, making search more efficient. This is done with
'Tools' menu + 'Database Utilities' + 'Compact and Repair Database...'
You're really pushing up against the limits of MS Access there — are you aware that the file can't grow any larger than 2GB?
I presume you've already examined the data for possible space saving through additional normalization? You can "archive" some of the tables for previous months into separate MDB files and then link them (permanently or as needed) to your "current" database (in which case you'd actually be benefiting from what was probably an otherwise bad decision to start new tables for each month).
But, with that amount of data, it's probably time to start planning for moving to a more capacious platform.
You should really think about your db architecture. If there aren't any links between the tables you could try to move some of them to another database (One db per year :) as a short-term solution..
A couple of “Grasping at straws” ideas
Look at the data types for each column, you might be able to store some numbers as bytes saving a small amount per record
Look at the indexes and get rid of the ones you don’t use. On big tables unnecessary indexes can add a large amount of overhead.
I would + 2^64 the suggestions about the database design being a bit odd but nothing that hasn’t already been said so I wont labour the point
well .. Listen to #Larry, and keep in mind that, on the long term, you'll have to find another database to hold your data!
But on the short term, I am quite disturbed by this "4 new tables per month" thing. 4 tables per month is 50 per year ... That surely sounds strange to every "database manager" here. So please tell us: how many rows, how are they built, what are they for, and why do you have to build tables every month?
Depending on what you are doing with your data, you could also think about archiving some tables as XML files (or even XLS?). This could make sense for "historic" data, that do not have to be accessed through relations, views, etc. One good example would be the phone calls list collected from a PABX. Data can be saved as/loaded from XML/XLS files through ADODB recordsets or the transferDatabase method
Adding more tables every month: that is already a questionable attitude, and seems suspicious regarding data normalisation.
If you do that, I suspect that your database structure is also sub-optimal regarding field sizes, data types and indexes. I would really start by double checking those.
If you really have a justification for monthly tables (which I cannot imagine, again), why not having 1 back-end per month ?
You could also have on main back-end, with, let's say, 3 month of data online, and then an archive db, where you transfer your older records.
I use that for transactions, with the main table having about 650.000 records, and Access is very responsive.