I am starting to use Firebase to store data information. I learned that it is better to have it in a narrow structure instead of deep structure.
I have the following structure:
MainDetail
-Kd92jd93kaod93 <----ID
-Kfirkd9rmtiepr
-.....More than 1 million more
The question I have is that, I have over a million data and over a million ID's will be stored in a linear sequence under each main nodes like above.
Is this a good approach to have all the ids in one nodes? or should I break it down further such as by a date? Like...
01_MainDetail
-20170902
-Kd92jd93kaod93
-Kfirkd9rmtiepr
-....
-20170901
-Kd92jd93rt4e3
-Kfer5hrmtiepr
-....
-....
This contradicts what I read online as now I am not making it narrow and having multiple children.
What is the right approach when I have lots of data?
There is no realistic limit on the number of child nodes under a node. It all depends on how you want to access those child nodes. Specifically:
Querying long lists of data will always take more time than querying a shorter list of data.
Reading a list of nodes will always be faster that querying for those same nodes from a longer list.
See these answers for more:
How many records / rows / nodes is alot in firebase?
Firebase Performance: How many children per node?
Does Firebase limitToLast() take increasing longer as a child's record count grows?
It is often best to partition data to match with how you want to access it. The second data structure you show is an example of that, since it allows you to access the nodes for a specific date without needing to query for them.
The Good approach is to keep data organised like you said in chunks of dates under parent node.
This approach will not be a source of trouble for you.
Related
I am populating a series of dates and temperatures that I was thinking of storing in a Firestore Database to later be consumed by the front-end with the following structure:
{
date: ['1920-01-01', '1920-01-02', '1920-01-03', '1920-01-04', '1920-01-05', ...],
values: [20, 18, 19.5, 20.5, ...]
}
The array may consider a lot of years, so it turns huge, with thousands of entries. Firestore database started complaining about returning the too many index entries for entity error, and even if I get the data uploaded, the user interface Firebase -> Firebase Database -> Panel View collapses. That happens even with less than 3000 entries array.
The fact is that the data is consumed in the front-end with an array structure very similar to the one described above (I want to plot it using Echarts library). This way, I found this structure to be the more natural way, as any other alternative will require reversing the structure to arrays in the front-end.
Nevertheless, I see that Firestore Database very clearly does not like this structure. What should I do? What is the best practice for dealing with this kind of data in Firestore?
The indexes required for the most basic queries in Firestore are automatically created for you. However, there are some limits involved. So you're getting the following error:
too many index entries for entity
Because you hit the maximum number of index entries for a document, which is 40,000. If you add too many elements into an array or you add too many fields to a document, then you can reach the maximum limit.
So most likely the number of elements that exist in the date array + the number of elements that exist in the values array is bigger than 40k, hence the error.
To solve this, you might consider creating two separate documents, one for each array. If you still hit the maximum limit, then you might consider creating a document for each hour, and not for an entire day. In this way, you'll drastically reduce the number of elements that exist in an array.
If you don't find these solutions useful, then you have to set some "Single-field index exemptions" to avoid the above error.
Firestore is not the best tool to deal with time series. The best solution I found in Firestore was creating an independent document for each day in my data. Nevertheless, that raises the number of documents I need to fetch from the front-end side and, therefore, the costs.
By using large arrays in Firestore, you easily reach the index limit, and you are forced to remove the index, which I feel is a big red flag, suggesting checking another tool.
The solution I found, in case is useful for anyone, was building my API in Flask using MongoDB as a database. Although it takes more effort than just using Firestore, it deals better with time series and brings more flexibility.
I am setting up a Serverless application for a system and I am wondering the following:
Say that my table handle Companies. Each Company can have Invoices. Each company has roughly 6-8000 Invoices. Say that I have 14 Companies, that results in roughly 112 000 items in my table.
Is it "okay" to handle it this way? I will only pay for each Get request I do, and I can query a lot of items into the same get request.
I will not fetch every single item each time I write or get items.
So, is there a recommendation for how many items I should max have in a table? I could bake some items together, but I mainly want a general recommendation.
