I am designing database for fleet management system.
I will be getting n number of records every 3 seconds. Obviously, there will be millions of record in my table where I am going to store current Information of vehicle in the current_location table. Here performance is an BIG issue.
To solve this, I received the following suggestions:
Create a separate table for each vehicle.
Here a table will be created at a run time as as soon as I click on create new table.And all the data related to particular table will be inserted and retrieve from that particular table.
Go for partition.
Please answer the following questions about these solutions.
What is difference between the two?
Which is best and why?
At what point will the number of rows in the tables cause performance issues?
Are there any other solutions?
Now ---if I go for range partition in sql server 2008 what should i do to,
partition using varchar(20).
i am planning to do partition based on vehicle no. eg MH30 q 1234.
Here In vehicle no. lets say mh30 q 1234--only 30 & q going to change....so my question is HOW SHOULD I GO. means how should write the partition function.
***1st this question was asked for my sql..now for sql server
********sorry guys now I shifted from my sql to sql server*****With The same question
definitely use partitioning. why go to all of the hassle to figure out which table to use to answer a question when mysql will do it for you? and good luck find the current location of all of your trucks if you're not using partitioning!
partitioning gives you the performance benefits of multiple tables, but with automatic pruning (selection of just the tables needed to answer the query).
nothing is ever "best". the question is: what is best for your problem?
this is impossible to answer. you will just have to monitor your system for performance issues and adjust server settings or scale as necessary.
at least as far as mysql is concerned, none as good as partitioning!
Don't bother with partitioning for 28,800 rows per day.
We don't (yet) with over 5 million per day. (The "yet" means we have no business input on what data retention policy they want)
There should be very little performance difference between making a separate table for each vehicle, and making the vehicle ID the first field in the primary key. You get the same grouping on disk either way, and mysql should have no trouble with millions of rows in a table.
Partitions are only useful if you have multiple disks on your machine and want to spread the load across disks.
So I guess my answer is do neither. Designing this in a priori seems overkill.
One thing I want to point out is that having one table (which you can partition later when you need to) will be much easier to maintain both in the database and in terms of querying the data.
Related
I am trying to understand the limitations of DynamoDB/NoSQL, mostly as a learning exercise. I came across a problem that is fairly simple in a relational database, but I cannot figure out how to accomplish it in DynamoDB even with full control of rebuilding the tables and indexes.
Problem: Every day everyone in an office chooses one fruit for lunch. At the end of the week, I just want a list of everyone who ate both an apple and a banana.
Example Data
I thought employee name should be the PK, day of the week should be the SK.. and Fruit would be an attribute. But that doesn't seem to work, because you cant query against an attribute.
Is there a way to structure the data to make this work? Is there another tool like OpenSearch, HiveQL, GraphQL that can help me do what i am trying to do here?
Thanks.
When you say it's "fairly simple in a relational database", what you mean is it's simple to express, not exactly simple to compute. You're pushing a lot of list intersection work to the database. As your data set grows, the response time for your query will get slower and slower. At some point the database will no longer be able to give you the answer. And while it's consuming CPU (before timing out) you're negatively impacting the load on the relational database server for other users.
With DynamoDB you can't express queries that take unbounded effort to compute or that depend so much on total data set size for their performance characteristics. You have to design a query system up front that doesn't get exponentially slower as the data set grows.
The DynamoDB design then depends on what you know up front. For example, do you know it's always the intersection of an apple and banana? Then during insert of a new food note if the person ate both, and mark them as such on a user metadata item. Use that marker later during the query phase.
Sound like a nuisance? Well, if your data set isn't growing large and/or you don't need reliably fast query performance, then a relational database solves this problem well. Different databases for different purposes.
DynamoDB also supports SCAN and not only QUERY.
A simple design for the table is to have the PK to be the name of the person, and the attributes will be the numeric values of the fruits that you can increase every day.
