I have a test server that uses data from a test database. When I'm done testing, it gets moved to the live database.
The problem is, I have other projects that rely on the data now in production, so I have to run a script that grabs the data from the tables I need, deletes the data in the test DB and inserts the data from the live DB.
I have been trying to figure out a way to improve this model. The problem isn't so much in the migration, since the data only gets updated once or twice a week (without any action on my part). The problem is having the migration take place only when it needs to. I would like to have my migration script include a quick check against the live tables and the test tables and, if need be, make the move. If there haven't been updates, the script quits.
This way, I can include the update script in my other scripts and not have to worry if the data is in sync.
I can't use time stamps. For one, I have no control over the tables on the live side once it goes live, and also because it seems a bit silly to bulk up the tables more for conviencience.
I tried doing a "SHOW TABLE STATUS FROM livedb" but because the tables are all InnoDB, there is no "Update Time", plus, it appears that the "Create Time" was this morning, leading me to believe that the database is backed up and re-created daily.
Is there any other property in the table that would show which of the two is newer? A "Newest Row Date" perhaps?
In short: Make the development-live updating first-class in your application. Instead of depending on the database engine to supply you with the necessary information to enable you to make a decision (to update or not to update ... that is the question), just implement it as part of your application. Otherwise, you're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
Without knowing what your data model is, and without understanding at all what your synchronization model is, you have a few options:
Match primary keys against live database vs. the test database. When test > live IDs, do an update.
Use timestamps in a table to determine if it needs to be updated
Use the md5 hash of a database table and modification date (UTC) to determine if a table has changed.
Long story short: Database synchronization is very hard. Implement a solution which is specific to your application. There is no "generic" solution which will work ideally.
If you have an autoincrement in your tables, you could compare the maximum autoincrement values to see if they're different.
But which version of mysql are you using?
Rather than rolling your own, you could use a preexisting solution for keeping databases in sync. I've heard good things about SQLYog's SJA (see here). I've never used it myself, but I've been very impressed with their other programs.
Related
I have a huge amount of data which is loaded from ETL tool into the database. Sometimes etl tool generates some unusual data and puts them inside a table, say for simlicity I want to fill 5 correct data and get 10 as a result in my database, so I detect the inconsistency.
As the option to update data to the state which I want I had to TRUNCATE the schema in MySQL database and INSERT data from ETL tool again under my control. In this case everything looks nice, but it takes too much time to reload data.
I investigated this issue and found out that to DELETE data and INSERT it again takes much more time as for example to use the query INSERT…..ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE. So I don‘t need to delete all data but can just check and update it when necessary, what will save my load time.
I want to use this query, but I am a little bit confused, because of these additional 5 wrong data, which are already sitting in my database. How can I remove them without deleting everything from my table before inserting??
as you mention
"Sometimes etl tool generates some unusual data and puts them inside
a table"
You need to investigate your ETL code and correct it. Its not suppose to generate any data, ETL tool only transforms your data as per rule. Focus on ETL code rather than MySQL database.
To me that sounds like there’s a problem in the dataflow setup in your ETL tool. You don’t say what you are using, but I would go back over the select criteria and review what fields you are selecting and what are your WHERE criteria. Perhaps what is in your WHERE statements is causing the extra data.
As for the INSERT…ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE syntax, make sure you don’t have an AUTO_INCREMENT column in an InnoDB table. Because in that case only the INSERT will increase the auto-increment value. And check that your table doesn’t have multiple unique indexes because if your WHERE a=xx matches several rows than only 1 will be updated. (MySQL 5.7, see reference manual: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/ .)
If you find that your ETL tools are not providing enough flexibility then you could investigate other options. Here is a good article comparing ETL tools.
I have a mysql query that is taking 8 seconds to execute/fetch (in workbench).
I won't go into the details of why it may be slow (I think GROUPBY isnt helping though).
What I really want to know is, how I can basically cache it to work more quickly because the tables only change like 5-10 times/hr, while users access the site 1000s times/hour.
Is there a way to just have the results regenerated/cached when the db changes so results are not constantly regenerated?
I'm quite new to sql so any basic thought may go a long way.
I am not familiar with such a caching facility in MySQL. There are alternatives.
One mechanism would be to use application level caching. The application would store the previous result and use that if possible. Note this wouldn't really work well for multiple users.
What you might want to do is store the report in a separate table. Then you can run that every five minutes or so. This would be a simple mechanism using a job scheduler to run the job.
A variation on this would be to have a stored procedure that first checks if the data has changed. If the underlying data has changed, then the stored procedure would regenerate the report table. When the stored procedure is done, the report table would be up-to-date.
