I have a set of 5 million strings. These are currently stored in a single column MySQL table. My application has to perform lookups and check if a given string is in the set. This can of course be done with a HashSet (in Java). But instead of building a custom solution, I was wondering if there are any existing, widely used, proven solutions that do this? It seems like a common scenario. The solution should be scalable (the set might increase beyond 5 million), have failover (so probably distributed) and perform well under a huge number of requests. Any suggestions?
Update: My app can also query to check if a given set of strings is present in the global (the 5 million one) set.
You can try Trie or Patricia-trie.The second is more memory efficient.Also here you can find a comparison of 2 data structures [Trie,TreeSet],In-memory database and their performance.
Try memcached, a high-performance, distributed memory object caching system. You lookup using key/value hashes. Facebook uses memcached as do many other highly scalable sites. Need to store more strings? Just add more memcached instances to the cluster. Plus you can use in a 2-tier caching setup where you first query memcached, if cache miss then query the full database.
Have you considered adding column indexing to your MySQL database? Hash, b-tree and r-tree are supported.
MySQL can also be replicated and clustered for high scalability.
While a Trie might be the best solution, binary search on the sorted list of strings should also perform well run time wise.
Related
I'm thinking of re-architecting an RDS model to a DynamoDB one and it appears mostly to be working using a single-table design. We have, however a log table that can contain 5-10 million rows that are queried on many attributes.
Is there any pattern that might be applicable in migrating to DynamoDB or is this a case where full scans would be required and we would just be better off keeping the log stuff as a relational table?
Thanks in advance,
Nik
Those keywords and phrases "log" and "queried on many attributes" sound to me like DynamoDB is not the best solution for your log data. If the number of distinct queries is fairly limited and well-known in advance, you might be able to design your keys to fit your access patterns.
For example, if you commonly query on Color and Quantity attributes, you could design a key like COLOR#Red#QTY#25. And you could use secondary or global secondary indexes for queries involving other attributes similarly.
But it is not a great solution if you have many attributes that you need to query arbitrarily.
Alternative Solution: Another serverless option to consider is storing your log data in S3 and using Athena to query it using SQL.
You will likely be trading away a bit of latency and speed by taking this approach compared to RDS and DynamoDB. But queries against log data often don't need millisecond response times, so it can cover a lot of use cases.
Data modelling for DynamoDB
Write down all of your access patterns, in order of priority/most used
Research models which are similar to your use-case
Download NoSQL Workbench and create test models where you can visualize your ideas
Run commands against DynamoDB Local and test your access patterns are fulfilled.
Access Parterns
Your access patterns will ultimately decide if DynamoDB will suit your needs. If you need to query based on multiple fields you can have up to 20 Global Secondary Indexes which will give you some flexibility, but usually if you exceed 8-10 indexes then DynamoDB may not be a good choice or the schema is badly designed.
Use smart designs with sort-key and index-key overloading, it will allow you to group the data better and make your access patterns more efficient.
Log Data Use-case
Storing log data is a pretty common use-case for DynamoDB and many many AWS customers use it for that sole purpose. But I can't over emphasize the importance of understanding your access patterns and working backwards from those to create your model.
Alternatives
If you require query capability or free text search ability, then you could use DynamoDB integrations with OpenSearch (via Lambda/EventBridge) for example, with OpenSearch providing you the flexibility for your queries.
Doesn't seem like a good use case - I have done it and wasn't at all happy with the result - now I load 'log like' data into elasticsearch and much happier with the result.
In my case, I insert the data to dynamodb - to archive it - but also feed data in ES, but once in a while if I kill my ES cluster, I can reload all or some of the data from ddb.
Does GSI Overloading provide any performance benefits, e.g. by allowing cached partition keys to be more efficiently routed? Or is it mostly about preventing you from running out of GSIs? Or maybe opening up other query patterns that might not be so immediately obvious.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-gsi-overloading.html
e.g. I you have a base table and you want to partition it so you can query a specific attribute (which becomes the PK of the GSI) over two dimensions, does it make any difference if you create 1 overloaded GSI, or 2 non-overloaded GSIs.
For an example of what I'm referring to see the attached image:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsI50oUOFIx-CFp7zcYMij7KQc5hJGIa/view?usp=sharing
The base table has documents which can be in a published or draft state. Each document is owned by a single user. I want to be able to query by user to find:
Published documents by date
Draft documents by date
I'm asking in relation to the more recent DynamoDB best practice that implies that all applications only require one table. Some of the techniques being shown in this documentation show how a reasonably complex relational model can be squashed into 1 DynamoDB table and 2 GSIs and yet still support 10-15 query patterns.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-relational-modeling.html
I'm trying to understand why someone would go down this route as it seems incredibly complicated.
