I am trying to use sqlite (sqlite3) for a project to store hundreds of thousands of records (would like sqlite so users of the program don't have to run a [my]sql server).
I have to update hundreds of thousands of records sometimes to enter left right values (they are hierarchical), but have found the standard
update table set left_value = 4, right_value = 5 where id = 12340;
to be very slow. I have tried surrounding every thousand or so with
begin;
....
update...
update table set left_value = 4, right_value = 5 where id = 12340;
update...
....
commit;
but again, very slow. Odd, because when I populate it with a few hundred thousand (with inserts), it finishes in seconds.
I am currently trying to test the speed in python (the slowness is at the command line and python) before I move it to the C++ implementation, but right now this is way to slow and I need to find a new solution unless I am doing something wrong. Thoughts? (would take open source alternative to SQLite that is portable as well)
Create an index on table.id
create index table_id_index on table(id)
Other than making sure you have an index in place, you can checkout the SQLite Optimization FAQ.
Using transactions can give you a very big speed increase as you mentioned and you can also try to turn off journaling.
Example 1:
2.2 PRAGMA synchronous
The Boolean synchronous value controls
whether or not the library will wait
for disk writes to be fully written to
disk before continuing. This setting
can be different from the
default_synchronous value loaded from
the database. In typical use the
library may spend a lot of time just
waiting on the file system. Setting
"PRAGMA synchronous=OFF" can make a
major speed difference.
Example 2:
2.3 PRAGMA count_changes
When the count_changes setting is ON,
the callback function is invoked once
for each DELETE, INSERT, or UPDATE
operation. The argument is the number
of rows that were changed. If you
don't use this feature, there is a
small speed increase from turning this
off.
Related
I was recently asked a Question in an interview , if anyone can help me to figure out.
Suppose we have 100 files , and a process read a file , parse it , and write data into a database.
Now lets say process was at file number 60 and power got off , Now how will you design a system such that when power comes up , process should start write data into database , where it left before shut down.
This would be one way:
Loop over:
Pick up a file
Check it hasn't been processed with a query to the database.
Process the file
Update the database
Update the database with a log of the file processed
Commit
Move the file out of the non-processed queue
You can also log the file entry to some other persistent resource.
Q. What if there are many files. Doesn't writing to logs slow down the process?
A: Probably not much, it's just one entry into the database per file. It's the cost of resilience.
Q: What if the files are so small it's almost only updating one row per file?
A: Make your update query idempotent. Don't log, but ensure that files are removed from the queue once the transaction is complete.
Q: What if there are many lines in a file. Do you really want to restart with the first line of a file?
A: Depends on the cost/benefit. You could split the file into smaller ones prior to processing each sub-file. If the power out happens all the time, then that's a good compromise. If it happens very rarely, the extra work by the system may not be worth it.
A: What if there is a mix of small and large files?
Q: Put the files into separate queues that handle them accordingly.
The UPS idea by #TimBiegeleisen is very good, though:
Well actually it is about that, because unplugging a database in the middle of a lengthy transaction might result in corrupted data. – Tim Biegeleisen Feb 22 '20 at 10:24
I've experienced failure of one such, so you'll need two.
I think you must:
Store somewhere a reference to a file (ID, index of processed file - depend on the case really).
Your have to define the bounduaries of a single transaction - let it be full processing of one file so: read a file, parese it, store data to the database and update reference to the file you processed. If all of that succeeds you can commit the transaction to the database.
You main task which will process all the files should look into reference table and based on it's state featch next file.
In this case you create transaction around single file processing. If anything goes wrong there, you can always rerun the processing job and it will start where it left off.
Please be aware that this is very simple exaple in most scenarios you want to keep transactions as thin as possible.
I'm getting a "The remote Process is out of memory" in SAS DIS (Data Integration Studio):
Since it is possible that my approach is wrong, I'll explain the problem I'm working on and the solution I've decided on:
I have a large list of customer names which need cleaning. In order to achieve this, I use a .csv file containing regular expression patterns and their corresponding replacements; (I use this approach since it is easier to add new patterns to the file and upload it to the server for the deployed job to read from rather than harcoding new rules and redeploying the job).
