I'm considering a design for a private messaging system and I need some input here, basically I have several questions regarding this. I've read most of the related questions and they've given me some thought already.
All of the basic messaging systems I've thus far looked into use a single table for all of the users' messages. With indexes etc this approach would seem fine.
What I wanted to know is if there would be any benefit to splitting the user messages into separate tables. So when a new user is created a new table is created (either in the same or a dedicated message database) which stores all of the messages - sent and received -for that user.
What are the pitfalls/benefits to approaching things that way?
I'm writing in PHP would the code required to write be particularly more cumbersome than the first large table option?
Would the eventual result, with a large amount of smaller tables be a more robust, trouble free design than one large table?
In the event of large amounts of concurrent users, how would the performance of the server compare where dealing with one large versus many small tables?
Any help with those questions or other input would be appreciated. I'm currently working through a smaller scale design for my test site before rewriting the PM module and would like to optimise it. My poor human brain handles separate table far more easily, but the same isn't necessarily so for a computer.
You'll just get headaches from moving to small numerous tables. Databases are made for handling lots of data, let it do it's thing.
You'll likely end up using dynamic table names in queries (SELECT * FROM $username WHERE ...), making smart features like stored procedures and possibly parameterized queries a lot trickier if not outright impossible. Usually a really bad idea.
Try rewriting SELECT * FROM messages WHERE authorID = 1 ORDER BY date_posted DESC, but where "messages" is anywhere between 1 and 30,000 different tables. Keeping your table relations monogamous will keep them bidirectional, way more useful.
If you think table size will really be a problem, set up an "archived messages" clone table and periodically move old & not-unread messages there where they won't get in the way. Also note how most forum software with private messaging allows for limiting user inbox sizes. There are a few ways to solve the problem while keeping things sane.
I'm agreeing with #MarkR here - in that initially the one table for messages is definitely the way to proceed. As time progresses and should you end up with a very large table then you can consider how to partition the table to best proceed. That's counter to the way I'd normally advise design, but we're talking about one table which is fairly simple - not a huge enterprise system.
A very long time ago (pre availability of SQL databases) I built a system that stored private and public messages, and I can confirm that once you split a message base logical entity into more than one everything¹ becomes a lot more complicated; and I doubt that a user per file is the right approach - the overheads will be massive compared to the benefit.
Avoid auto-increment[2] - and using natural keys is very important to the future scalability. Designing well to ensure that you can insert and retrieve without locking will be of more benefit.
¹ Indexing, threading, searching, purging/archiving.
² Natural keys are better if you can find one for your data as the autoincremented ID does not describe the data at all and databases are good at locating based on the primary key, so a natural primary key can improve things. Autoincrement can cause problems with a distributed database; it also leaks data when presented externally (to see the number of users registered just create a new account and check your user ID). If you can't find a natural key then a UUID (or GUID) may still be a better option - providing that the database has good support for this as a primary key. See When to use an auto-incremented primary key and when not to
Creating one table per user certainly won't scale well when there are a large number of users with a small number of messages. The way MySQL handles table opening/closing, very large numbers of tables (> 10k, say) become quite inefficient, especially at server startup and shutdown, as well as trying to backup non-transactional tables.
However, the way you've worded your question sounds like a case of premature optimisation. Make it work first, then fix performance problems. This is always the right way to do things.
Partitioning / sharding will become necessary once your scale gets high enough. But there are a lot of other things to worry about in the mean time. Sort them out first :)
One table is the right way to go from an RDBMS PoV. I recommend you use it until you know better.
Splitting large amounts of data into smaller sets makes sense if you're trying to avoid locking issues: for example - locking the messages table - doing big selects or updating huge amounts of data at once. In this case long running queries could block whole table and everyone needs to wait... You should ask yourself if this going to happen in your case? At least for me it looks like messaging system is not going to have such things because all information is being pushed into table or retrieved from it in rather small sets. If this is a user centric application - so, for example, getting all messages for single user is quite easy and fast to do, the same goes also for creating new messages for one or another particular user... Unless you would have really huge amounts of users/messages in your system.
Splitting data into multiple tables has also some drawbacks - you will need kind of management system or logic how do you split everything - giving separate table for each user could grow up soon into hundreds or thousands of tables - which is, in my opinion, not that nice. Therefore probably you would need some other criteria how to split the data. If you want splitting logic to be dynamic and easy adjustable - you would probably need also to save it in DB somehow. As you see complexity grows...
