I'd like to know what are the best practises to have different information stored depending on some variables.
For example, I have a ServerEntity, I want to store the disks plugged on this server with a ServerDiskEntity.
If this disk is SSD, I want to store the NAND type (MLC, SLC, TLC).
If this disk is HDD, I want to store the RPM.
Then, when I request ServerEntity->getDisks(), I check if the type is SSD, display the NAND type, if HDD type display RPM.
Storing everything in the same entity looks awful to me. Having two separate entities (with nothing else gluing them together) is not an option because I store some other information such as tray number.
My closest guess is : ServerDiskEntity stores DiskType and DiskId, and I use this information to getRepository(diskType)->findOneBy(["id" => $DiskId]) but this also seems very non optimised from my POV.
Please someone teach me some magic to have a clean way to do this (and I'd like to avoid using ElasticSearch :D )
Single Table Inheritance (or Joined Table Inheritance) is the answer :
https://digitalfortress.tech/php/configure-doctrine-multiple-target-entities/
Related
I have data I have to join at the record level. For example data about users is coming in from different source systems but there is not a common primary key or user identifier
Example Data
Source System 1:
{userid = 123, first_name="John", last_name="Smith", many other columns...}
Source System 2:
{userid = EFCBA-09DA0, fname="J.", lname="Smith", many other columns...}
There are about 100 rules I can use to compare one record to another
to see if customer in source system 1 is the same as source system 2.
Some rules may be able to infer record values and add data to a master record about a customer.
Because some rules may infer/add data to any particular record, the rules must be re-applied again when a record changes.
We have millions of records per day we'd have to unify
Apache Beam / Dataflow implementation
Apache beam DAG is by definition acyclic but I could just republish the data through pubsub to the same DAG to make it a cyclic algorithm.
I could create a PCollection of hashmaps that continuously do a self join against all other elements but this seems it's probably an inefficient method
Immutability of a PCollection is a problem if I want to be constantly modifying things as it goes through the rules. This sounds like it would be more efficient with Flink Gelly or Spark GraphX
Is there any way you may know in dataflow to process such a problem efficiently?
Other thoughts
Prolog: I tried running on subset of this data with a subset of the rules but swi-prolog did not seem scalable, and I could not figure out how I would continuously emit the results to other processes.
JDrools/Jess/Rete: Forward chaining would be perfect for the inference and efficient partial application, but this algorithm is more about applying many many rules to individual records, rather than inferring record information from possibly related records.
Graph database: Something like neo4j or datomic would be nice since joins are at the record level rather than row/column scans, but I don't know if it's possible in beam to do something similar
BigQuery or Spanner: Brute forcing these rules in SQL and doing full table scans per record is really slow. It would be much preferred to keep the graph of all records in memory and compute in-memory. We could also try to concat all columns and run multiple compare and update across all columns
Or maybe there's a more standard way to solving these class of problems.
It is hard to say what solution works best for you from what I can read so far. I would try to split the problem further and try to tackle different aspects separately.
From what I understand, the goal is to combine together the matching records that represent the same thing in different sources:
records come from a number of sources:
it is logically the same data but formatted differently;
there are rules to tell if the records represent the same entity:
collection of rules is static;
So, the logic probably roughly goes like:
read a record;
try to find existing matching records;
if matching record found:
update it with new data;
otherwise save the record for future matching;
repeat;
To me this looks very high level and there's probably no single 'correct' solution at this level of detail.
I would probably try to approach this by first understanding it in more detail (maybe you already do), few thoughts:
what are the properties of the data?
are there patterns? E.g. when one system publishes something, do you expect something else from other systems?
what are the requirements in general?
latency, consistency, availability, etc;
how data is read from the sources?
can all the systems publish the records in batches in files, submit them into PubSub, does your solution need to poll them, etc?
can the data be read in parallel or is it a single stream?
then the main question of how can you efficiently match a record in general will probably look different under different assumptions and requirements as well. For example I would think about:
can you fit all data in memory;
are your rules dynamic. Do they change at all, what happens when they do;
can you split the data into categories that can be stored separately and matched efficiently, e.g. if you know you can try to match some things by id field, some other things by hash of something, etc;
do you need to match against all of historical/existing data?
can you have some quick elimination logic to not do expensive checks?
what is the output of the solution? What are the requirements for the output?