UPDATE "FRUIT_COUNTS"
SET BANANA=BANANA + 1
WHERE Employee='Bob'
Then, at the end of the week, you can run a simple PartiQL query on the table:
SELECT * FROM "FRUIT_COUNTS"
WHERE BANANA > 0 AND APPLE > 0
I'm building an application in ASP.NET(VB) with a MS SQL database. It is a search tool for cars that has a list of every car and all of their attributes (colors, # of doors, gas milage, mfg. year, etc). This tool outputs the results in a gridview and the users has the ability to perform advanced searches and filtering. The filtering needs to be very fine-grained (range of gas milage, color(s), mfg year range, etc.) and I cannot seem to find the best way to do this filtering without a large SQL where statement that is going to greatly impact SQL performance and page load. I feel like I'm missing something very obvious here, thank you for any help. I'm not sure what other details would be helpful.
This is not an OLTP database you're building--it's really an analytics database. There really isn't a way around the problem of having to filter. The question is whether the organization of the data will allow seeks most of the time, or will it require scans; and also whether the resulting JOINs can be done efficiently or not.
My recommendation is to go ahead and create the data normalized and all, as you are doing. Then, build a process that spins it into a data warehouse, denormalizing like crazy as needed, so that you can do filtering by WHERE clauses that have to do a lot less work.
For every single possible search result, you have a row in a table that doesn't require joining to other tables (or only a few fact tables).
You can reduce complexity a bit for some values such as gas mileage, by striping the mileage into bands of, say, 5 mpg. (10-19, 20-24, 25-29, etc.)
As you need to add to the data and change it, your data-warehouse-loading process (that runs once a day perhaps) will keep the data warehouse up to date. If you want more frequent loading that doesn't keep clients offline, you can build the data warehouse to an alternate node, then swap them out. Let's say it takes 2 hours to build. You build for 2 hours to a new database, then swap to the new database, and all your data is only 2 hours old. Then you wipe out the old database and use the space to do it again.
Background:
I'm using SQL Server 2008 and ASP.NET 4 on Windows 2008
I have one table with about 10 million rows of products that I make available online for users to browse -- not search. Each of the 10 million products have extra attributes -- like categories -- that I keep in lookup tables -- there are three or four lookup tables.
Problem
When someone browses and starts using filters (shipping location, price, quality, brand), I need to join the tables, apply all the filters, and return the results. It's very slow and I want to make it faster. Sometimes users will apply a very broad filter, resulting in 800,000 results, and though I only return the first 10 of those for browsing, I still need to run the query for the full 800,000.
What I've Tried Already
I've joined all the information from the various tables into one physical table and then created a covering index for the table.
The queries are much faster, but there is a good bit of maintenance I have to do on the table behind the scenes with jobs to make sure if something goes out of stock I take it out within a reasonable time frame (5 mins or so).
I don't use materialized/indexed views b/c I've got aggregates in the results which SQL Server doesn't seem to like.
Question
How can I speed up browse results beyond the indexing and table optimization that I've already done? I'm not doing any full-text searches -- I'm filtering with exact parameters.
Possible Solutions I've Thought Of
Large caching solution -- AppFabric or MemCached. I'm know next to nothign about these and don't know they are appropriate.
Small caching solution -- Maybe leveraging ASP.NET caching -- but every person is going to apply different filters so I'm not sure how much this will give me.
SSDs -- as a larger-scale solution I've thought about getting SSDs but that will be down the road
CDN -- I don't think a CDN will help b/c the bottleneck here is my database's search capabilities, not the bandwidth/distance to the requester.
I had a similar problem with a complex join query causing horrible response times. I was able to solve it via using Lucene.NET. It's a .NET implementation of the Lucene search index. Basically, you build indexes on data fields (your categories) and then you can search via those categories and return thousands of rows very quickly. Basically, it takes the join operation out of the equation because it already knows, via the indexes, which records fit your criteria.
The following is a very good article on Lucene.NET. I highly recommend it. It took a search result that was taking 20 seconds using standard joins and reduced the response time to less than a second.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/29755/Introducing-Lucene-Net
Also, feel free to ping me if you have specific Lucene.NET implmenetation questions. I just got through a lot of research/learning in order to implement it properly on my site, so if you have specific questions on how to make it work I may be able to help with that as well.
