Currently I am building quite big web system and I need strong SQL database solution. I chose Mysql over Postgres because some of tasks needs to be read-only (MyISAM engine) and other are massive-writes (InnoDB).
I have a question about this read-only feature. It has to be extremely fast. User must get answer a lot less than one second.
Let say we have one well-indexed table named "object" with not more than 10 millions of rows and another one named "element" with around 150 millions of rows.
We also have table named "element_object" containing information connecting objects from table "element" with table "object" (hundreds of millions of rows)
So we're going to do partitioning on tables "element" and "element_object" and have 8192 tables "element_hash_n{0..8191}a" and 24576 of tables "element_object_hash_n{0..8191}_m{0..2}".
An Answer on user's question would be a 2-step searching:
Find id of element from tables "element_hash_n"
Do main sql select on table "object" and join with table "element_object..hash_n_m" to filter result with found (from first step) ID
I wonder about first step:
What would be better:
store (all) over 32k tables in mysql
create one sqlite database and store there 8192 tables for first step purpose
create 8192 different sqlite files (databases)
create 8192 files in file system and make own binary solution to find ID.
I'm sorry for my English. Its not my native language.
I think you make way to many partitions. If you have more than 32000 partitions you have a tremendous overhead of management. Given the name element_hash_* it seams as if you want to make a hash of your element and partition it this way. But a hash will give you a (most likely) even distribution of the data over all partitions. I can't see how this should improve performance. If your data is accessed over all those partitions you don't gain anything by having partitions in size of your memory - you will need to load for every query data from another partition.
We used partitions on a transaction systems where more than 90% of the queries used the current day as criteria. In such a case the partition based on days worked very well. But we only had 8 partitions and moved the data then off to another database for long time storage.
My advice: Try to find out what data will be needed that fast and try to group it together. And you will need to make your own performance tests. If it is so important to deliver data that fast there should be enough management support to build a decent test environment.
Maybe your test result will show that you simply can't deliver the data fast enough with a relational database system. If so you should look at NoSQL (as in Not only SQL) solutions.
In what technology do you build your web system? You should test this part as well. A super fast database will not help you much if you lose the time in a poorly performing web application.
Related
I have a Redshift datawarehouse that is pulling data in from multiple sources.
One is my from MySQL and the others are some cloud based databases that get pulled in.
When querying in redshift, the query response is significantly slower than the same mysql table(s).
Here is an example:
SELECT *
FROM leads
WHERE id = 10162064
In mysql this takes .4 seconds. In Redshift it takes 4.4 seconds.
The table has 11 million rows. "id" is indexed in mysql and in redshift it is not since it is a columnar system.
I know that Redshift is a columnar data warehouse (which is relatively new to me) and Mysql is a relational database that is able to utilize indexes. I'm not sure if Redshift is the right tool for us for reporting, or if we need something else. We have about 200 tables in it from 5 different systems and it is currently at 90 GB.
We have a reporting tool sitting on top that does native queries to pull data. They are pretty slow but are also pulling a ton of data from multiple tables. I would expect some slowness with these, but with a simple statement like above, I would expect it to be quicker.
I've tried some different DIST and SORT key configurations but see no real improvement.
I've run vacuum and analyze with no improvement.
We have 4 nodes, dc2.large. Currently only using 14% storage. CPU utilization is frequently near 100%. Database connections averages about 10 at any given time.
The datawarehouse just has exact copies of the tables from our integration with the other sources. We are trying to do near real-time reporting with this.
Just looking for advice on how to improve performance of our redshift via configuration changes, some sort of view or dim table architecture, or any other tips to help me get the most out of redshift.
I've worked with clients on this type of issue many times and I'm happy to help but this may take some back and forth to narrow in on what is happening.
First I'm assuming that "leads" is a normal table, not a view and not an external table. Please correct if this assumption isn't right.
Next I'm assuming that this table isn't very wide and that "select *" isn't contributing greatly to the speed concern. Yes?
Next question is wide this size of cluster for a table of only 11M rows? I'd guess it is that there are other much larger data sets on the database and that this table isn't setting the size.