As advantage of such data sharding could be the scalability - you could easy put different sets of data on different machines once single machine is not able to handle whole load.
It depends how your message system works.
Are there cuncurrency issue?
Does it need to be scalable as the application accomodate more customers?
Designing one table will perfectly work on small, one message at a time single user system.
However, if you are considering multiple user, concurrent messaging system, the tables should be splited
Data model for Real time application is recommended to be "normalized"(Spliting table) due to "locking & latching" and data redundency issue.
Locking policy varies by Database Vendor. If you have tables that have updates & select by applicaiton concurrently, "Locking"(page level, row level, table level depending on vendor) issue araise. Some bad DB & app design completely lock the table so message never go through.
Redendency issue is more clear. If you use only one table, some information(like user. I guess one user could send multiple messages) is redundent.
Try to google with "normalization", 'Locking"..
Related
I want to create a table about "users" for each of the 50 states. Each state has about 2GB worth of data. Which option sounds better?
Create one table called "users" that will be 100GB large OR
Create 50 separate tables called "users_{state}", each which will be 2GB large
I'm looking at two things: performance, and style (best practices)
I'm also running RDS on AWS, and I have enough storage space. Any thoughts?
EDIT: From the looks of it, I will not need info from multiples states at the same time (i.e. won't need to frequently join tables if I go with Option 2). Here is a common use case: The front-end passes a state id to the back-end, and based on that id, I need to query data from the db regarding the specified state, and return data back to front-end.
Are the 50 states truly independent in your business logic? Meaning your queries would only need to run over one given state most of the time? If so, splitting by state is probably a good choice. In this case you would only need joining in relatively rarer queries like reporting queries and such.
EDIT: Based on your recent edit, this first option is the route I would recommend. You will get better performance from the table partitioning when no joining is required, and there are multiple other benefits to having the smaller partitioned tables like this.
If your queries would commonly require joining across a majority of the states, then you should definitely not partition like this. You'd be better off with one large table and just build the appropriate indices needed for performance. Most modern enterprise DB solutions are capable of handling the marginal performance impact going from 2GB to 100GB just fine (with proper indexing).
But if your queries on average would need to join results from only a handful of states (say no more than 5-10 or so), the optimal solution is a more complex gray area. You will likely be able to extract better performance from the partitioned tables with joining, but it may make the code and/or queries (and all coming maintenance) noticeably more complex.
Note that my answer assumes the more common access frequency breakdowns: high reads, moderate updates, low creates/deletes. Also, if performance on big data is your primary concern, you may want to check out NoSQL (for example, Amazon AWS DynamoDB), but this would be an invasive and fundamental departure from the relational system. But the NoSQL performance benefits can be absolutely dramatic.
Without knowing more of your model, it will be difficult for anyone to make judgement calls about performance, etc. However, from a data modelling point of view, when thinking about a normalized model I would expect to see a User table with a column (or columns, in the case of a compound key) which hold the foreign key to a State table. If a User could be associated with more than one state, I would expect another table (UserState) to be created instead, and this would hold the foreign keys to both User and State, with any other information about that relationship (for instance, start and end dates for time slicing, showing the timespan during which the User and the State were associated).
Rather than splitting the data into separate tables, if you find that you have performance issues you could use partitioning to split the User data by state while leaving it within a single table. I don't use MySQL, but a quick Google turned up plenty of reference information on how to implement partitioning within MySQL.
Until you try building and running this, I don't think you know whether you have a performance problem or not. If you do, following the above design you can apply partitioning after the fact and not need to change your front-end queries. Also, this solution won't be problematic if it turns out you do need information for multiple states at the same time, and won't cause you anywhere near as much grief if you need to look at User by some aspect other than State.
So basically I am in the process of creating a personal finance tracking system. It occurred to be that keeping tabs on when each instance and transaction was last edited or updated might be of relevant information some day.
Now as far as I can see there are two approaches to implement something like this:
Create "updated" fields to all the tables I want to keep track of and then let mysql update those fields for me (ON UPDATE clause)
Create a completely seperate table for holding the log data and then update that with a triggers and transactions
Now it seems that 1st approach would have the benefit of keeping things simple and easy to maintain. However how this will impact the performance if I suddenly decide to get every log in the database for review. Also this would kind of goes against normalization (not by much though) with same data stored in multiple tables.
The second approach would allow more flexibility to the logging system and might actually shorten the sql query necessary to retrieve certain data. However it would make the schema more complex as two additional tables would have to be created (the actual log table and many-to-many relation table for holding the keys) and maintained. On the other hand if I ever want to implement an activity history this approach would propably be the only one capable of doing it.
