I have a big DB Query (cfquery with many columns and rows) where the result has to be shared between two sub-webpages for scrolling all the entries back and forth. Calling the db query after switching between the pages is no options since it will be very laggy, therefore I try to avoid it.
Since this question seems to be trivial, I am not capable of finding a solution. Is there a best way/practice for this kind of issue?
I have tried to but the result into a struct but still no idea how to pass this "variable" to another page.
Related
I'm working to optimize a Django application that's (mainly) backed by MongoDB. It's dying under load testing. On the current problematic page, New Relic shows over 700 calls to pymongo.collection:Collection.find. Much of the code was written by junior coders and normally I would look for places to add indicies, make smarter joins and remove loops to reduce query calls, but joins aren't an option here. What I have done (after adding indicies based on EXPLAINs) is tried to reduce the cost in loops by making a general query and then filtering that smaller set in the loops*. While I've gotten the number down from 900 queries, 700 still seems insane even with the intense amount of work being done on the page. I thought perhaps find was called even when filtering an existing queryset, but the code suggests it's always a database query.
I've added some logging to mongoengine to see where the queries come from and to look at EXPLAIN statements, but I'm not having a ton of luck sifting through the wall of info. mongoengine itself seems to be part of the performance problem: I switched to mongomallard as a test and got a 50% performance improvement on the page. Unfortunately, I got errors on a bunch of other pages (as best I can tell it appears Mallard doesn't do well when filtering an existing queryset; the error complains about a call to deepcopy that's happening in a generator, which you can't do-- I hit a brick wall there). While Mallard doesn't seem like a workable replacement for us, it does suggest a lot of the proessing time is spent converting objects to and from Python in mongoengine.
What can I do to further reduce the calls? Or am I focusing on the wrong thing and should be attacking the problem somewhere else?
EDIT: providing some code/ models
The page in question displays the syllabus for a course, showing all the modules in the course, their lessons and the concepts under the lessons. For each concept, the user's progress in the concept is also shown. So there's a lot of looping to get the hierarchy teased out (and it's not stored according to any of the patterns the Mongo docs suggest).
class CourseVersion(Document):
...
course_instances = ListField(ReferenceField('CourseInstance'))
courseware_containers = ListField(EmbeddedDocumentField('CoursewareContainer'))
class CoursewareContainer(EmbeddedDocument):
id = UUIDField(required=True, binary=False, default=uuid.uuid4)
....
courseware_containers = ListField(EmbeddedDocumentField('self'))
teaching_element_instances = ListField(StringField())
The course's modules, lessons and concepts are stored in courseware_containers; we need to get all of the concepts so we can get the list of ids in teaching_element_instances to find the most recent one the user has worked on (if any) for that concept and then look up their progress.
* Just to be clear, I am using a profiler and looking at times and doings things The Right Way as best I know, not simply changing things and hoping for the best.
The code sample isn't bad per-sae but there are a number of areas that should be considered and may help improve performance.
class CourseVersion(Document):
...
course_instances = ListField(ReferenceField('CourseInstance'))
courseware_containers = ListField(EmbeddedDocumentField('CoursewareContainer'))
class CoursewareContainer(EmbeddedDocument):
id = UUIDField(required=True, binary=False, default=uuid.uuid4)
....
courseware_containers = ListField(EmbeddedDocumentField('self'))
teaching_element_instances = ListField(StringField())
Review
Unbounded lists.
course_instances, courseware_containers, teaching_element_instances
If these fields are unbounded and continuously grow then the document will move on disk as it grows, causing disk contention on heavily loaded systems. There are two patterns to help minimise this:
a) Turn on Power of two sizes. This will cost disk space but should lower the amount of io churn as the document grows
b) Initial Padding - custom pad the document on insert so it gets put into a larger extent and then remove the padding. Really an anti pattern but it may give you some mileage.
The final barrier is the maximum document size - 16MB you can't grow your data bigger than that.
Lists of ReferenceFields - course_instances
MongoDB doesn't have joins so it costs an extra query to look up a ReferenceField - essentially they are an in app join. Which isn't bad per-sae but its important to understand the tradeoff. By default mongoengine won't automatically dereference the field only doing course_version.course_instances will it do another query and then populate the whole list of references. So it can cost you another query - if you don't need the data then exclude() it from the query to stop any leaking queries.
EmbeddedFields
These fields are part of the document, so there is no cost for them, other than the wire costs of transmitting and loading the data. **As they are part of the document, you don't need select_related to get this data.
teaching_element_instances
Are these a list of id's? It says its a StringField in the code sample above. Either way, if you don't need to dereference the whole list then storing the _ids as a StringField and manually dereferencing may be more efficient if coded correctly - especially if you just need the latest (last?) id.
Model complexity
The CoursewareContainer is complex. For any given CourseVersion you have n CoursewareContainers with themselves have a list of n containers and those each have n containers and on...