In order to get my data step to make use of the rules in the file I add the patterns and their replacements to an array in the first iteration of my data step then apply them to my names. Something like:
DATA &_OUPUT;
ARRAY rule_nums{1:&NOBS} _temporary_;
IF(_n_ = 1) THEN
DO i=1 to &NOBS;
SET WORK.CLEANING_RULES;
rule_nums{i} = PRXPARSE(CATS('s/',rule_string_match,'/',rule_string_replace,'/i'));
END;
SET WORK.CUST_NAMES;
customer_name_clean = customer_name;
DO i=1 to &NOBS;
customer_name_clean = PRXCHANGE(a_rule_nums{i},1,customer_name_clean);
END;
RUN;
When I run this on around ~10K rows or less, it always completes and finishes extremely quickly. If I try on ~15K rows it chokes for a super long time and eventually throws an "Out of memory" error.
To try and deal with this I built a loop (using the SAS DIS loop transformation) wherein I number the rows of my dataset first, then apply the preceding logic in batches of 10000 names at a time. After a very long time I got the same out of memory error, but when I checked my target table (Teradata) I noticed that it ran and loaded the data for all but the last iteration. When I switched the loop size from 10000 to 1000 I saw exactly the same behaviour.
For testing purposes I've been working with only around ~500K rows but will soon have to handle millions and am worried about how this is going to work. For reference, the set of cleaning rules I'm applying is currently 20 rows but will grow to possibly a few hundred.
Is it significantly less efficient to use a file with rules rather than hard coding the regular expressions directly in my datastep?
Is there any way to achieve this without having to loop?
Since my dataset gets overwritten on every loop iteration, how can there be an out of memory error for datasets that are 1000 rows long (and like 3 columns)?
Ultimately, how do I solve this out of memory error?
Thanks!
The issue turned out to be that the log that the job was generating was too large. The possible solutions are to disable logging or to redirect the log to a location which can be periodically purged and/or has enough space.
I am using SQL Server CE 4.0 and am getting poor DELETE query performance.
My table has 300,000 rows in it.
My query is:
DELETE from tableX
where columnName1 = '<some text>' AND columnName2 = '<some other text>'
I am using a non-clustered index on the 2 fields columnName1 and columnName2.
I noticed that when the number of rows to delete is small (say < 2000), the index can help performance by 2-3X. However, when the number of rows to delete is larger (say > 15000), the index does not help at all.
My theory for this behavior is that when the number of rows is large, the index maintenance is killing the gains achieved by using the index (index seek instead of table scan). Is this correct?
Unfortunately, I can't get rid of the index because it significantly helps non-mutating query performance.
Also, what else can I do to improve the delete performance for the > 15,000 row case?
I am using SQL Server CE 4.0 on Windows 7 (32-bit).
My application is written in C++ and uses the OLE DB interface to manipulate the database.
There is something known as "the tipping point" where the cost of locating individual rows using a seek is not worth it, and it is easier to just perform a single scan instead of thousands of seeks.
A couple of things you may consider for performance:
have a filtered index, if those are supported in CE (I honestly have no idea)
instead of deleting 15,000 rows at once, batch the deletes into chunks.
consider a "soft delete" - where you simply update an active column to 0. Then you can actually delete the rows in smaller batches in the background. I mean, is a user really sitting around and waiting actively for you to delete 15,000+ rows? Why?
I'm parsing poker hand histories, and storing the data in a postgres database. Here's a quick view of that:
I'm getting a relatively bad performance, and parsing files will take several hours. I can see that the database part takes 97% of the total program time. So only a little optimization would make this a lot quicker.
The way I have it set-up now is as follows:
Read next file into a string.
Parse one game and store it into object GameData.
For every player, check if we have his name in the std::map. If so; store the playerids in an array and go to 5.
Insert the player, add it to the std::map, store the playerids in an array.
Using the playerids array, insert the moves for this betting round, store the moveids in an array.
Using the moveids array, insert a movesequence, store the movesequenceids in an array.
If this isn't the last round played, go to 5.
Using the movesequenceids array, insert a game.
If this was not the final game, go to 2.
If this was not the last file, go to 1.