As such I would like to know some more pros and cons to each method. Since 2nd option allows more flexibility I am considering implementing it but I am not sure about performance issues. In the end it comes down to two guestions:
Are there any real life examples where both approaches are
implemented?
And:
Are there any studies, comparisons or other resource that might shed
some light on which is considered more performance friendly and "best
practices" approach?
It depends on what kind of reporting you need and your current architecture.
If you just want to know last update date, then having 2 fields (creation date and last update) should be enough. That's because having separate table won't give any perfomance boost, but will make your code harder to maintain.
It's another story if you want to have something more elaborate, like reporting differences (what was changed) and/or have full change log on each transaction (there might be few updates to one transaction, right?). In this case you actually must have separate table, because otherwise it will bloat your table and reduce perfomance.
Based on my experience, I'd go with separate table. That's because it will be easier to maintain - your logging logic will be practically separated from everything else and I think one day you'll need that additional info on your transactions and full transaction history.
As far as perfomance goes, you won't notice any formidable difference unless your system will be under serious load. But as your system is personal, any choice would suffice, just don't forget about proper indexing.
Note that I'm making alot of assumptions here, so if you want something more specific, please provide your actual architecture and reporting needs. I'd suggest some books on high availability/perfomance, but they are not on your specific needs, but on general availability/perfomance.
I am trying to apply for a job, which asks for the experiences on handling large scale data sets using relational database, like mySQL.
I would like to know which specific skill sets are required for handling large scale data using MySQL.
Handling large scale data with MySQL isn't just a specific set of skills, as there are a bazillion ways to deal with a large data set. Some basic things to understand are:
Column Indexes, how, why, and when they're used, and the pros and cons of using them.
Good database structure to balance between fast writes and easy reads.
Caching, leveraging several layers of caching and different caching technologies (memcached, redis, etc)
Examining MySQL queries to identify bottlenecks and understanding the MySQL internals to see how queries get planned an executed by the database server in order to increase query performance
Configuring the MySQL server to be able to handle a lot of concurrent connections, and access it's data fast. Hardware bottlenecks, and the advantages to using different technologies to speed up your hardware (for example, storing your MySQL data on a RAID5 Array to increase IO performance))
Leveraging built-in MySQL technology (like Replication) to off-load read traffic
These are just a few things that get thought about in regards to big data in MySQL. There's a TON more, which is why the company is looking for experience in the area. Knowing what to do, or having experience with things that have worked or failed for you is an absolutely invaluable asset to bring to a company that deals with high traffic, high availability, and high volume services.
edit
I would be remis if I didn't mention a source for more information. Check out High Performance MySQL. This is an incredible book, and has a plethora of information on how to make MySQL perform in all scenarios. Definitely worth the money, and the time spent reading it.
edit -- good structure for balanced writes and reads
With this point, I was referring to the topic of normalization / de-normalization. If you're familiar with DB design, you know that normalization is the separation of data as to reduce (eliminate) the amount of duplicate data you have about any single record. This is generally a fantastic idea, as it makes tables smaller, faster to query, easier to index (individually) and reduces the number of writes you have to do in order to create/update a new record.
There are different levels of normalization (as #Adam Robinson pointed out in the comments below) which are referred to as normal forms. Almost every web application I've worked with hasn't had much benefit beyond the 3NF (3rd Normal Form). Which the definition of, if you were to read that wikipedia link above, will probably make your head hurt. So in lamens (at the risk of dumbing it down too far...) a 3NF structure satisfies the following rules:
No duplicate columns within the same table.
Create different tables for each set related data. (Example: a Companies table which has a list of companies, and an Employees table which has a list of each companies' employees)
No sub-sets of columns which apply to multiple rows in a table. (Example: zip_code, state, and city is a sub-set of data which can be identified uniquely by zip_code. These 3 columns could be put in their own table, and referenced by the Employees table (in the previous example) by the zip_code). This eliminates large sets of duplication within your tables, so any change that is required to the city/state for any zip code is a single write operation instead of 1 write for every employee who lives in that zip code.
Each sub-set of data is moved to it's own table and is identified by it's own primary key (this is touched/explained in the example for #3).