The idea – in a nutshell – is to not have the overhead of doing joins on the database layer or having to go back to the database to effectively try to do the join on the application layer. By having the data sliced already in the format that your application requires, all you really need to do is basically do one select * from table where x = y call which returns multiple entities in one call (in your example that could be Users and Documents). This means that it will be extremely efficient and scalable on the db level. But also means that you'll be less flexible as you need to know the access patterns in advance and model your data accordingly.
See Rick Houlihan's excellent talk on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaEPXoXVf2k for why you'd want to do this.
I don't think it has any performance benefits, at least none that's not called out – which makes sense since it's the same query and storage engine.
That being said, I think there are some practical reasons for why you'd want to go with a single table as it allows you to keep your infrastructure somewhat simple: you don't have to keep track of metrics and/or provisioning settings for separate tables.
My opinion would be cost of storage and provisioned throughput.
Apart from that not sure with new limit of 20
The problem:
I have a web service that needs to check membership of a given string against a set of strings, where number of elements in the set will be under constant growth, potentially numbering in the hundreds of millions.
If the string is not a member of the set, it gets added to the set. The string size will be a constant 32 bytes. Only one set variable is required, no other variables need to be persisted.
This check is performed as part of a callback on a webhook, thus performance is critical.
While my use case pretty much fits a bloom filter perfectly, I'm having trouble finding a solution to deal with the persistent storage vs i/o concurrency portion of the problem.
Environment:
DigitalOcean/Linux/Python/Flask, but open to change if required
Possible Solutions:
redis, storing the variable in a set, and then querying via sismember for a nice o(1) based solution. This is what we are currently using, but this solution doesn't scale well with a large number of keys given that everything must fit in memory, and it also has issues with write concurrency when traffic increases.
sqlite, with WAL mode turned on. concerned about lock contention when the server gets hit with a significant number of webhook requests (SQLITE_BUSY). Local server file doesn't scale across host machines.
postgres, seems like a nice middle ground solution, but might have to deal with lock contention here as well for write concurrency.
cassandra, given it's focus on write performance. overkill for storing a single column though?
custom bloom filter backend, not sure if something like this exists that provides the functionality of a bloom filter with a high i/o concurrency storage backend.
Thoughts?
The Redis solution can scale well with data sharding. You can set up several Redis instances (or use Redis-Cluster), split your data into several parts, i.e. shardings, and save each part in a different Redis instance.
When you want to check the membership of a given string, you can send the sismenber command to the corresponding Redis instance. Take this answer as an example of how to split data with hash functions.
Also, you can implement bloom filter with Redis (GETBIT and SETBIT). Just a reminder, bloom filter has the false positive problem.
First, you don't need to use sismember. Just do sadd systematically, and test the returned value. If it's 0, the value was already in the set, and so was not added. Doing so you will very easily reduce the number of requests to Redis.
Second, the description of your problem looks like a perfect match for Hbase, which is made for storing very large data set and query them using bloom filters. But you'll probably find it's overkill, just like Cassandra.
I have a reasonably complex query to extract the Id field of the results I am interested in based on parameters entered by the user.
After extracting the relevant Ids I am using the resulting set of Ids several times, in separate queries, to extract the actual output record sets I want (by joining to other tables, using aggregate functions, etc).
I would like to avoid running the initial query separately for every set of results I want to return. I imagine my situation is a common pattern so I am interested in what the best approach is.
The database is in MS SQL Server and I am using .NET 3.5.
It would definitely help if the question contained some measurements of the unoptimized solution (data sizes, timings). There is a variety of techniques that could be considered here, some listed in the other answers. I will assume that the reason why you do not want to run the same query repeatedly is performance.
If all the uses of the set of cached IDs consist of joins of the whole set to additional tables, the solution should definitely not involve caching the set of IDs outside of the database. Data should not travel there and back again if you can avoid it.
In some cases (when cursors or extremely complex SQL are not involved) it may be best (even if counterintuitive) to perform no caching and simply join the repetitive SQL to all desired queries. After all, each query needs to be traversed based on one of the joined tables and then the performance depends to a large degree on availability of indexes necessary to join and evaluate all the remaining information quickly.
The most intuitive approach to "caching" the set of IDs within the database is a temporary table (if named #something, it is private to the connection and therefore usable by parallel independent clients; or it can be named ##something and be global). If the table is going to have many records, indexes are necessary. For optimum performance, the index should be a clustered index (only one per table allowed), or be only created after constructing that set, where index creation is slightly faster.
