I am working on an application written in C++ that uses the 32-bit Instant Client drivers to access an Oracle database. The application uses the Record Field Exchange (RFX) methods to update the columns in the database tables. The database schema cannot be modified.
The C++ code was originally written to handle OID values as doubles because the OID column in the database is NUMBER(14), so a regular int won't be big enough. However, this leads to the database occasionally selecting a bad execution plan where it takes the OID values sent from the application and uses the to_binary_double function on them, rather than converting them to BIGINT. If this happens, the database does not do an index search over the data and instead does a full table scan.
We tried switching the OIDs to be type __int64 in the application, but there was an issue with the ODBC driver not supporting the BigInt type (or long long in C++). Similarly, when we tried to make the OIDs into longs, the database or the driver gave an error that the values sent to the database were too big for the column.
Working with the OIDs as Strings in C++ will work, but the database will never use the optimal index search because it has to convert the String to an integer before it can do any data retrieval. Because of this, we're just better off using the doubles we already have.
Does anyone have an idea of what we can do next? It is not the end of the world if we have to keep using doubles as before, but we were hoping to eliminate the chance for the database to run slowly.
We actually went with the "Convert all the OIDs to Strings in the C++ code" option. It turns out the database was still able to run an indexed search after converting the OIDs from Strings to integers. It would have been better if we switched ODBC driver to one that could handle BigInt, but that wasn't really an option for us so this will suffice.
What I have is a BigQuery table(>5mil rows).
I need to fetch this data in batches and process it inside AppEngine, python.
The only way to fetch from a table that I know is to run SELECT query on this table and then iterate the result using tokens fetch_data returns.
It looks like this:
query = u"""\
SELECT url FROM %s
""" % (query_table)
query_job = client.run_async_query(str(uuid.uuid4()), query)
query_job.begin()
wait_for_job(query_job, 1)
query_results = query_job.results()
rows, total_rows, next_token = query_results.fetch_data(max_results=per_page, page_token=page_token)
This works on smaller tables, but on larger ones like mine it asks to allow large requests and specify target table. But this makes no sense to me. For to simply fetch data from a table I have to copy it to another table?
What you are running into is described in this documentation. In summary, apart from the limit on how much data can be fetched at a time, there is a point where your results become "large results." This is when your results are more than 128MB compressed as described here. When your results are classified as large, you can only store the result of a query in a table in Big Query.
Unfortunately I'm not sure there's a nice way to do what you want without reducing how many rows you are retrieving at once. What you'll likely need to do is explore the exporting data documentation for big query.
You should use tabledata.list API for fetching data from table.
Using parameters (startIndex or pageToken) and maxResults you can control size of page you fetch.
I think this is exactly what you need link, as far as I understood you can't get a large result of a query but you can get the entire table data to your app no mater how big it is, thats why you need to put the large result in a table and then get this table data to your app and do whatever you want with it
good luck :)
Let's say I have a (MySQL) DB. I want to automate the update of this database via an application, that will:
1. Import from DB
2. Calculate updated data
3. Export back updated data
The timing is important, I don't want to import while calculating, in fact I don't want any queries then; I want to import (a) table(s) as a whole, then calculate. So, my question is, if a row is represented with an instance of a class, then what container do I put these objects into?
A vector? A set? What about ordered vs. unordered? Just use what seems best for my case according to big O times? Any special traps to fall into here? Is this case no different than with data "born in memory", so the only things to consider besides size overhead are "do I want the lookup or the insertion to be faster" ?
Probably the best route is to use some ORM, but let's say I don't want to.
I've seen some apps use boost::unordered_set, and I wondered, if there is a particular reason for its use...
I use a jdbc-like interface as the connector (libmysqlcpp).
I do not think that the container you have to use can be guessed with so few information. It mainly depends of the data size, type and the algorithm you will run.
But my main concern over such a design is that it will quickly choke your network or your base and database. If you have a big table you'll:
select all the data from the table
retrieve all the data over the network
process on you machine part (some columns ?) or the entirety of the data
push the data over the network
update your rows (or erase/replace maybe)
Why don't you consider working directly on the mysql server ? You create your user defined function that work on the directly data, saving the network and even taking advantage of the fact that mysql is built to handle gigantic amount of data, quantity that an in-memory container is not built to handle.
I have a Qt application, that reads a special text file, parses it and inserts about 100000 rows into a temporary table in a firebird database. Then it starts a stored procedure to process this temporary table and apply some changes to permanent tables. Inserting 100000 rows into in-memory temporary table takes about 8 seconds on firebird.
Now I need to implement such behavior using MS SQL Server 2008. If I use simple serial inserts it takes about 76 seconds for 100000 rows. Unfortunately, it's too slow. I looked at the following ways:
Temporary tables (# and ##). Stored on the disk in tempdb scheme. So there is no speed increase.
Bulk Insert. Very nice insertion speed, but thre is a need to have client or server-side shared folder.
Table variables. MSDN says: "Do not use table variables to store large amounts of data (more than 100 rows)."
So, tell me please, what is the right way to increse insertion speed from client application to MSSSQL2008.