Finding the most recent instances
We need to get all of the concepts so we can get the list of ids in
teaching_element_instances to find the most recent one the user has
worked on (if any) for that concept and then look up their progress.
I'm unsure if there is a single instance you are after or one per Container or one per Course. Either way - the logic for querying the data should be examined. If its a single instance you are after - then that could be stored against the user so to simplify the logic of looking this up. If its per course or container then to improve performance ensure you minimise the number of queries - if possible collect all the ids and then at the end issue a single $in query, rather than doing a query per container.
Mongoengine costs
Currently, there is a performance cost to loading the data into Mongoengine classes - if you don't need the classes and are happy to work with simple dictionaries then either issue a raw pymongo query or use as_pymongo.
Schema design
The schema looks logical enough but is it suitable for the use case - in essence is it using MongoDB's strengths or is it putting a relational peg in a document database shaped hole? I can't answer than for you but I do know the way to the happy path with MongoDB is design the schema based on its use case. With relational databases schema design from the outset is simple - you normalise, with document databases how the data is used is a primary factor.
MongoDB best practices
There are many other best practices and mongodb have a guide which might be of interest: MongoDB Operations Best Practices.
Feel free to contact me via the Mongoengine mailing list to discuss further and if needs be discuss in private.
Ross
We recently made a shift from relational (MySQL) to NoSQL (couchbase). Basically its a back-end for social mobile game. We were facing a lot of problems scaling our backend to handle increasing number of users. When using MySQL loading a user took a lot of time as there were a lot of joins between multiple tables. We saw a huge improvement after moving to couchbase specially when loading data as most of it is kept in a single document.
On the downside, couchbase also seems to have a lot of limitations as far as querying is concerned. Couchbase alternative to SQL query is views. While we managed to handle most of our queries using map-reduce, we are really having a hard time figuring out how to handle time based queries. e.g. we need to filter users based on timestamp attribute. We only need a user in view if time is less than current time:
if(user.time < new Date().getTime() / 1000)
What happens is that once a user's time is set to some future time, it gets exempted from this view which is the desired behavior but it never gets added back to view unless we update it - a document only gets re-indexed in view when its updated.
Our solution right now is to load first x user documents and then check time in our application. Sorting is done on user.time attribute so we get those users who's time is less than or near to current time. But I am not sure if this is actually going to work in live environment. Ideally we would like to avoid these type of checks at application level.
Also there are times e.g. match making when we need to check multiple time based attributes. Our current strategy doesn't work in such cases and we frequently get documents from view which do not pass these checks when done in application. I would really appreciate if someone who has already tackled similar problems could share their experiences. Thanks in advance.
Update:
We tried using range queries which works for only one key. Like I said in most cases we have multiple time based keys meaning multiple ranges which does not work.
If you use Date().getTime() inside a view function, you'll always get the time when that view was indexed, just as you said "it never gets added back to view unless we update it".
There are two ways:
Bad way (don't do this in production). Query views with stale=false param. That will cause view to update before it will return results. But view indexing is slow process, especially if you have > 1 milllion records.
Good way. Use range requests. You just need to emit your date in map function as a key or a part of complex key and use that range request. You can see one example here or here (also if you want to use DateTime in couchbase this example will be more usefull). Or just look to my example below:
I.e. you will have docs like:
doc = {
"id"=1,
"type"="doctype",
"timestamp"=123456, //document update or creation time
"data"="lalala"
}
For those docs map function will look like:
map = function(){
if (doc.type === "doctype"){
emit(doc.timestamp,null);
}
}
And now to get recently "updated" docs you need to query this view with params:
startKey="dateTimeNowFromApp"
endKey="{}"
descending=true
Note that startKey and endKey are swapped, because I used descending order. Here is also a link to documnetation about key types that couchbase supports.
Also I've found a link to a question that can also help.
Is there a way to use fuzzy matching in a django queryset filter?
I'm looking for something along the lines of:
Object.objects.filter(fuzzymatch(namevariable)__gt=.9)
or is there a way to use lambda functions, or something similar in django queries, and if so, how much would it affect performance time (given that I have a stable set of ~6000 objects in my database that I want to match to)
(realized I should probably put my comments in the question)
I need something stronger than contains, something along the lines of difflib. I'm basically trying to get around doing a Object.objects.all() and then a list comprehension with fuzzy matching.
(although I'm not necessarily sure that doing that would be much slower than trying to filter based on a function, so if you have thoughts on that I'm happy to listen)
also, even though it's not exactly what I want, I'd be open to some kind of tokenized opposite-contains, like:
Object.objects.filter(['Virginia', 'Tech']__in=Object.name)
Where something like "Virginia Technical Institute" would be returned. Although case insensitive, preferably.
When you're using the ORM, the thing to understand is that everything you do converts to SQL commands and it's the performance of the underlying queries on the underlying database that matter. Case in point:
SELECT COUNT (*) ...
Is that fast? Depends on whether your database stores any records to give you that information - MySQL/MyISAM does, MySQL/InnoDB does not. In English - this is one lookup in MYISAM, and n in InnoDB.
