In my web application, I have a dynamic query that returns huge data to datatable, and this query is often recalled with different parameters. So database is exhausted.
I want to get all record with no parameters to an object, and perform queries (may be with linq) on this object. So database will not be exthausted.
Which objects can be used instead of datatable?
This is one of my pet peeves - people who return all the data from the database.
There is absolutely no need for this unless you are doing reporting.
If you are doing reporting, then you need to increase your hardware capability so that the database can cope. This may also include tuning your database, rearranging tables, reindexing, regular rebuilding of indexes, updating statistics, archiving out old data, etc.
If you are NOT doing reporting, then start limiting how much data can be queried at any one time. Users DO NOT need to see massive quantities of data all at once. They need to see discrete amounts of data presented in a manageable and coherent way.
Another rule of thumb i like to observe is: let your database server do the work, it is made to manipulate lots of data, it is what it is good at, and it should have the power to do it. Pulling back loads of data to the client, and then trying to manipulate that data on the client is a foolish thing to do. If your client machines are more powerful than the database server then you have issues.
Never ever perform this(except cache)!!!
You are trying to implement DB mechanisms, like
persistent storage
index search and query strategy
replication
and so on
Spend your time on db optimization(optimal scheme, indexes, query, partitioning).
Related
I have a list of user permissions. I'm thinking of pulling all the data from the UserPermission table, put it in cache and then filter it by userID using LINQ.
So the next time somebody tries to access the User Permission Screen, I'll have the data in cache and just filter and display the necessary base on the userID.
Is there any performance in doing it? Or still faster to filter it in the database/data layer?
There are 2 factors at play here
The speed of filtering the data via LINQ
The speed of filtering the data via SQL and returning that data from your data store to the application
Generally speaking, for small sets of data, the difference between 1. and 2. will be negligible.
For large sets of data with a small result, the 2. will have better performance
For large sets of data with a large result, the 1. will have better performance
But of course this generalisation is totally useless as it all depends on your environment and your code.
You need to weigh up latency vs performance vs stale data.
It's always different for different use cases...
But this kind of thing is already built into .net - look up ASP.NET Authorization Providers
I am writing an ASP.NET application with a SQLServer database in which I have to calculate rates for members of my application. These calculations affect more than 10 database tables.
I believe I have two options :
In the data access layer, fetch the data for a member from the first table in the database and return it to the business layer. Once there, perform some calculation on the fetched data to generate new data to be saved in a second table. Finally, call back into the data access layer to save the result. Afterwards, repeat this whole process, pulling information from the second table to calculate results to be saved in a third table, and keep doing this for all necessary tables.
Use a stored procedure to encapsulate calculating and saving the new rates for a member in the correct tables within a database transaction.
Which option do you think is best and why? If I use the first option, how should I perform all of the inserts and updates in one ADO.NET transaction from the business logic layer? I am currently barred from using an ADO.NET transaction outside of the data access layer.
IMO it depends on how much priority needs to be given for performance and modular design.
If this was a trading application where I would have to calculate the prices instantaneously from different tables, I would use a stored procedure
Better performance for certain amount of load but when it gets too much queries, then a distributed database becomes essential
One disadvantage is that if you want to move to a different database in the future (in most cases people don't), then you have to port the stored proc to the new ones
The other option I would have is to keep most of the values in a distributed cache (like memcache) and do the calculations in a business layer.
The values will be pre-populated into the cache and the cache will be refreshed as and when there are changes.
This gives flexibility in terms of removing the database dependency.
But it seems to me that your operations are quite heavily DB dependent in functionality and suggest a stored procedure route. If you think the second option of cache is possible, it is worth a try.
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
Background: I am using SQLite database in my flex application. Size of the database is 4 MB and have 5 tables which are
table 1 have 2500 records
table 2 have 8700 records
table 3 have 3000 records
table 4 have 5000 records
table 5 have 2000 records.
Problem: Whenever I run a select query on any table, it takes around (approx 50 seconds) to fetch data from database tables. This has made the application quite slow and unresponsive while it fetches the data from the table.
How can i improve the performance of the SQLite database so that the time taken to fetch the data from the tables is reduced?
Thanks
As I tell you in a comment, without knowing what structures your database consists of, and what queries you run against the data, there is nothing we can infer suggesting why your queries take much time.
However here is an interesting reading about indexes : Use the index, Luke!. It tells you what an index is, how you should design your indexes and what benefits you can harvest.
Also, if you can post the queries and the table schemas and cardinalities (not the contents) maybe it could help.
Are you using asynchronous or synchronous execution modes? The difference between them is that asynchronous execution runs in the background while your application continues to run. Your application will then have to listen for a dispatched event and then carry out any subsequent operations. In synchronous mode, however, the user will not be able to interact with the application until the database operation is complete since those operations run in the same execution sequence as the application. Synchronous mode is conceptually simpler to implement, but asynchronous mode will yield better usability.