The first step of narrowing this down is to go onto the AWS console for Redshift and find the query in question. Look at the actual execution statistics and see where the query is spending its time. I'd guess it will be in loading (scanning) the table but you never know.
You also should look at STL_WLM_QUERY for the query in question and see how much wait time there was with the running of this query. Queueing can take time and if you have interactive queries that need faster response times then some WLM configuration may be needed.
It could also be compile time but given the simplicity of the query this seems unlikely.
My suspicion is that the table is spread too thin around the cluster and there are lots of mostly empty blocks being read but this is just based on assumptions. Is "id" the distkey or sortkey for this table? Other factors likely in play are cluster load - is the cluster busy when this query runs? WLM is one place that things can interfere but disk IO bandwidth is a share resource and if some other queries are abusing the disks this will make every query's access to disk slow. (Same is true of network bandwidth and leader node workload but these don't seem to be central to your issue at the moment.)
As I mentioned resolving this will likely take some back and forth so leave comments if you have additional information.
(I am speaking from a knowledge of MySQL, not Redshift.)
SELECT * FROM leads WHERE id = 10162064
If id is indexed, especially if it is a Unique (or Primary) key, 0.4 sec sounds like a long network delay. I would expect 0.004 as a worst-case (with SSDs and `PRIMARY KEY(id)).
(If leads is a VIEW, then let's see the tables. 0.4s may be be reasonable!)
That query works well for a RDBMS, but not for a columnar database. Face it.
I can understand using a columnar database to handle random queries on various columns. See also MariaDB's implementation of "Columnstore" -- that would give you both RDBMS and Columnar in a single package. Still, they are separate enough that you can't really intermix the two technologies.
If you are getting 100% CPU in MySQL, show us the query, its EXPLAIN, and SHOW CREATE TABLE. Often, a better index and/or query formulation can solve that.
For "real time reporting" in a Data Warehouse, building and maintaining Summary Tables is often the answer.
Tell us more about the "exact copy" of the DW data. In some situations, the Summary tables can supplant one copy of the Fact table data.
We're developing an enterprise product that uses MySQL 5.6 on Windows to store reports generated by multiple clients. Our database contains approximately 20 tables, each table containing ranging from a few hundred thousand to some million records. All tables have more than 10 columns with a combination of numeric and textual data. All tables use innodb engine with numeric field as primary key. The tables are indexed on another numeric field, different than the primary key.
There are about 10 connections used to merge new data into the database. The data is viewed via a web console. There is as such no limit on the number of instances on viewing the data. We also don't have any reference/foreign key in tables so we don't use joins.
We haven't created stored procedure for fetching data. Does the store procedure really improve performance?
While searching solution on the internet, I found that if we changes the values of innodb_buffer_pool_size, read_rnd_buffer_size, sort_buffer_size etc fields in my.ini/my.cnf files, then we can improve performance as well as minimize memory requirements of mysql. But I am not confident about it because I don't know what should be the proper values of it and what are the side effect of it. Currently I kept the default configuration. Please let me know which values can be changed in the configuration file to improve performance and minimize memory requirements without any side effect.
I would also like to know some other ways to optimize & fine tune MySQL engine that would boost the performance & use optimum resources.
Minimum software/hardware requirement of our product is :
OS : Windows 2000 SP4 Professional / Server and later.
RAM : 1 GB
CPU : 1 GHz.
There are no predefined values for defined for performance in any database and if they are present then they are already used in default configurations.
So first time think about schema design. If your schema is designed well then you have already resolved half the issues.
From your description schema looks good as you already have applied indexes,no joins etc.
First try your application with default setting provided by Mysql engine.
Then carry out performance test of your application's critical/widely used/resource intensive workflow. (definition of these terms varies per application.)
If you find performance bottlenecks on database side then try below things,
Check heavy queries used by application. optimize them
if queries cannot be optimized then make them faster using indexes
carry out regular tuning of database (fragmentations,runstats etc.)
if you see bufferpools shortage,sort overflow,read buffers then tune them accordingly which is not one time job.