Thank you.
You can use the bulk copy operations available through OLE DB or ODBC interfaces.
This MSDN article seems to hold your hand through the process, for ODBC:
Allocate an environment handle and a connection handle.
Set SQL_COPT_SS_BCP and SQL_BCP_ON to enable bulk copy operations.
Connect to SQL Server.
Call bcp_init to set the following information:
The name of the table or view to bulk copy from or to.
Specify NULL for the name of the data file.
The name of an data file to receive any bulk copy error messages
(specify NULL if you do not want a message file).
The direction of the copy: DB_IN from the application to the view or
table or DB_OUT to the application from the table or view.
Call bcp_bind for each column in the bulk copy to bind the column to a
program variable.
Fill the program variables with data, and call bcp_sendrow to send a
row of data.
After several rows have been sent, call bcp_batch to checkpoint the
rows already sent. It is good practice to call bcp_batch at least once
per 1000 rows.
After all rows have been sent, call bcp_done to complete the
operation.
If you need a cross platform implementation of the bulk copy functions, take a look at FreeTDS.
I have a software project that I am working on at work that has been driving me crazy. Here's our problem: we have a series data contacts that need to be logged every second. It needs to include time, bearing (array of 360-1080 bytes), range, and a few other fields. Our system also needs the capability to store this data for up to 30 days. In practice, there can be up to 100 different contacts, so at a maximum, there can be anywhere from around 150,000,000 points to about 1,000,000,000 different points in 30 days.
I'm trying to think of the best method for storing all of this data and retrieving later on. My first thought was to use some RDBMS like MySQL. Being a embedded C/C++ programmer, I have very little experience working with MySQL with such large data sets. I've dabbled with it on small datasets, but nothing nearly as large. I generated the below schema for two tables that will store some of the data:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `HEADER_TABLE` (
`header_id` tinyint(3) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`sensor` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
`bytes` smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`header_id`),
UNIQUE KEY `header_id_UNIQUE` (`header_id`),
UNIQUE KEY `sensor_UNIQUE` (`sensor`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=0 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `RAW_DATA_TABLE` (
`internal_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`time_sec` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
`time_nsec` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
`transverse` bit(1) NOT NULL default b'0',
`data` varbinary(1080) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`internal_id`,`time_sec`,`time_nsec`),
UNIQUE KEY `internal_id_UNIQUE` (`internal_id`),
KEY `time` (`time_sec`)
KEY `internal_id` (`internal_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=1 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `rel_RASTER_TABLE` (
`internal_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`raster_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`time_sec` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
`time_nsec` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
`header_id` tinyint(3) unsigned NOT NULL,
`data_id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`internal_id`, `raster_id`,`time_sec`,`time_nsec`),
KEY `raster_id` (`raster_id`),
KEY `time` (`time_sec`),
KEY `data` (`data_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=1 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
The header table only contains 10 rows and is static. It just tells what sensor the raw data came from, and the number of bytes output by that type of sensor. The RAW_DATA_TABLE essentially stores the raw bearing data (an array of 360-1080 bytes, it represents up to three samples per degree). The rel_RASTER_TABLE holds meta data for the RAW_DATA_TABLE, there can be multiple contacts that refer to the same raw data row. The data_id found in rel_RASTER_TABLE points to the internal_id of some row in the RAW_DATA_TABLE, I did this to decrease the amount of writes needed.
Obviously, as you can probably tell, I'm having performance issues when reading and deleting from this database. An operator to our software can see real time data as it comes across and also go into reconstruction mode and overlay a data range from the past, the past week for example. Our backend logging server grabs the history rows and sends them to a display via a CORBA interface. While all of this is happening, I have a worker thread that deletes 1000 rows at a time for data greater than 30 days. This is there in case a session runs longer than 30 days, which can happen.
The system we currently have implemented works well for smaller sets of data, but not for large sets. Our select and delete statements can take upwards of 2 minutes to return results. This completely kills the performance of our real time consumer thread. I suspect we're not designing our schemas correctly, picking the wrong keys, not optimizing our SQL queries correctly, or some subset of each. Our writes don't see to be affected unless the other operations take too long to run.
Here is an example SQL Query we use to get history data:
SELECT
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_sec,
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_nsec,
RAW_DATA_TABLE.transverse,
HEADER_TABLE.bytes,
RAW_DATA_TABLE.data
FROM
RASTER_DB.HEADER_TABLE,
RASTER_DB.RAW_DATA_TABLE,
RASTER_DB.rel_RASTER_TABLE
WHERE
rel_RASTER_TABLE.raster_id = 2952704 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_sec >= 1315849228 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_sec <= 1315935628 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.data_id = RAW_DATA_TABLE.internal_id AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.header_id = HEADER_TABLE.header_id;
I apologize in advance for this being such a long question, but I've tapped out other resources and this is my last resort. I figure I'd try to be as descriptive as possible Do you guys see of any way I can improve upon our design at first glance? Or, anyway we can optimize our select and delete statements for such large data sets? We're currently running RHEL as the OS and unfortunately can't change our hardware configuration on the server (4 GB RAM, Quad Core). We're using C/C++ and the MySQL API. ANY speed improvements would be EXTREMELY beneficial. If you need me to clarify anything, please let me know. Thanks!