The first time SQLStatement.execute() on a SQLStatement instance, the statement is prepared automatically before executing. Subsequent calls will execute faster as long as the SQLStatement.text property has not changed. Using the same SQLStatement instances is better than creating new instances again and again. If you need to change your queries, then consider using parameterized statements.
You can also use techniques such as deferring what data you need at runtime. If you only need a subset of data, pull that back first and then retrieve other data as necessary. This may depend on your application scope and what needs you have to fulfill though.
Specifying the database with the table names will prevent the runtime from checking each database to find a matching table if you have multiple databases. It also helps prevent the runtime will choose the wrong database if this isn't specified. Do SELECT email FROM main.users; instead of SELECT email FROM users; even if you only have one single database. (main is automatically assigned as the database name when you call SQLConnection.open.)
If you happen to be writing lots of changes to the database (multiple INSERT or UPDATE statements), then consider wrapping it in a transaction. Changes will made in memory by the runtime and then written to disk. If you don't use a transaction, each statement will result in multiple disk writes to the database file which can be slow and consume lots of time.
Try to avoid any schema changes. The table definition data is kept at the start of the database file. The runtime loads these definitions when the database connection is opened. Data added to tables is kept after the table definition data in the database file. If changes such as adding columns or tables, the new table definitions will be mixed in with table data in the database file. The effect of this is that the runtime will have to read the table definition data from different parts of the file rather than at the beginning. The SQLConnection.compact() method restructures the table definition data so it is at the the beginning of the file, but its downside is that this method can also consume much time and more so if the database file is large.
Lastly, as Benoit pointed out in his comment, consider improving your own SQL queries and table structure that you're using. It would be helpful to know your database structure and queries are the actual cause of the slow performance or not. My guess is that you're using synchronous execution. If you switch to asynchronous mode, you'll see better performance but that doesn't mean it has to stop there.
The Adobe Flex documentation online has more information on improving database performance and best practices working with local SQL databases.
You could try indexing some of the columns used in the WHERE clause of your SELECT statements. You might also try minimizing usage of the LIKE keyword.
If you are joining your tables together, you might try simplifying the table relationships.
Like others have said, it's hard to get specific without knowing more about your schema and the SQL you are using.
What are the pros/cons of de-normalizing an enterprise application database because it will make writing reports easier?
Pro - designing reports in SSRS will probably be "easier" since no joins will be necessary.
Con - developing/maintaining the app to handle de-normalized data will become more difficult due to duplication of data and synchronization.
Others?
Denormalization for the sake of reports is Bad, m'kay.
Creating views, or a denormalized data warehouse is good.
Views have solved most of my reporting related needs. Data warehouses are great when users will be generating reports almost constantly or when your views start to slow down.
This is why you want to normalize your database
To free the collection of relations from undesirable insertion, update and deletion dependencies;
To reduce the need for restructuring the collection of relations as new types of data are introduced, and thus increase the life span of application programs;
To make the relational model more informative to users;
To make the collection of relations neutral to the query statistics, where these statistics are liable to change as time goes by.
—E.F. Codd, "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model" via wikipedia
The only time you should consider de-normaliozation is when the time it takes the report to generate is not acceptable. De-normalization will cause consistentcy issues that are sometimes impossible to determine especially in large datasets
Don't denormalize just to get rid of complexity in reporting, it can cause huge problems in the rest of the application. Either you don't enforce the rules resulting in bad data or if you do then inserts, deletes and updates can be seriously slowed for everyone not just the two or three people who run reports.
If the reports truly can't run well, then create a data warehouse that is denormalized and populate it in a nightly or weekly feed. The kind of reports that typically need this do not generally care if the data is up-to-the minute as they are usually monthly, quarterly, or annual reports that process (and especially aggregate) large amounts of data after the fact.
You can do both... let the normalized database for applications.
Then create a denormalized database for reports, and create an application which regulary copy data from one database to the other.
After all, reports don't always need to have the latest updated data, most of the time you can easily launch an update every 1 hour on the reporting database, and only once a day day.
Beyond the data warehouse and views solutions provided in other answers, which are good in some ways, if you are willing to sacrifice some performance to get a good to the last second data, but still want a normalized database, you could use on Oracle a Materialized View with fast refresh on commit, or in Sql Server, you could use clustered indexes for a view.
Another Con is that the data is likely not to be real-time as there is some time moving around the data to go from a normalized form to a de-normalized. If someone wants the report to be up to the very second it was requested, that can be tough to do in this situation.
If this is a duplication of the synchronization in the original post, sorry I didn't quite see it that way.