There is no practical limit to the number of items you can have in a table. How many items each invoice is depends on your application's access patterns. You need to ask, what data does your app need, when does it need that data, and how large is the data, how often is the item updated. For example, if all the data in one item comes in under the 1Kb WCU and 4Kb RCU and you do not write to it often, and when you read it, you need all of the data in the item, then shove it in one item perhaps. If the data is larger, or part of it gets written to more often, then perhaps split it up.
An example might be a package tracking app. You have the initial information about the package, size, weight, source address, destination address, etc. That could be a lot of data. When that package enters a sorting facility it is checked in. Do you want to update that entire item you already wrote? Or do you just write an item that has the same PK (item collection), but a different SK and then the info that it made it to the sorting facility? When it leaves the sorting facility, you want to write to the DB that it left, which truck it was on, etc. Same questions.
Now when you need to present the shipping information by tracking ID number, the PK, you can do a query to DynamoDB and get the entire item collection for that tracking ID number. Therefore you get all items with that ID as your app presents much of that information on the tracking web site for the customer.
So again, it really depends on the app and your access patterns, but you want to TRY to only read and write the items your app needs, when you need them, how you need them, and no more...within reason (there is such a thing as over slicing your data). That is how, in my opinion, you will make a NoSQL database like DynamoDB be the most performant and most cost effective.
Dynamo Db won't even notice 100K entries...
As mentioned by LifeOfPi, entries should be less than 400k.
The question indicates a distinct lack of understanding of what/why/how to use DDB. I suggest you do some more learning. The AWS Reinvent videos around DDB are quite useful.
In a standard RDBMS, you need to know the structure from the beginning. Accessing that data is then very flexible.
DDB is the opposite, you need to understand how you'll need to access you data; the structure is not important. You should end up with something like so:
For 100K items and for most applications, you may find Aurora serverless to be an easier fit for your needs; especially if you have complicated searching and/or sorting needs.
I read in Neo4j documentation a section about how to make queries that depends on time more efficient:
One way to model time-specific data and relationships is by including
data in the relationship type. Because Neo4j is optimized specifically
for traversing relationships between entities, you can often improve
query performance by specifying a date as the relationship type and
only traversing particular dated relationships.
But I was wondering, using this technique you will have to repeat the same things any time you want to make the time-based-queries more efficient. For example if you want to query the posts created by specific user at specific date you have to add (similarly to AirportDay) something like UserDay.
My question is there a possible way to model time universally in your graph?, so that time become the main entry-point to query events and activities in the graph.
There's no answer to modelling time universally in your graph. It depends on your use cases.
The example in your post is one way to optimise non-performant queries that traverse too many relationships of the same type from a node.
You could also store time as a property on the node, and index it.
And then there's the option of a timetree https://graphaware.com/neo4j/2014/08/20/graphaware-neo4j-timetree.html
To summarise, it depends on your use cases- usually no need to prematurely optimise.
I have many (order of 100s) pieces of data that I want to associate with a document in CosmosDB. Each piece of data is small (order of 100s of bytes).
My first solution was to store the data as an array inside the document. This works okay, but in order to append a new item to the array I need to read the document from CosmosDB, add the element, then replace the document back into CosmosDB.
Instead of doing this I would like to store each piece of data as its own document in the same partition. What are the drawbacks of having many tiny documents vs the one aggregated document?
What are the drawbacks of having many tiny documents vs the one
aggregated document?
I would like to say that i suggest you storing each piece of data,instead of one aggregated document.
Reason1:As you mentioned in your question,if you want to add the element into the document,you need to read the document from CosmosDB, then replace the document because the partial update is not supported by cosmos db so far.(Please refer to this feedback and follow it if you need:https://feedback.azure.com/forums/263030-azure-cosmos-db/suggestions/6693091-be-able-to-do-partial-updates-on-document) That's a huge and tedious work.
Reason2:If you store pieces of data,you can query them flat. (select * from c)
For one single array document,you need to use join to access the nested properties.(select a.array from c join array in c.array)
Reason3:If you store pieces of data,you could manage them into different partitions.Even though you don't need it now,why not keep the feature for the future.
Reason4:As to cost,it all depends the RUs and storage and requests to cosmos db will consume RUs. If you store pieces of data,you just need to access the specific document as you want which is more economical i think.