Next thing - in order to do exact match lookups efficiently in SQL you have to tell it when you create the table - you can't just expect it to understand. For this purpose SQL has the INDEX statement - in django, use db_index=True in the field options of your model. Bear in mind that this has an added performance hit on writes (to create the index) and obviously extra storage is needed (for the datastructure) so you cannot "INDEX all the things". Also, I don't think it will help for fuzzy matching - but it's worth noting anyway.
Next consideration - how do we do fuzzy matching in SQL? Well apparently LIKE and CONTAINS allow a certain amount of searching and wildcard-results to be executed in SQL. These are T-SQL links - translate for your database server :) You can achieve this via Model.objects.get(fieldname__contains=value) which will produce LIKE SQL, or similar. There are a number of options available there for different lookups.
This may or may not be powerful enough for you - I'm not sure.
Now, for the big question: performance. Chances are if you're doing a contains search that the SQL server will have to hit all of the rows in the database - don't take my word on that, but it would be my bet - even with indexing on. With 6000 rows this might not take all that long; then again, if you're doing this on a per-connection-to-your-app basis it's probably going to create a slowdown.
Next thing to understand about the ORM: if you do this:
Model.objects.get(fieldname__contains=value)
Model.objects.get(fieldname__contains=value)
You will issue two queries to the database server. In other words, the ORM doesn't always cache the results - so you might just want to do an .all() and search in memory. Do read about caching and querysets.
Further on on that last page, you'll also see Q objects - useful for more complicated queries.
So in summary then:
SQL contains some basic fuzzy matching-like parameters.
Whether or not these are sufficient depends on your needs.
How they perform depends on your SQL server - definitely measure it.
Whether you can cache these results in memory depends on how likely scaling is - again might be worth measuring the memory commit as a result - if you can share between instances and if the cache will be frequently invalidated (if it will be, don't do it).
Ultimately, I'd start by getting your fuzzy matching working, then measure, then tweak, then measure until you work out how to improve performance. 99% of this I learnt doing exactly that :)
with postgres as database, you can use TrigramSimilarity to do fuzzy search and rank your results on different weight as well. Here is the link to documentation :
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/ref/contrib/postgres/search/#trigram-similarity
For full text search you can refer to https://czep.net/17/full-text-search.html
If you need something stronger than contains lookup, have a look at regex lookups: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.0/ref/models/querysets/#regex
On my website I'm going to provide points for some activities, similarly to stackoverflow. I would like to calculate value basing on many factors so each computation for each user will take for instance 10 SQL queries.
I was thinking about caching it:
in memcache,
in user's row in database (so that wherever I need to get user from base I easly show the points)
Storing in database seems easy but on other hand it's redundant information and I decided to ask, since maybe there is easier and prettier solution which I missed.
I'd highly recommend this app for storing the calculated values in the model: https://github.com/initcrash/django-denorm
Memcache is faster than the db... but if you already have to retrieve the record from the db anyway, having the calculated values cached in the rows you're retrieving (as a 'denormalised' field) is even faster, plus it's persistent.
I have a couple hundred of image thumbnails, 15k each. I want to display 20 or so on each page.
Would django.core.paginator suffice for the pagination of these pages? I.e., will it return only those images displayed on the current page? (And if not, what would be a good way to do this?) Thank you.
Depends, because there is one big limitation from the RDBMS (which affects all databases, including MySQL, Postgres, etc.).
django.core.paginator takes a QuerySet which represent any kind of SQL query and adds a LIMIT clause to just get a couple of entries from the database. This approach works well for many kinds of applications, but might become a serious problem if you have a lot of entries. The particular problem is, that whenever you access the 800th page, the database will actually fetch 801*20 entries and then drop the first 800*20 entries again to return the last twenty.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to solve this problem. In a lot of cases, a next/prev button might be enough so you can write your own pagination which does operate on after-keys instead of page numbers. For example, if the last entry currently displayed by the user has the key "D" you show a next button which links to /next?after=D and then use a SQL query like SELECT * FROM objects WHERE key >DORDER BY key LIMIT 20. The advantage of this approach is, that you can add an index on objects.key which speed up things significantly.
The other approach requires, that you add an additional, indexed (!) column page_num to your table. Then you can perform SQL queries like SELECT * FROM objects WHERE page_num=800 ORDER BY key. With that approach, you can still access all pages randomly, but you have to maintain the page_num column. This might be easy if data is mostly appended at the end and is more complicated if you want to delete/insert elements from the middle efficiently.
So, I would start with django.core.paginator because it's just about 1 line of code. But keep an eye on the response times of your paginated views and the slowquery log from your database. If your database server can't handle the load anymore, you will have to choose one of the techniques mentioned above. Choose solution 2 if random page access is an requirement and solution 1 otherwise (because it's much simpler).
PS: And yes, django.core.paginator will work correctly. :)