An alternative would be to use triggers, whenever the underlying data changes. The trigger could run the query, storing the results in a table (as above). Alternatively, the trigger could just update the rows in the report that would have changed (harder, because it involves understanding the business logic behind the report).
All of these require some change to the application. If your application query is stored in a view (something like vw_FetchReport1) then the change is trivial and all on the server side. If the query is embedded in the application, then you need to replace it with something else. I strongly advocate using views (or in other databases user defined functions or stored procedures) for database access. This defines the API for the database application and greatly facilitates changes such as the ones described here.
EDIT: (in response to comment)
More information about scheduling jobs in MySQL is here. I would expect the SQL code to be something like:
truncate table ReportTable;
insert into ReportTable
select * from <ReportQuery>;
(In practice, you would include column lists in the select and insert statements.)
A simple solution that can be used to speed-up the response time for long running queries is to periodically generate summarized tables, based on underlying data refreshing or business needs.
For example, if your business don't care about sub-minute "accuracy", you can run the process once each minute and make your user interface to query this calculated table, instead of summarizing raw data online.
I'm trying to put together a testing environment for an API based service. Ideally, I'd like to have a default database each test begins with.
What makes this interesting is that I'd like to trigger writes, reads, updates all via the API, which will be hitting the database like any other normal day. I'm just trying to determine the best way of rolling back these changes. I'm aware of transactions, but those seem to be connection dependent and I can't guarantee each operation will use the same connection due to the nature of a web application.
My first-ditch attempt at this would likely involve importing the entire database each time. I know this will work, but it will likely be slow.
Transactions seem like they could work, but I am relatively new to using them in this way.
Transactions are not what you are looking for if you actually need to verify that test data has been written to a database. You will never have visible access to a transaction that has not been committed.
If you are doing this for unit testing of the code and you do not actually need to verify the data written in the database, then you should create a database mock to use instead of a real database. If you need to actually validate database writes, and if you know each test will only alter a few tables in the database, one thing you might want to do is have the SQL available to drop/create/populate the tables of concern such that you can do this before each test execution rather than having to deal with a full import of a mysqldump.
One tester I worked with before took a similar approach in having template tables in his testing database and made copies of each applicable table (using CREATE TABLE test_table LIKE template_table and INSERT INTO test_table SELECT * FROM template_table) before each test run and then just dropped the test tables in the tear down stage for each test.
If I'm working on a development server and have updates to the database structure for some of our releases, what is the best way to update the structure on the production server?
Currently we create a new production database containing the structure only, do a SQL dump of the data on the 'old' production database, then run a SQL query to insert the data into the new database.
I know there is an easier way to do these updates, right?
Thanks in advance.
We don't run anything on prod without a script and that script must be in source control. Additionally we have to write a rollback script in case the initial script goes bad and we have to back it out. And when we move to prod configuration management does a differential compare between prod and dev to see if we have missed anything in the production script (any differences have to be traceable to development we are not yet ready to move to prod and documented). A product like Red-gate's SQL compare can do this. Our process is very formalized so that we can maintain a certification required by our larger clients.
If you have large tables even alter table can be slow, but it's still generally more efficient in total time than making a copy of the table with a new name and structure, copying the data to that table, renaming the old table, then naming the new table the name of the orginal table, then deleting the old table.
However, there are times when that is a preferable process as the total down time apparent to the user in this case is the time it takes to rename two tables, so this is good for tables where the data only is filled from the backend not the application (if the application can update the tables, it is a dangerous practice to do this as you may lose changes made while the tables were in transition). A lot of what process to use depends on the nature of the change you are making. Some changes should be done in a maintenance window where the users are not allowed to access the database. For instance if you are adding a new field with a default value to a table with 100,000,000 records, you are liable to lock up the users from using the table while the update happens. It is better to do this in single user mode during off hours (and when the users are told in advance the database will not be available). Other changes only take milliseconds and can happen easily while users are logged in.
Look at alter table to change the schema
It might not be easier than your method but it means less copying of the database
This is actually quite a deep question. If the only changes you've made are to add some columns then ALTER TABLE is probably sufficient. But if you're renaming or deleting columns then ALTER statements may break various foreign key constraints. In addition, sometimes you need to make changes both to the database and the data, which is pretty much unscriptable.
Most likely the best way to automate this would be to write a simple script for each deployment (along with a script to roll back!) which is basically what some systems like Rails will do for you I believe. Some scripts might be simply ALTER statements, some might temporarily disable foreign-key checking and triggers etc, some might run some update statements as well. And some might be dumping the db and rebuilding it. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution here, sorry :)
Use the ALTER TABLE command: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/alter-table.html
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.