I have a task to complete.
There are two types of csv files 4000+ both related to each other.
2 types are:
1. Country2.csv
2. Security_Name.csv
Contents of Country2.csv:
Company Name;Security Name;;;;Final NOS;Final FFR
Contents of Security_Name.csv:
Date;Close Price;Volume
There are multiple countries and for each country multiple security files
Now I need to READ them do some CALCULATION and then WRITE the output in another files
READ
Read both the file Country 2.csv and Security.csv and extract all the data from them.
For example :
Read France 2.csv, extract Security_Name, Final NOS, Final FFR
Then Read Security.csv(which matches the Security_Name) and extract Date, Close Price, Volume
Calculation
Calculations are basically finding Median of the values extracted which is quite simple.
For Example:
Monthly Median Traded Values
Daily Traded Value of a Security ... and so on
Write
Based on the month I need to sort the output in two different file with following formats:
If Month % 3 = 0
Save It as MONTH_NAME.csv in following format:
Security name; 12-month indicator; 3-month indicator; FOT
Else
Save It as MONTH_NAME.csv in following format:
Security Name; Monthly Median Traded Value Ratio; Number of days Volume > 0
My question is how do I design my application in such a way that it is maintainable and the flow of data throughout the execution is seamless?
So first thing. Based on the kind of data you are looking to generate, I would probably be looking at moving this data to a SQL db if at all possible. This is "one SQL query" kind of stuff. And far more maintainable than C++ that generates CSV files from CSV files.
Barring that, I would probably look at using datamash and/or perl. On a Windows platform, you could do this through Cygwin or WSL. Probably less maintainable, but so much easier it's not too much of an issue.
That said, if you're looking for something moderately maintainable, C++ could work. The first thing I would do is design my input classes. Data-centric, but it can work. It sounds like you could have a Country class, a Security class, and a SecurityClose class...or something along those lines. You can think about whether a Security class should contain a collection of SecurityClosees (data), or whether the data should just be "loose" and reference the Security it belongs to. Same with the Country->Security relationship.
Once you've decided how all that's going to look, you want something (likely a function) that can tokenize a CSV line. So "1,2,3" gets turned into a vector<string> with the contents "1" "2" "3". Then, each of your input classes should have a constructor or initializer that takes a vector<string> and populates itself. You might need to pass higher level data along too. Like the filename if you want the security data to know which security it belongs to..
That's basically most of the battle there. Once you've pulled your data into sensibly organized classes, the rest should come more easily. And if you run into bumps, hopefully you can ask specific design or implementation questions from there.
I want to store arbitrary key value pairs. For example,
{:foo "bar" ; string
:n 12 ; long
:p 1.2 ; float
}
In datomic, I'd like to store it as something like:
[{:kv/key "foo"
:kv/value "bar"}
{:kv/key "n"
:kv/value 12}
{:kv/key "p"
:kv/value 1.2}]
The problem is :kv/value can only have one type in datomic. A solution is to to split :kv/value into :kv/value-string, :kv/value-long, :kv/value-float, etc. It comes with its own issues like making sure only one value attribute is used at a time. Suggestions?
If you could give more details on your specific use-case it might be easier to figure out the best answer. At this point it is a bit of a mystery why you may want to have an attribute that can sometimes be a string, sometimes an int, etc.
From what you've said so far, your only real answer it to have different attributes like value-string etc. This is like in a SQL DB you have only 1 type per table column and would need different columns to store a string, integer, etc.