Depends on your use case.
For frequent add operations, you are first reading and updating the document back (2 operations) which will incur you more cost than creating a new document (1 operation).
However, if the documents are having some sort of relationships (like foreign keys in traditional SQL), getting data would require multiple queries if you go with approach #1 above (have more cost) otherwise, you'll get the complete data in a single query (low cost).
I'd recommend to go through this and this posts which will give you better insights on which approach you can choose.
I'm facing this question right now and I want to let my contribution here. I'm having to store some statuses, this status is a metric that I get once per hour, then i have two options:
Create a register per status -> 24 registers per day
Create a register per day and add status inside it -> 1 register per day with 24 status inside an array
I chose the second one because:
Both options will have the same amount of operations on database
I'm using this data on Power BI and after doing some tests the data from second option had a small size after importation
Consider a set of data called Library, which contains a set of Books and each book contains a set of Pages.
Let's say you are using Riak to store this data, and you need to be access the data in two possible ways:
- Query for a particular page (with a unique id)
- Query for all pages in a particular book (with a unique name)
Additionally, you need to be able to easily update and delete pages of a particular Book.
What would be the best way to accomplish this in Riak?
Obviously Riak Search will do the trick, but maybe is inefficient for what I am trying to do. I am wondering if it makes sense to set up buckets where each bucket can be a Book (which would make for potentially millions of "Book" buckets). Maybe that is a bad idea...
Can this be accomplished with secondary indexes?
I am trying to keep this simple...
I am new to Riak and I am trying to find the best way to accomplish something that is probably relatively simple. I would appreciate any help from the Stack Overflow community. Thanks!
A common way to model master-detail relationships in Riak is to have the master record contain a list of detail record IDs, possibly together with some information about the detail record that may be useful when deciding which detail records to retrieve.
In your example, you could have two buckets called 'books' and 'pages'. The master record in the 'books' bucket will contain metadata and information about the book as a whole together with a list of pages that are included in the book. Each page would contain the ID of the 'pages' record holding the page data as well as the corresponding page number. If you e.g. wanted to be able to query by chapter, you could also add information about which chapters a certain page belongs to.
The 'pages' bucket would contain the text of the page and possibly links to images and other media data that are included on that page. This data could be stored in yet another bucket.
In order to get a specific page or a range of pages, one would first retrieve the master record from the 'books' bucket and then based on the contents of the record the appropriate pages. Even though this requires several GET operations, they are all direct lookups based on keys, which is the most efficient and scalable way to retrieve data from Riak, so it is will perform and scale well.
This approach also makes it simple to change the order of pages and/or chapters as only the master record needs to be updated. Adding, deleting or modifying pages would however require both the master record as well as one or more detail records to be updated, added or deleted.
You can most certainly also solve this problem by adding secondary indexes to the objects and query based on this. Secondary index queries in Riak does however have to include processing on a covering set (generally ring size / n_val) of partitions in order to fulfil the request, and therefore puts a bit more load on the system and generally results in higher latencies than retrieving a single object containing keys through a direct key lookup (which only needs to involve the partitions where the object is actually stored).
Although maintaining a separate object containing indexes adds a bit of extra work when inserting or deleting pages/entries, this approach will generally result in more efficient reads, as only direct key lookups are required. If your application is heavy on reads, it probably makes sense to use this approach, while secondary indexes could be more efficient for a write heavy application as inserts and modifications are made cheaper at the expense of more expensive reads. You can however always add secondary indexes just in case in order to keep your options open.
In cases like this I would usually recommend performing some benchmarks to test the solutions and chech which solution that best matches you particular performance and scaling requirements.
The most efficient way will be to store hole book as an one object, and duplicate it's pages as another separate objects.
Pros:
you will be able to select any object by its key(the most cheapest op
in riak is kv query)
any query will be predicted by latency
this is natural way of storing for riak
Cons:
If you need to update any page you must update whole book, and then page. As riak doesn't have atomic ops, you must to think how to recover any failure situation (like this: book was updated, but page was not).
Riak is about availability predictable latency, so if you will use something like 2i to collect results, it will make unpredictable time query, which will grow with page numbers