EDIT: BTW, if you can't provide specific help, maybe you can link me to some excellent tutorials you've come across for optimizing SQL queries, schema design, or MySQL tuning?
First thing you could try is de-normalizing the data. On a data set of that size, doing a join, even if you have indexes is going to require very intense computation. Turn those three tables into 1 table. Sure there will be duplicate data, but without joins it will be much easier to work with. Second thing, see if you can get a machine with enough memory to fit the whole table in memory. It doesn't cost much ($1000 or less) for a machine with 24GB of RAM. I'm not sure if that will hold your entire data set, but it will help tremendously Get an SSD as well. For anything that isn't stored in memory, an SSD should help you access it with high speed. And thirdly, look into other data storage technologies such as BigTable that are designed to deal with very large data sets.
I would say partitioning is an absolute must in a case like this:
large amount of data
new data coming in continuously
implicit: old data getting deleted continuously.
Check out this for mySQL.
Looking at your select stmt (which filters on time), I'll say partition on the time column.
Of course you might wanna add a few indexes based on the frequent queries you want to use.
--edit--
I see that many have suggested indexes. My experiences have been that having an index on a table with really large num of rows either kills the performance (eventually) or requires lot of resources (CPU, memory,...) to keep the indexes up to date.
So although I also suggest addition of indexes, please note that it's absolutely useless unless you partition the table first.
Finally, follow symcbean's advise (optimize your indexes in number and keys) when you add indexes.
--edit end--
A quickie on partitioning if you're new to it.
Usually a single table translates to a single data file. A partitioned table translates to one file per partition.
Advantages
insertions are faster as physically it's inserted into a smaller file (partition).
deletion of large number of rows would usually translate to dropping a partition (much much much much cheaper than 'delete from xxx where time > 100 and time < 200');
queries with a where clause on the key by which the table is partitioned is much much faster.
Index building is faster.
I don't have much experience with MySQL, but here are some a priori thoughts that jump to mind.
Is your select in a stored procedure?
The select's predicate is usually searched in the order its asked in. If the data on the disk is reordered to match the primary key, then doing raster id first is fine. You would be paying the cost of reordering on every insert though. If the data is stored in time order on disk, you would probably want to search on time_sec before raster_id.
WHERE
rel_RASTER_TABLE.raster_id = 2952704 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_sec >= 1315849228 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.time_sec <= 1315935628 AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.data_id = RAW_DATA_TABLE.internal_id AND
rel_RASTER_TABLE.header_id = HEADER_TABLE.header_id;
Your indexes don't follow the search predicates.
It will create indexes based on the keys, generally.
PRIMARY KEY (`internal_id`, `raster_id`,`time_sec`,`time_nsec`),
KEY `raster_id` (`raster_id`),
KEY `time` (`time_sec`),
KEY `data` (`data_id`)
It may not be using the primary index because you aren't using internal_id. You may want to set internal_id as the primary key and create a separate index based on your search parameters. At least on raster_id and time_sec.
Are the joins too loose?
This may be my inexperience with MySQL, but I expect to see conditions on the joins. Does using FROM here do a natural join? I don't see any foreign keys specified, so I don't know how it would join these tables rationally.
FROM
RASTER_DB.HEADER_TABLE,
RASTER_DB.RAW_DATA_TABLE,
RASTER_DB.rel_RASTER_TABLE
Usually when developing something like this I would work with a smaller set and remove predicates to makes sure that each step meets what I expect. If you accidentally cast a wide net up front, then narrow down later you may mask some inefficiencies.
Most query optimizers have a way to output how the optimized, make sure it meets your expectations. One of the comments mention Explain plans, I assume that is what it is called.
Without knowing what all the queries are its difficult to give specific advice, however looking at the single query you have provided, there are no indexes which are idealy suited to resolving this.
In fact the structure is a bit messy - if internal_id is an auto-increment value then it is unique - why add other stuff in the primary key? It looks as if a more sensible structure for rel_RASTER_TABLE would be:
PRIMARY KEY (`internal_id`),
KEY (`raster_id`,`time_sec`,`time_nsec`),
And as for RAW_DATA_TABLE, it should be blindingly obvious that its indexes are far from optimal. And should probably be:
PRIMARY KEY (`internal_id`,`time_sec`,`time_nsec`),
KEY `time` (`time_sec`, `time_nsec`)
Note that removing redundant indexes will speed up inserts/updates.
Capturing slow queries should help - and learn how to use 'explain' to see what indexes are redundant / needed.
You may also get a performance boost by tuning the mysql instance - particularly increasing the sort and join buffers - try running mysqltuner
First, I would try to create a view with only the necessary info that needs to be selected between the different tables.
By the way, MySQL is not necessarily the most optimized database system for what you are trying to accomplish... Look into other solutions such Oracle, Microsoft SQL, PostgreSQL etc. Also, the performance will vary depending on the server being used.