I need to update 10,000 records and am wondering what is the quickest way, this is what I am doing currently
I get all the records I need to update, a big list of sku's. I then loop through that list and update them. In the below
in_both is my list of skus
I loop through, get the reference in ShopReconciliation and update
for line_item, sku enumerate(in_both):
got_products = ShopReconciliation.objects.filter(sku=sku, run_id=self.reconciliation_id)
for got_product in got_products:
got_product.in_es = True
got_product.save()
This works, but strike me it isn't very quick. I could have 60k records
Is there a better way with so many records
Thanks
cursor.executemany is supported by most libraries like cx_Oracle or pyodbc. May check the database and data access library for availability of the function.
In the end I used transaction.atomic (with the With)
That seemed to work, I just need to be careful if an error occurs before the commit
Related
I've included some links along with our approaches to other answers, which seem to be the most optimal on the web right now.
Our records need to be categorized (eg. "horror", "thriller", "tv"), and randomly accessible both in specific categories and across all/some categories. We generally need to access about 20 - 100 items at a time. We also have a smallish number of categories (less than 100).
We write to the database for uploading/removing content, although this is done in batches and does not need to be real time.
We have tried two different approaches, with two different data structures.
Approach 1
AWS DynamoDB - Pick a record/item randomly?
Help selecting nth record in query.
In short, using the category as a hash key, and a UUID as the sort key. Generate a random UUID, query Dynamo using greater than or less than, and limit to 1. This is even suggested by an AWS employee in the second link. (We've also tried increasing the limit to the number of items we need, but this increases the probability of the query failing the first time around).
Issues with this approach:
First query can fail if it is greater than/less than any of the UUIDs
Querying on any specific category will cause throttling at scale (Small number of partitions)
We've also considered adding a suffix to each category to artificially increase the number of partitions we have, as pointed out in the following link.
AWS Database Blog
Choosing the Right DynamoDB Partition Key
Approach 2
Amazon Web Services: How do we get random item from the dynamoDb's table?
Doing something similar to this, where we concatenate the category with a sequential number, and use this as the hash key. e.g. horror-000001.
By knowing the number of records in each category, we're able to perform random queries across our entire data set, while also avoiding hot partitions/keys.
Issues with this approach
We need a secondary data structure to manage the sequential counts across each category
Writing (especially deleting) is significantly more complex, although this doesn't need to happen in real time.
Conclusion
Both approaches solve our main use case of random queries on category/categories, but the cons they offer are really deterring us from using them. We're leaning more towards approach #1 using suffixes to solve the hot partitioning issue, although we would need the additional retry logic for failed queries.
Is there a better way of approaching this problem? Specifically looking for solutions capable of scaling well (No scan), without requiring extra resources be implemented. #1 fits the bill, but needing to manage suffixes and failed attempts really deters us from using it, especially when it is being called inside a lambda (billed for time used).
Thanks!
Follow Up
After more research and testing, my team has decided to move towards MySQL hosted on RDS for these tables. We learned that this is one of the few use cases were DynamoDB does not fit, and requires rewriting your use case to fit the DB (Bad).
We felt that the extra complexity required to integrate random sampling on DynamoDB wasn't worth it, and we were unable to come up with any comparable solutions. We are, however, sticking with DynamoDB for our tables that do not need random accessibility due to the price and response times.
For anyone wondering why we chose MySQL, it was largely due to the Nodejs library available, great online resources (which DynamoDB definitely lacks), easy integration via RDS with our Lambdas, and the option to migrate to Amazons Aurora database.
We also looked at PostgreSQL, but we weren't as happy with the client library or admin tools, and we believe that MySQL will suit our needs for these tables.
If anybody has anything else they'd like to add or a specific question please leave a comment or send me a message!
This was too long for a comment, and I guess it's pretty much a full fledged answer now.
Approach 2
I've found that my typical time to get a single item from dynamodb to a host in the same region is <10ms. As long as you're okay with at most 1-2 extra calls, you can quite easily implement approach 2.
If you use a keys only GSI where the category is your hash key and the primary key of the table is your range key, you can quickly find the largest numbered single item within a category.
When you add a new item, find the largest number for that category from the GSI and then write the new item to the table with sequence number n+1.
When you delete, find the item with the largest sequence number for that category from the GSI, overwrite the item you are deleting, and then delete the now duplicated item from its position at the highest sequence number.
To randomly get an item, query the GSI to find the highest numbered item in the category, and then randomly pick a number since you now know the valid range.
Approach 1
I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "without requiring extra resources to be implemented". If you're okay with using a managed resource (no dev work to implement), you can also make Approach 1 work by putting a DAX cluster in front of your dynamodb table. Then you can query to your heart's content without really worrying about hot partitions. (Though the caching layer means that new/deleted items won't be reflected right away.)
Question
What is the Best way to update a column of a table of tens of millions of rows?
1)
I saw creating a new table and rename the old one when finish
2)
I saw update in batches using a temp table
3)
I saw single transaction (don't like this one though)
4)
never listen to cursor solution for a problema like this and I think it's not worthy to try
5) I read about loading data from file (Using BCP), but have not read if the performance is better or not. was not clear if it is just to copy or if it would allow join a big table with something and then bull copy.
really would like have some advice here.
Priority is performance
At the momment I'm testing solution 2) and Exploring solution 5)
Additional Information (UPDATE)
thank you for the critical thinking in here.
The operation be done in downtime.
UPDATE Will not cause row forwarding
All the tables go indexes, average 5 indexes, although few tables got
like 13 indexes.
the probability of target column is present in one of the table
indexes something like 50%.