Since I'm sending queries for every move, for every movesequence, for every game, I'm obviously doing too many queries. How should I bundle them for best performance? I don't mind rewriting a bit of code, so don't hold back. :)
Thanks in advance.
CX
It's very hard to answer this without any queries, schema, or a Pg version.
In general, though, the answer to these problems is to batch the work into bigger coarser batches to avoid repeating lots of work, and, most importantly, by doing it all in one transaction.
You haven't said anything about transactions, so I'm wondering if you're doing all this in autocommit mode. Bad plan. Try wrapping the whole process in a BEGIN and COMMIT. If it's a seriously long-running process the COMMIT every few minutes / tens of games / whatever, write a checkpoint file or DB entry your program can use to resume the import from that point, and open a new transaction to carry on.
It'll help to use multi-valued inserts where you're inserting multiple rows to the same table. Eg:
INSERT INTO some_table(col1, col2, col3) VALUES
('a','b','c'),
('1','2','3'),
('bork','spam','eggs');
You can improve commit rates with synchronous_commit=off and a commit_delay, but that's not very useful if you're batching work into bigger transactions.
One very good option will be to insert your new data into UNLOGGED tables (PostgreSQL 9.1 or newer) or TEMPORARY tables (all versions, but lost when session disconnects), then at the end of the process copy all the new rows into the main tables and drop the import tables with commands like:
INSERT INTO the_table
SELECT * FROM the_table_import;
When doing this, CREATE TABLE ... LIKE is useful.
Another option - really a more extreme version of the above - is to write your results to CSV flat files as you read and convert them, then COPY them into the database. Since you're working in C++ I'm assuming you're using libpq - in which case you're hopefully also using libpqtypes. libpq offers access to the COPY api for bulk-loading, so your app wouldn't need to call out to psql to load the CSV data once it'd produced it.
Long story short, I'm rewriting a piece of a system and am looking for a way to store some hit counters in AWS SimpleDB.
For those of you not familiar with SimpleDB, the (main) problem with storing counters is that the cloud propagation delay is often over a second. Our application currently gets ~1,500 hits per second. Not all those hits will map to the same key, but a ballpark figure might be around 5-10 updates to a key every second. This means that if we were to use a traditional update mechanism (read, increment, store), we would end up inadvertently dropping a significant number of hits.
One potential solution is to keep the counters in memcache, and using a cron task to push the data. The big problem with this is that it isn't the "right" way to do it. Memcache shouldn't really be used for persistent storage... after all, it's a caching layer. In addition, then we'll end up with issues when we do the push, making sure we delete the correct elements, and hoping that there is no contention for them as we're deleting them (which is very likely).
Another potential solution is to keep a local SQL database and write the counters there, updating our SimpleDB out-of-band every so many requests or running a cron task to push the data. This solves the syncing problem, as we can include timestamps to easily set boundaries for the SimpleDB pushes. Of course, there are still other issues, and though this might work with a decent amount of hacking, it doesn't seem like the most elegant solution.
Has anyone encountered a similar issue in their experience, or have any novel approaches? Any advice or ideas would be appreciated, even if they're not completely flushed out. I've been thinking about this one for a while, and could use some new perspectives.
The existing SimpleDB API does not lend itself naturally to being a distributed counter. But it certainly can be done.
Working strictly within SimpleDB there are 2 ways to make it work. An easy method that requires something like a cron job to clean up. Or a much more complex technique that cleans as it goes.
The Easy Way
The easy way is to make a different item for each "hit". With a single attribute which is the key. Pump the domain(s) with counts quickly and easily. When you need to fetch the count (presumable much less often) you have to issue a query
SELECT count(*) FROM domain WHERE key='myKey'
Of course this will cause your domain(s) to grow unbounded and the queries will take longer and longer to execute over time. The solution is a summary record where you roll up all the counts collected so far for each key. It's just an item with attributes for the key {summary='myKey'} and a "Last-Updated" timestamp with granularity down to the millisecond. This also requires that you add the "timestamp" attribute to your "hit" items. The summary records don't need to be in the same domain. In fact, depending on your setup, they might best be kept in a separate domain. Either way you can use the key as the itemName and use GetAttributes instead of doing a SELECT.
Now getting the count is a two step process. You have to pull the summary record and also query for 'