I want to delete all data in "Realtime Database", without increasing "Usage Load" in "Realtime Database".
any idea for deleting that data?
is 420,000+ data in realtime database
Here is image
If you can help me, its very usefull..
Image Usage Load
There is support for deleting large nodes built into the Firebase CLI these days as explained in this blog How to Perform Large Deletes in the Realtime Database:
If you want to delete a large node, the new recommended approach is to use the Firebase CLI (> v6.4.0). The CLI automatically detects a large node and performs a chunked delete efficiently.
$ firebase database:remove /path/to/delete
My initial write-up is below. 👇 I'm pretty sure the CLI mentioned above implements precisely this approach, so that's likely a faster way to accomplish this, but I'm still leaving this explanation as it may be useful as background.
Deleting data is a write operation, so it's by definition going to put load on the database. Deleting a lot of data causes a lot of load, either as a spike in a short period or (if you spread it out) as a lifted load for a longer period. Spreading the load out is the best way to minimize impact for your regular users.
The best way to delete a long, flat list of keys (as you seem to have) is to:
Get a list of that keys, either from a backup of your database (which happens out of band), or by using the shallow parameter on the REST API.
Delete the data in reasonable batches, where reasonable depends on the amount of data you store per key. If each key is just a few properties, you could start deleting 100 keys per batch, and check how that impacts the load to determine if you can ramp up to more keys per batch.
Related
I have a very large collection of aprox 2 milions documents, all of them are outdated, and needed to be deleted.
I need to do this operation only one time, in the new data i have TTL (time to live) so i won't run into this problem again.
Sould i use the firestore console ui to delete those, or there is a better way to do this. is it possible to do this in one shot or sould i split it?
There's no single way that is pertinently better here.
The simplest option is probably to delete the documents from the console, but I often also use the Firebase CLI's firestore:delete command - and writing your own logic through the API is equally fine. Any of these can work fine, all will need to read the documents before deleting them, and none of them is going to be significantly faster than the other.
There's any way to list the kinds that are not being used in google's datastore by our app engine app without having to look into our code and/or logic? : )
I'm not talking about indexes, which I can list by issuing an
gcloud datastore indexes list
and then compare with the datastore-indexes.xml or index.yaml.
I tried to check datastore kinds statistics and other metadata but I could not find anything useful to help me on this matter.
Should I give up to find ways of datastore providing me useful stats and code something to keep collecting datastore statistics(like data size), during a huge period to have at least a clue of which kinds are not being used and then, only after this research, take a look into our app code to see if the kind Model was removed?
Example:
select bytes from __Stat_Kind__
Store it somewhere and keep updating for a period. If the Kind bytes size does not change than probably the kind is not being used anymore.
The idea is to do some cleaning in datastore.
I would like to find which kinds are not being used anymore, maybe for a long time or were created manually to be used once... You know, like a table in oracle that no one knows what is used for and then if we look into the statistics of that table we would see that this table was only used once 5 years ago. I'm trying to achieve the same in datastore, I want to know which kinds are not being used anymore or were used a while ago, then ask around and backup/delete it if no owner was found.
It's an interesting question.
I think you would be best-placed to audit your code and instill organizational practice that requires this documentation to be performed in future as a business|technical pre-prod requirement.
IIRC, Datastore doesn't automatically timestamp Entities and keys (rightly) aren't incremental. So there appears no intrinsic mechanism to track changes short of taking a snapshot (expensive) and comparing your in-flight and backup copies for changes (also expensive and inconclusive).
One challenge with identifying a Kind that appears to be non-changing is that it could be referenced (rarely) by another Kind and so, while it does not change, it is required.
Auditing your code and documenting it for posterity should not only provide you with a definitive answer (and identify owners) but it pays off a significant technical debt that has been incurred and avoids this and probably future problems (e.g. GDPR-like) requirements that will arise in the future.
Assuming you are referring to records being created/updated, then I can think of the following options
Via the Cloud Console (Datastore > Dashboard) - This lists all your 'Kinds' and the number of records in each Kind. Theoretically, you can take a screen shot and compare the counts so that you know which one has experienced an increase or not.
Use of Created/LastModified Date columns - I usually add these 2 columns to most of my datastore tables. If you have them, then you can have a stored function that queries them. For example, you run a query to sort all of your Kinds in descending order of creation (or last modified date) and you only pull the first record from each one. This tells you the last time a record was created or modified.
I would write a function as part of my App, put it behind a page which requires admin privilege (only app creator can run it) and then just clicking a link on my App would give me the information.
I am creating an application that uses cloud firestore to store data about "events" in our lab on several assets. We collected data for a few months and we are averaging about 2000 events per asset per month. Each event captures a few pieces of meta data that the user can query.
I imported all the data into firestore with a very simple layout at first.
Events (Collection of event data)
-> EventData (documents which contains a few fields for metadata)
From my understanding, even if the collection of events becomes quite large, for billing and speed of queries this won't be a problem (assuming I do some sort of pagination on the query results). The composite indexes are also very manageable with this structure.
The problem I see, is if someone goes and looks at the firestore console and brings that collection up, our read requests go through the roof. It seems that does a full read on the entire collection...which of course will kill us on billing as time goes on. I don't see this as a problem forever as eventually we should get to the point where everything is stable and won't need to go into the console very often, but what if someone does when we have a million or more records.
My next thought was to structure the database like this:
Events -> Assets -> {Asset_Name } -> {year_month} -> {Collection of
Document with field meta-data}
This certainly solves the issue of the ever growing collection of documents. The number of assets that we have is fixed, and the number of events is (effectively) capped to a maximum amount per month as well. The problem with this setup, however, is managing composite indexes. There are about 5 indexes needed for my original setup. I think this alternative setup means I would need to setup the same 5 indexes for each each collection of documents for every asset every month.
I thought maybe there could be a way to have a cloud function manage it for me (it doesn't appear there is an API for this). I think the number of indexes per project is also capped.
So, in the end, I am looking for recommendations on how to structure this database to limit reads if using the console, as well as keeping the indexes manageable. I am pretty new to NoSQL and perhaps I am just completely off.
I recommend you keep your structure as is if that's what's working for you. You should not need to optimize for reducing console reads. Console reads do count towards your usage but the console does not load the entire collection when you open the console.
The console loads just enough documents to let you scroll a bit and then it loads more documents if you scroll down. It will only load the entire collection if you scroll through the entire collection.
I'm trying to do the following periodically (lets say once a week):
download a couple of public datasets
merge them together, resulting in a dictionary (I'm using Python) of ~2.5m entries
upload/synchronize the result to Cloud Datastore so that I have it as "reference data" for other things running in the project
Synchronization can mean that some entries are updated, others are deleted (if they were removed from the public datasets) or new entries are created.
I've put together a python script using google-cloud-datastore however the performance is abysmal - it takes around 10 hours (!) to do this. What I'm doing:
iterate over the entries from the datastore
look them up in my dictionary and decide if the need update / delete (if no longer present in the dictionary)
write them back / delete them as needed
insert any new elements from the dictionary
I already batch the requests (using .put_multi, .delete_multi, etc).
Some things I considered:
Use DataFlow. The problem is that each tasks would have to load the dataset (my "dictionary") into memory which is time and memory consuming
Use the managed import / export. Problem is that it produces / consumes some undocumented binary format (I would guess entities serialized as protocol buffers?)
Use multiple threads locally to mitigate the latency. Problem is the google-cloud-datastore library has limited support for cursors (it doesn't have an "advance cursor by X" method for example) so I don't have a way to efficiently divide up the entities from the DataStore into chunks which could be processed by different threads
How could I improve the performance?
Assuming that your datastore entities are only updated during the sync, then you should be able to eliminate the "iterate over the entries from the datastore" step and instead store the entity keys directly in your dictionary. Then if there are any updates or deletes necessary, just reference the appropriate entity key stored in the dictionary.
You might be able to leverage multiple threads if you pre-generate empty entities (or keys) in advance and store cursors at a given interval (say every 100,000 entities). There's probably some overhead involved as you'll have to build a custom system to manage and track those cursors.
If you use dataflow, instead of loading in your entire dictionary you could first import your dictionary into a new project (a clean datastore database), then in your dataflow function you could load the key given to you through dataflow to the clean project. If the value comes back from the load, upsert that to your production project, if it doesn't exist, then delete the value from your production project.
I have a messaging app, where all messages are arranged into seasons by creation time. There could be billions of messages each season. I have a task to delete messages of old seasons. I thought of a solution, which involves DynamoDB table creation/deletion like this:
Each table contains messages of only one season
When season becomes 'old' and messages no longer needed, table is deleted
Is it a good pattern and does it encouraged by Amazon?
ps: I'm asking, because I'm afraid of two things, met in different Amazon services -
In Amazon S3 you have to delete each item before you can fully delete bucket. When you have billions of items, it becomes a real pain.
In Amazon SQS there is a notion of 'unwanted behaviour'. When using SQS api you can act badly regarding SQS infrastructure (for example not polling messages) and thus could be penalized for it.
Yes, this is an acceptable design pattern, it actually follows a best practice put forward by the AWS team, but there are things to consider for your specific use case.
AWS has a limit of 256 tables per region, but this can be raised. If you are expecting to need multiple orders of magnitude more than this you should probably re-evaluate.
You can delete a table a DynamoDB table that still contains records, if you have a large number of records you have to regularly delete this is actually a best practice by using a rolling set of tables
Creating and deleting tables is an asynchronous operation so you do not want to have your application depend on the time it takes for these operations to complete. Make sure you create tables well in advance of you needing them. Under normal circumstances tables create in just a few seconds to a few minutes, but under very, very rare outage circumstances I've seen it take hours.
The DynamoDB best practices documentation on Understand Access Patterns for Time Series Data states...
You can save on resources by storing "hot" items in one table with
higher throughput settings, and "cold" items in another table with
lower throughput settings. You can remove old items by simply deleting
the tables. You can optionally backup these tables to other storage
options such as Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3). Deleting an
entire table is significantly more efficient than removing items
one-by-one, which essentially doubles the write throughput as you do
as many delete operations as put operations.
It's perfectly acceptable to split your data the way you describe. You can delete a DynamoDB table regardless of its size of how many items it contains.
As far as I know there are no explicit SLAs for the time it takes to delete or create tables (meaning there is no way to know if it's going to take 2 seconds or 2 minutes or 20 minutes) but as long your solution does not depend on this sort of timing you're fine.
In fact the idea of sharding your data based on age has the potential of significantly improving the performance of your application and will definitely help you control your costs.