Remove columns which are not fully dependent on the primary key. (An example here might be if your Employees table has start_date, end_date, and years_employed columns. The start_date and end_date are both unique and dependent on any single employee row, but the years_employed can be derived by subtracting start_date from end_date. This is important because as end-date increases, so does years_employed so if you were to update end_date you'd also have to update years_employed (2 writes instead of 1)
A fully normalized (3NF) database table structure is great, if you've got a very heavy write-load. If your server is doing a lot of writes, it's very easy to write small bits of data, especially when you're running fewer of them. The drawback is, all your reads become much more expensive, because you have to (typically) run a lot of JOIN queries when you're pulling data out. JOINs are typically expensive and harder to create proper indexes for when you're utilizing WHERE clauses that span the relationship and when sorting the result-sets If you have to perform a lot of reads (SELECTs) on your data-set, using a 3NF structure can cause you some performance problems. This is because as your tables grow you're asking MySQL to cram more and more table data (and indexes) into memory. Ideally this is what you want, but with big data-sets you're just not going to have enough memory to fit all of this at once. This is when MySQL starts to create temporary tables, and has to use the disk to load data and manipulate it. Once MySQL becomes reliant on the hard disk to serve up query results you're going to see a significant performance drop. This is less-so the case with solid state disks, but they are super expensive, and (imo) are not mature enough to use on mission critical data sets yet (i mean, unless you're prepared for them to fail and have a very fast backup recovery system in place...then use them and gonuts!).
This is the balancing part. You have to decide what kind of traffic the data you're reading/writing is going to be serving more of, and design that to be fast. In some instances, people don't mind writes being slow because they happen less frequently. In other cases, writes have to be very fast, and the reads don't have to be fast because the data isn't accessed that often (or at all, or even in real time).
Workloads that require a lot of reads benefit the most from a middle-tier caching layer. The idea is that your writes are still fast (because you're 'normal') and your reads can be slow because you're going to cache it (in memcached or something competitive to it), so you don't hit the database very frequently. The drawback here is, if your cache gets invalidated quickly, then the cache is not reducing the read load by a meaningful amount and that results in no added performance (and possibly even more overhead to check/invalidate the caches).
With workloads that have the requirement for high throughput in writes, with data that is read frequently, and can't be cached (constantly changes), you have to come up with another strategy. This could mean that you start to de-normalize your tables, by removing some of the normalization requirements you choose to satisfy, or something else. Instead of making smaller tables with less repetitive data, you make larger tables with more repetitive / redundant data. The advantage here is that your data is all in the same table, so you don't have to perform as many (or, any) JOINs to pull the data out. The drawback...writes are more expensive because you have to write in multiple places.
So with any given situation the developer(s) have to identify what kind of use the data structure is going to have to serve, and balance between any number of technologies and paradigms to achieve an acceptable solution that meets their needs. No two systems or solutions are the same which is why the employer is looking for someone with experience on how to deal with these large datasets. Finding these solutions is not something that can really be learned out of a book, it typically takes some experience in the field and experience with how different solutions performed.
I hope that helps. I know I rambled a bit, but it's really a lot of information. This is why DBAs make the big dollars (:
You need to know how to process the data in "chunks". That means instead of simply trying to manipulate the entire data set, you need to break it into smaller more manageable pieces. For example, if you had a table with 1 Billion records, a single update statement against the entire table would likely take a long time to complete, and may possibly bring the server to it's knees.
You could, however, issue a series of update statements within a loop that would update 20,000 records at a time. Each iteration of the loop you would increment your range/counters/whatever to identify the next set of records.
Also, you commit your changes at the end of each loop, thereby allowing you to stop the process and continue where you left off.
This is just one aspect of managing large data sets. You still need to know:
how to perform backups
proper indexing
database maintenance
You can raed/learn how to handle large dataset with MySQL But it is not equivalent to having actual experiences.
Straight and simple answer: Study about partitioned database and find appropriate MySQL data structure types for large scale datasets similar with the partitioned database architecture.
I have a main MySQL db set up, and a class to handle the queries to it. It runs real nice. I am building a custom advertising system on my site and I'm wondering if there is any benefit to creating a separate database all together to handle that system?
Is there any pitfalls to doing it either way?
Option #1 - one DB for main website function, one DB for advertising system
Option #2 - one DB for both main website function and advertising system
Well, you need a new connection for every Database you use, also you need a new instance of your DB-Class - both costs some (minimal) memory. I personally see no reason why you would need/want to do this. If you just want to separate the two things, maybe you could use a prefix like "adv_" for the advertisement tables.