As your problem shows, any tool (such as a DB) is designed with certain assumptions. In this case the DB assumes that each "column" (attribute in Datomic) is always of the same type. The DB also assumes that you will (usually) want to have data in all columns/attrs for each record/entity.
In your problem you are contradicting both of these assumptions. While you can still use the DB to store information, you will have to write custom functions to ensure only 1 attribute (value-string, value-int, etc) is in use at one time. You probably want custom insertion functions like "insert-str-val", "insert-int-val", etc, as well as custom read functions "read-str-val" etc al. It might be also a good idea to have a validation function that could accept any record/entity and verify that exactly one-and-only-one "type" was in use at any given time.
You can emulate a key-value store with heterogenous values by making :kv/key a :db.unique/identity attribute, and by making :kv/value either bytes-typed or string-typed and encoding the values in the format you like (e.g fressian / nippy for :db.types/bytes, edn / json for :db.types/string). I advise that you set :db/index to false for :kv/value in this case.
Notes:
you will have limited query power, as the values will not be indexed and will need to be de-serialized for each query.
If you want to run transaction functions which read or write the values (e.g for data migrations), you should make your encoding / decoding library available to the Transactor as well.
If the values are large (say, over 20kb), don't store them in Datomic; use a complementary storage service like AWS S3 and store a URL.
I am saving the fingerprints in a field "blob", then wonder if the only way to compare these impressions is retrieving all prints saved in the database and then create a vector to check, using the function "identify_finger"? You can check directly from the database using a SELECT?
I'm working with libfprint. In this code the verification is done in a vector:
def test_identify():
cur = DB.cursor()
cur.execute('select id, fp from print')
id = []
gallary = []
for row in cur.fetchall():
data = pyfprint.pyf.fp_print_data_from_data(str(row['fp']))
gallary.append(pyfprint.Fprint(data_ptr = data))
id.append(row['id'])
n, fp, img = FingerDevice.identify_finger(gallary)
There are two fundamentally different ways to use a fingerprint database. One is to verify the identity of a person who is known through other means, and one is to search for a person whose identity is unknown.
A simple library such as libfprint is suitable for the first case only. Since you're using it to verify someone you can use their identity to look up a single row from the database. Perhaps you've scanned more than one finger, or perhaps you've stored multiple scans per finger, but it will still be a small number of database blobs returned.
A fingerprint search algorithm must be designed from the ground up to narrow the search space, to compare quickly, and to rank the results and deal with false positives. Just as a Google search may come up with pages totally unrelated to what you're looking for, so too will a fingerprint search. There are companies that devote their entire existence to solving this problem.
Another way would be to have a mysql plugin that knows how to work with fingerprint images and select based on what you are looking for.
I really doubt that there is such a thing.
You could also try to parallelize the fingerprint comparation, ie - calling:
FingerDevice.identify_finger(gallary)
in parallel, on different cores/machines
You can't check directly from the database using a SELECT because each scan is different and will produce different blobs. libfprint does the hard work of comparing different scans and judging if they are from the same person or not
What zinking and Tudor are saying, I think, is that if you understand how does that judgement process works (which is by the way, by minutiae comparison) you can develop a method of storing the relevant data for the process (the *minutiae, maybe?) in the database and then a method for fetching the relevant values -- maybe a kind of index or some type of extension to the database.
In other words, you would have to reimplement the libfprint algorithms in a more complex (and beautiful) way, instead of just accepting the libfprint method of comparing the scan with all stored fingerprint in a loop.
other solutions for speeding your program
use C:
I only know sufficient C to write kind of hello-world programs, but it was not hard to write code in pure C to use the fp_identify_finger_img function of libfprint and I can tell you it is much faster than pyfprint.identify_finger.
You can continue doing the enrollment part of the stuff in python. I do it.
use a time / location based SELECT:
If you know your users will scan their fingerprints with more probability at some time than other time, or at some place than other place (maybe arriving at work at some time and scanning their fingers, or leaving, or entering the building by one gate, or by other), you can collect data (at each scan) for measuring the probabilities and creating parallel tables to sort the users for their probability of arriving at each time and location.