"I perform the full query b/c I need to populate the new filters and
the number of results along with the search results. For example, if
someeone filters on category of "Shoes", and location of TX, some of
the other filters are going to be restricted based on the previous
filter."
Try executing two queries: One to count all results and one to select the top N. Maybe your bottleneck is copying 800,000 rows to the client. Doing two queries would fix this at the cost of an additional query. The cost is likely to be less than 2x though due to optimizations for few rows and for count-only queries.
I am relatively new to sql(ite), and I'm learning as I go while working on a new project.
We have got millions of transaction rows in one "data" table, one field being a "sessionid" field.
Since I want to concentrate on in-session activity for now, I primarily need to look only at transactions from the same sessions.
My intuition now is, that it would be a lot faster if I separate the database by sessions into many single session tables, than always querying for a single sessionid, and then proceeding. My question: is that correct? will that make a difference?
Even if not: Could you help me out and tell me, how I could split the one "data" table rows into many session-specific tables, the rows staying the same? Plus one table which relates sessionIds to their tables?
Thanks!
A friend just told me, the splitting-into-tables thing would be extremely unflexible, and I should try adding a distinct index instead for the different sessionId rows to access single sessions faster. Any thoughts on that and how to do it best?
First of all, are you having any specific performance bottleneck with it till now? If yes, please describe it.
Having one table per session will probably speed lookups/indexes (for INSERTs) things up.
SQLite doesn't impose a limit on the number of tables, so you should be okay.
One other solution that provides easier maintenance, is if you create one table per day/week.
Depending on how long your sessions last, this could be feasible or not.
Related: https://stackoverflow.com/a/811862/89771
I have over 1.500.000 data entries and it's going to increase gradually over time. This huge amount of data would come from 150 regions.
Now should I create 150 tables to manage this increasing huge data? Will this be efficient? I need fast operation. ASP.NET and Oracle will be used.
If all the data is the same, don't split it in to different tables. Take a look at Oracle's table partitions. One-hundred fifty partitions (or more) split out by region (or more) is probably more in line with what you're going to be looking for.
I would also recommend you look at the Oracle Database Performance Tuning Tips & Techniques book and browse Ask Tom on Oracle's website.
Only 1.5 M rows? Not a lot really...
Use one table; working out how to write a 150-way union across 150 tables will be murder.
1.5 million rows doesn't really seem like that much. How many people are accessing the table(s) at any given point? Do you have any indexes setup? If you expect it to grow much larger, you may want to look into partitioning in databases.
FWIW, I work with databases on a regular basis with 100M+ rows. It shouldn't be this bad unless you have thousands of people using it at a time.
1 table per region is way not normalized; you're probably going to lose a bunch of efficiency there. 1 table per data entry site is pretty unusual too. Normalization is huge, it will save you a ton of time down the road, so I'd make sure you're not storing any duplicate data.
If you're using oracle, you shouldn't need to have multiple tables. It'll support a lot more than 1.5 million rows. If you need to speed up data access, you can try a snowflake schema to pull in commonly accessed data.
If you mean 1,500,000 rows in a table then you do not have much to worry about. Oracle can handle much larger loads than that with ease.
If you need to identify the regions that the data came in, you can create a Region table and tie the ID from that to the big data table.
IMHO, you should post more details and we can help you better.
A database with 2,000 rows can be slow. It all depends on your database design, index, keys and most important is the hardware configuration your database server is running on. The way your application uses this data is also important. Is a read intensive database or transaction intensive? There is no right answer to what you are asking right now.
You first need to consider what operations are going to access the table. How will inserts be performed? Will the existing rows be updated, and if so how? By how much will the rows grow, and what percentage of them will grow? Will rows get deleted? By what criteria? How will you be selecting data? By what criteria and how many per query?
Data partition can be used for volume of data much larger than 1.5m rows. Look into optimizing
the SQL query ,batch processing and storage of data.