Performance tuning is very difficult job, requires lot of patience and expertise.
And Yes, generally stored procedures helps to improve performance. apply them whenever you can move heavy code logic into database.
Hope this was useful.
I am looking for a free SQL database able to handle my data model. The project is a production database working in a local network not connected to the internet without any replication. The number of application connected at the same times would be less than 10.
The data volume forecast for the next 5 years are:
3 tables of 100 millions rows
2 tables of 500 millions rows
20 tables with less than 10k rows
My first idea was to use MySQL, but I have found around the web several articles saying that MySQL is not designed for big database. But, what is the meaning of big in this case?
Is there someone to tell me if MySQL is able to handle my data model?
I read that Postgres would be a good alternative, but require a lot of hours for tuning to be efficient with big tables.
I don't think so that my project would use NOSQL database.
I would know if someone has some experience to share with regarding MySQL.
UPDATE
The database will be accessed by C# software (max 10 at the same times) and web application (2-3 at the same times),
It is important to mention that only few update will be done on the big tables, only insert query. Delete statements will be only done few times on the 20 small tables.
The big tables are very often used for select statement, but the most often in the way to know if an entry exists, not to return grouped and ordered batch of data.
I work for Percona, a company that provides consulting and other services for MySQL solutions.
For what it's worth, we have worked with many customers who are successful using MySQL with very large databases. Terrabytes of data, tens of thousands of tables, tables with billions of rows, transaction load of tens of thousands of requests per second. You may get some more insight by reading some of our customer case studies.
You describe the number of tables and the number of rows, but nothing about how you will query these tables. Certainly one could query a table of only a few hundred rows in a way that would not scale well. But this can be said of any database, not just MySQL.
Likewise, one could query a table that is terrabytes in size in an efficient way. It all depends on how you need to query it.
You also have to set specific goals for performance. If you want queries to run in milliseconds, that's challenging but doable with high-end hardware. If it's adequate for your queries to run in a couple of seconds, you can be a lot more relaxed about the scalability.
The point is that MySQL is not a constraining factor in these cases, any more than any other choice of database is a constraining factor.
Re your comments.
MySQL has referential integrity checks in its default storage engine, InnoDB. The claim that "MySQL has no integrity checks" is a myth often repeated over the years.
I think you need to stop reading superficial or outdated articles about MySQL, and read some more complete and current documentation.
MySQLPerformanceBlog.com
High Performance MySQL, 3rd edition
MySQL 5.6 manual
MySQL has a two important (and significantly different) database engines - MyISAM and InnoDB. A limits depends on usage - MyISAM is nontransactional - there is relative fast import, but it is too simple (without own memory cache) and JOINs on tables higher than 100MB can be slow (due too simple MySQL planner - hash joins is supported from 5.6). InnoDB is transactional and is very fast on operations based on primary key - but import is slower.
Current versions of MySQL has not good planner as Postgres has (there is progress) - so complex queries are usually much better on PostgreSQL - and really simple queries are better on MySQL.
Complexity of PostgreSQL configuration is myth. It is much more simple than MySQL InnoDB configuration - you have to set only five parameters: max_connection, shared_buffers, work_mem, maintenance_work_mem and effective_cache_size. Almost all is related to available memory for Postgres on server. Usually work for 5 minutes. On my experience a databases to 100GB is usually without any problems on Postgres (probably on MySQL too). There are two important factors - how speed you expect and how much memory and how fast IO you have.
With large databases you have to have a experience and knowledges for any database technology. All is fast when you are in memory, and when ratio database size/memory is higher, then much more work you have to do to get good results.
First of all, MySQLs table size is only limited by the allowed file size limit of your OS which is I. The terra bytes on any modern OS. That would pose no problems. Most important are questions like this:
What kind of queries will you run?
Are the large table records updated frequently or basically archives for history data?
What is your hardware budget?
What is the kind of query speed you need?
Are you familiar with table partitioning, archive tables, config tuning?
How fast do you need to write (expected inserts per second)
What language will you use to connect to the db (Java, .net, Ruby etc)
What platform are you most familiar with?