We know that identify_finger tries to identify fingers in a loop with the fingerprint objects you provided in a list, so we can use that and give it the objects sorted in a way in which the more likely user for that time and that location will be the first in the list and so on.
I have 2 hard-disk volumes(one is a backup image of the other), I want to compare the volumes and list all the modified files, so that the user can select the ones he/she wants to roll-back.
Currently I'm recursing through the new volume and comparing each file's time-stamps to the old volume's files (if they are int the old volume). Obviously this is a blunder approach. It's time consuming and wrong!
Is there an efficient way to do it?
EDIT:
- I'm using FindFirstFile and likes to recurse the volume, and gather info of each file (not very slow, just a few minutes).
- I'm using Volume Shadow Copy to backup.
- The backup-volume is remote so I cannot continuously monitor the actual volume.
Part of this depends upon how the two volumes are duplicated; if they are 'true' copies from the file system's point of view (e.g. shadow copies or other block-level copies), you can do a few tricky little things with respect to USN, which is the general technology others are suggesting you look into. You might want to look at an API like FSCTL_READ_FILE_USN_DATA, for example. That API will let you compare two different copies of a file (again, assuming they are the same file with the same file reference number from block-level backups). If you wanted to be largely stateless, this and similar APIs would help you a lot here. My algorithm would look something like this:
foreach( file in backup_volume ) {
file_still_exists = try_open_by_id( modified_volume )
if (file_still_exists) {
usn_result = compare_usn_values_of_files( file, file_in_modified_volume )
if (usn_result == equal_to) {
// file hasn't changed at all
} else {
// file has changed (somehow)
}
} else {
// file was deleted (possibly deleted and recreated)
}
}
// we still don't know about files new in modified_volume
All of that said, my experience leads me to believe that this will be more complicated than my off-the-cuff explanation hints at. This might be a good starting place, though.
If the volumes are not block-level copies of one another, then it will be very difficult to compare USN numbers and file IDs, if not impossible. Instead, you may very well be going by file name, which will be difficult if not impossible to do without opening every file (times can be modified by apps, sizes and times can be out of date in the findfirst/next queries, and you have to handle deleted-then-recreated cases, rename cases, etc.).
So knowing how much control you have over the environment is pretty important.
Instead of waiting until after changes have happened, and then scanning the whole disk to find the (usually few) files that have changed, I'd set up a program to use ReadDirectoryChangesW to monitor changes as they happen. This will let you build a list of files with a minimum of fuss and bother.
Assuming you're not comparing each file on the new volume to every file in the snapshot, that's the only way you can do it. How are you going to find which files aren't modified without looking at all of them?
I am not a Windows programmer.
However shouldn't u have stat function to retrieve the modified time of a file.
Sort the files based on mod time.
The files having mod time greater than your last backup time are the ones of your interest.
For the first time u can iterate over the back up volume to figure out the max mod time and created time from your interested set.
I am assuming the directories of interest don't get modified in the backup volume.
Without knowing more details about what you're trying to do here, it's hard to say. However, some tips about what I think you're trying to achieve:
If you're only concerned about NTFS volumes, I suggest looking into the USN / change journal API's. They have been around since 2000. This way, after the initial inventory you can only look at changes from that point on. A good starting point for this, though a very old article is here: http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0999/journal/journal.aspx
Also, utilizing USN API's, you could omit the hash step and just record information from the journal yourself (this will become more clear when/if you look into said APIs)
The first time through comparing a drive's contents, utilize a hash such as SHA-1 or MD5.
Store hashes and other such information in a database of some sort. For example, SQLite3. Note that this can take up a huge amount of space itself. A quick look at my audio folder with 40k+ files would result in ~750 megs of MD5 information.