Some tables can be rebuilt and replace, others don't because they
make part of a software solution, and we might lose support to those.
from those tables some got triggers.
I'll need to do this for more than 600 tables where ~150 range from
0.8 Million to 35 Million rows
The update is always in the same column in the various fields
References
BCP for data transfer
Actually it depends:
on the number of indexes the table contains
the size of the row before and after the UPDATE operation
type of UPDATE - would it be in place? does it need to modify the row length
does the operation cause row forwarding?
how big is the table?
how big would the transaction log of the UPDATE command be?
does the table contain triggers?
can the operation be done in downtime?
will the table be modified during the operation?
are minimal logging operations allowed?
would the whole UPDATE transaction fit in the transaction log?
can the table be rebuilt & replaced with a new one?
what was the timing of the operation on the test environment?
what about free space in the database - is there enough space for a copy of the table?
what kind of UPDATE operation is to be performed? does additional SELECT commands have to be done to calculate the new value of every row? or is it a static change?
Depending on the answers and the results of the operation in the test environment we could consider the fastest operations to be:
minimal logging copy of the table
an in place UPDATE operation preferably in batches
In a Django project, I'm refreshing tens of thousands of lines of data from an external API on a daily basis. The problem is that since I don't know if the data is new or just an update, I can't do a bulk_create operation.
Note: Some, or perhaps many, of the rows, do not actually change on a daily basis, but I don't which, or how many, ahead of time.
So for now I do:
for row in csv_data:
try:
MyModel.objects.update_or_create(id=row['id'], defaults={'field1': row['value1']....})
except:
print 'error!'
And it takes.... forever! One or two lines a second, max speed, sometimes several seconds per line. Each model I'm refreshing has one or more other models connected to it through a foreign key, so I can't just delete them all and reinsert every day. I can't wrap my head around this one -- how can I cut down significantly the number of database operations so the refresh doesn't take hours and hours.
Thanks for any help.
The problem is you are doing a database action on each data row you grabbed from the api. You can avoid doing that by understanding which of the rows are new (and do a bulk insert to all new rows), Which of the rows actually need update, and which didn't change.
To elaborate:
grab all the relevant rows from the database (meaning all the rows that can possibly be updated)
old_data = MyModel.objects.all() # if possible than do MyModel.objects.filter(...)
Grab all the api data you need to insert or update
api_data = [...]
for each row of data understand if its new and put it in array, or determine if the row needs to update the DB
for row in api_data:
if is_new_row(row, old_data):
new_rows_array.append(row)
else:
if is_data_modified(row, old_data):
...
# do the update
else:
continue
MyModel.objects.bulk_create(new_rows_array)
is_new_row - will understand if the row is new and add it to an array that will be bulk created
is_data_modified - will look for the row in the old data and understand if the data of that row is changed and will update only if its changed
If you look at the source code for update_or_create(), you'll see that it's hitting the database multiple times for each call (either a get() followed by a save(), or a get() followed by a create()). It does things this way to maximize internal consistency - for example, this ensures that your model's save() method is called in either case.
But you might well be able to do better, depending on your specific models and the nature of your data. For example, if you don't have a custom save() method, aren't relying on signals, and know that most of your incoming data maps to existing rows, you could instead try an update() followed by a bulk_create() if the row doesn't exist. Leaving aside related models, that would result in one query in most cases, and two queries at the most. Something like:
updated = MyModel.objects.filter(field1="stuff").update(field2="other")
if not updated:
MyModel.objects.bulk_create([MyModel(field1="stuff", field2="other")])
(Note that this simplified example has a race condition, see the Django source for how to deal with it.)
In the future there will probably be support for PostgreSQL's UPSERT functionality, but of course that won't help you now.
Finally, as mentioned in the comment above, the slowness might just be a function of your database structure and not anything Django-specific.
Just to add to the accepted answer. One way of recognizing whether the operation is an update or create is to ask the api owner to include a last updated timestamp with each row (if possible) and store it in your db for each row. That way you only have to check for those rows where this timestamp is different from the one in api.
I faced an exact issue where I was updating every existing row and creating new ones. It took a whole minute to update 8000 odd rows. With selective updates, I cut down my time to just 10-15 seconds depending on how many rows have actually changed.
I think below code can do the same thing together instead of update_or_create:
MyModel.objects.filter(...).update()
MyModel.objects.get_or_create()
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.
I need to set up some kind of e-store with search functionality.
For every search request I got to query structure like this:
product:
-name
-tags
--tag
-ingredients
--ingredient
---tags
----tag
---options
----option
-----option details
-variants
--variant
---tags
----tag
---options
----option measure
----value
---price
Now imagine number of queries... Database is normalized (2nd level I guess).
It seems to me that one obvious solution here is to store each fetched model result set (product set, ingredient set, attribute set, tag set etc.) in memory for a very long time (products and its attributes updated not so often and only by admin) and make query from there.
So what do you think? Is there a better way to reduce db queries count?
Another option I thought about is to use sphinx, but I don't need full-text search at all, just exact matches with tag-like fields.
Thank you in advance!
On my Google App Engine app I normally move things from the datastore to memcache and work with them there since querying for the data can take a lot of time. MemCache, in my case, returns the data and has less load on CPU than accessing the data which can go through a number of queries until it gets what it is looking for.
I would recommend setting a long timeout on your memcache so that memcache doesnt flush it more often than you are expecting. I think the maximum timout is up to 1 month but normally setting it for a couple days will suffice.
You can always add code to flush the memcache if the data for a product has been updated so that you do the DB hit again but only once this time