Edit: another problem could come up if you ever want to combine (e.g. join) data of the two databases - you will have a much easier time if you do not use multiple databases.
Johnnietheblack, there is no easy answer here, and not even one right answer: different tables need different approaches, and sometimes you have to throw away an academic/more "secure" database model to improve performance & scalability.
It's always a matter of trade-offs. Based on my personal experience, I have some thoughts to share with you:
When you separate tables in different databases, you have more work to do in your data abstraction layers to keep referential integrity (you have to do the DB chores...) and to link information. On the other hand, it's easier to manage the databases (indexes, data files, query tunings, etc.).
Tables with high insert rate and low maintenance (update/delete) and where referential integrity is not that important - like log tables - are good candidates to be put in a separate database: although the I/O from inserts are heavy, the records don't change over time, they are rarely retrieved, and their indexes tend to be pretty simple (date/time and some other attribute). I have one case where the log file was so big (millions of records) that at a point a single insert was taking almost 1 sec. Since it has 500 thousand new records each day, it was a snowball: we cannot stop the system to tune the damn thing because it takes too long, and the system was shutting down because this log table was used everywhere and was impacting the business (75% of the procedures used this table).
Databases can eat THOUSANDS of records for breakfast, so for small tables (less than 1000 records) you generally don't need to worry about, just the big ones ( more than 5000). I have a friend DBA that simply does not create indexes for performance in most of the tables: he made some tests and discovered that their SQL Server was changing the query plan to TABLE SCANS for most of the tables. But be careful here: is strong medicine!
Try to think about SaaS when it comes to define if a new tables set should be put together inside a database: your advertising system needs to be tightly integrated with your website or it can be a separate component, reusable by other components? If it is the later, you should think about using separate databases, to minimize impacts when you update the schema, do maintenance in the new tables, etc.
There are so many other cases, but alas, we have so little time... The important thing here is to keep an open mind and try to forget a little bit about 3rd form academically perfect database models. Hope it helps!
I'm creating a forum app in php and have a question regarding database design:
I can get all the posts for a specific topic.All the posts have an auto_increment identity column as well as a timestamp.
Assuming I want to know who the topic starter was, which is the best solution?
Get all the posts for the topic and order by timestamp. But what happens if someone immediately replies to the topic. Then I have the first two posts with the same timestamp(unlikely but possible). I can't know who the first one was. This is also normalized but becomes expensive after the table grows.
Get all the posts for the topic and order by post_id. This is an auto_increment column. Can I be guaranteed that the database will use an index id by insertion order? Will a post inserted later always have a higher id than previous rows? What if I delete a post? Would my database reuse the post_id later? This is mysql I'm using.
The easiest way off course is to simply add a field to the Topics table with the topic_starter_id and be done with it. But it is not normalized. I believe this is also the most efficient method after topic and post tables grow to millions of rows.
What is your opinion?
Zed's comment is pretty much spot on.
You generally want to achieve normalization, but denormalization can save potentially expensive queries.
In my experience writing forum software (five years commercially, five years as a hobby), this particular case calls for denormalization to save the single query. It's perfectly sane and acceptable to store both the first user's display name and id, as well as the last user's display name and id, just so long as the code that adds posts to topics always updates the record. You want one and only one code path here.
I must somewhat disagree with Charles on the fact that the only way to save on performance is to de-normalize to avoid an extra query.
To be more specific, there's an optimization that would work without denormalization (and attendant headaches of data maintenance/integrity), but ONLY if the user base is sufficiently small (let's say <1000 users, for the sake of argument - depends on your scale. Our apps use this approach with 10k+ mappings).
Namely, you have your application layer (code running on web server), retrieve the list of users into a proper cache (e.g. having data expiration facilities). Then, when you need to print first/last user's name, look it up in a cache on server side.
This avoids an extra query for every page view (as you need to only retrieve the full user list ONCE per N page views, when cache expires or when user data is updated which should cause cache expiration).
It adds a wee bit of CPU time and memory usage on web server, but in Yet Another Holy War (e.g. spend more resources on DB side or app server side) I'm firmly on the "don't waste DB resources" camp, seeing how scaling up DB is vastly harder than scaling up a web or app server.
And yes, if that (or other equally tricky) optimization is not feasible, I agree with Charles and Zed that you have a trade-off between normalization (less headaches related to data integrity) and performance gain (one less table to join in some queries). Since I'm an agnostic in that particular Holy War, I just go with what gives better marginal benefits (e.g. how much performance loss vs. how much cost/risk from de-normalization)