Indexed views are cleary preferable to temporary tables except when the underlying data is read only during the whole process or when you can and want to ignore such updates to keep the whole set of reports consistent as far as the set goes. However, the ability of indexed views to always accurately project the underlying data comes at a cost of slowing down those updates.
One other answer to this question mentions stored procedures. This is largely a way of organizing your code. However, it if you go this way, it is preferable to avoid using temporary tables, because such references to a temporary table prevent pre-compilation of the stored procedure; go for views or indexed views if you can.
Regardless of the approach you choose, do not guess at the performance characteristics and query optimizer behavior. Learn to display query execution plans (within SQL Server Management Studio) and make sure that you see index accesses as opposed to nested loops combining multiple large sets of data; only add indexes that demonstrably and drastically change the performance of your queries. A well chosen index can often change the performance of a query by a factor of 1000, so this is somewhat complex to learn but crucial for success.
And last but not least, make sure you use UPDATE STATISTICS when repopulating the database (and nightly in production), or your query optimizer will not be able to put the indexes you have created to their best uses.
If you are planning to cache the result set in your application code, then ASP.NET has cache, Your Winform will have the object holding the data with it with which you can reuse the data.
If planning to do the same in SQL Server, you might consider using indexed views to find out the Id's. The view will be materialized and hence you can get the results faster. You might even consider using a staging table to hold the id's temporarily.
With SQL Server 2008 you can pass table variables as params to SQL. Just cache the IDs and then pass them as a table variable to the queries that fetch the data. The only caveat of this approach is that you have to predefine the table type as UDT.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb510489.aspx
For SQL Server, Microsoft generally recommends using stored procedures whenever practical.
Here are a few of the advantages:
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/04/13/sql-server-stored-procedures-advantages-and-best-advantage/
* Execution plan retention and reuse
* Query auto-parameterization
* Encapsulation of business rules and policies
* Application modularization
* Sharing of application logic between applications
* Access to database objects that is both secure and uniform
* Consistent, safe data modification
* Network bandwidth conservation
* Support for automatic execution at system start-up
* Enhanced hardware and software capabilities
* Improved security
* Reduced development cost and increased reliability
* Centralized security, administration, and maintenance for common routines
It's also worth noting that, unlike other RDBMS vendors (like Oracle, for example), MSSQL automatically caches all execution plans:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973918.aspx
However, for the last couple of versions of SQL Server, execution
plans are cached for all T-SQL batches, regardless of whether or not
they are in a stored procedure
The best approach depends on how often the Id changes, or how often you want to look it up again.
One technique is to simply store the result in the ASP.NET object cache, using the Cache object (also accessible from HttpRuntime.Cache). For example (from a page):
this.Cache["key"] = "value";
There are many possible variations on this theme.
You can use Memcached to cache values in the memory.
As I see there are some .net ports.
How frequently does the data change that you'll be querying? To me, this sounds like a perfect scenario for data warehousing, where you flatting the data for quicker data retrieval and create the tables exactly as your 'DTO' wants to see the data. This method is different than an indexed view in that it's simply a table which will have quick seek operations, and could especially be improved if you setup the indexes properly on the columns that you plan to query
You can create Global temporary Table. Create the table on the fly. Now insert the records as per your request. Access this table in your next request in your joins... for reusability
Here's my problem.
I want to ingest lots and lots of data .... right now millions and later billions of rows.
I have been using MySQL and I am playing around with PostgreSQL for now.
Inserting is easy, but before I insert I want to check if that particular records exists or not, if it does I don't want to insert. As the DB grows this operation (obviously) takes longer and longer.
If my data was in a Hashmap the look up would be o(1) so I thought I'd create a Hash index to help with lookups. But then I realised that if I have to compute the Hash again every time I will slow the process down massively (and if I don't compute the index I don't have o(1) lookup).
So I am in a quandry, is there a simple solution? Or a complex one? I am happy to try other datastores, however I need to be able to do reasonably complex queries e.g. something to similar to SELECT statements with WHERE clauses, so I am not sure if no-sql solutions are applicable.
I am very much a novice, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a trivial solution.
Nosql Stores are good for handling huge inserts and updates
MongoDB has really good feature for update/Insert (called as upsert) based on whether the document is existing.
Check out this page from mongo doc
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Updating#Updating-UpsertswithModifiers
Also you can checkout the safe mode in mongo connection. Which you can set it as false to get more efficiency in inserts.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Connections
You could use CouchDB. Its no SQL so you can't do queries per se, but you can create design documents that allow you to run map/reduce functions on your data.