Will you run queries which might cause table scans such like '%something%' which would have to go through every single row and take forever
MySQL is used by Facebook, google, twitter and others with large tables and 100,000,000 is not much in the age of social media. MySQL has very little drawbacks (even though I prefer postgresql in most cases) like altering large tables by adding a new index for example. That might send your company in a couple days forced vacation if you don't have a replica in the meantime. Is there a reason why NoSQL is not an option? Sometimes hybrid approaches are a good choice like having your relational business logic in MySQL and huge statistical tables in a NoSQL database like MongoDb which can scale by adding new servers in minutes (MySQL can too but it's more complicated). Now MongoDB can have a indexed column which can be searched by in blistering speed.
Bejond the bottom line: you need to answer the above questions first to make a very informed decision. If you have huge tables and only search on indexed keys almost any database will do - if you expect many changes to the structure down the road you want to use a different approach.
Edit:
Based on your update you just posted I doubt you would run into problems.
Our server (several Java applications on Debian) handles incoming data (GNSS observations) that should be:
immediately (delay <200ms) delivered to other applications,
stored for further use.
Sometimes (several times a day maybe) about million of archived records will be fetched from the database. Record size is about 12 double precision fields + timestamp and some ids. There are no UPDATEs; DELETEs are very rare but massive. Incoming flow is up to hundred records per second. So I had to choose storage engine for this data.
I tried using MySQL (InnoDB). One application inserts, others constantly check last record id and if it is updated, fetch new records. This part works fine. But I've met following issues:
Records are quite large (about 200-240 bytes per record).
Fetching million of archived records is unacceptable slow (tens of minutes or more).
File-based storage will work just fine (since there are no inserts in the middle of DB and selections are mostly like 'WHERE ID=1 AND TIME BETWEEN 2000 AND 3000', but there are other problems:
Looking for new data might be not so easy.
Other data like logs and configs are stored in same database and I prefer to have one database for everything.
Can you advice some suitable database engine (SQL preferred, but not necessary)? Maybe it is possible to fine-tune MySQL to reduce record size and fetch time for continious strips of data?
MongoDB is not acceptable since DB size is limited on 32-bit machines. Any engine that does not provide quick access for recently inserted data is not acceptable too.
I'd recommend using TokuDB storage engine for MySQL. It's free for up to 50GB of user data, and it's pricing model isn't terrible, making it a great choice for storing large amounts of data.
It's got higher insert speed compared to InnoDB and MyISAM and scales much better as the dataset grows (InnoDB tends to deteriorate once working dataset doesn't fit the RAM making its performance dependant on the I/O of the HDD subsystem).
It's also ACID compliant and supports multiple clustered indexes (which would be a great choice for massive DELETEs you're planning to do). Also, hot schema changes are supported (ALTER TABLE doesn't lock the tables, and changes are quick on huge tables - I'm talking gigabyte-sized tables being altered in mere seconds).
From my personal use, I experienced about 5 - 10 times less disk usage due to TokuDB's compression, and it's much, much faster than MyISAM or InnoDB.
Even though it sounds like I'm trying to advertise this product - I'm not, it's just simply amazing since you can use monolithic data-store without expensive scaling plans like partitioning across nodes to scale the writes.
There really is no getting around how long it takes to load millions of records from disk. Your 32-bit requirement means you are limited in how much RAM you can use for memory based data structures. But, if you want to use MySQL, you may be able to get good performance using multiple table types.
If you need really fast non-blocking inserts. You can use the black hole table type and replication. The server where the inserts occur has a black hole table type that replicates to another server where the table is Innodb or MyISAM.
Since you don't do UPDATEs, I think MyISAM would be better than Innodb in this scenario. You can use the MERGE table type for MyISAM (not available for Innodb). Not sure what your data set is like, but you could have 1 table per day (hour, week?), your MERGE table would then be a superset of those tables. Assuming you want to delete old data by day, just redeclare the MERGE table to not include the old tables. This action is instantaneous. Dropping old tables is also extremely fast.
To check for new data, you can look at "todays" table directly rather than going through the MERGE table.
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/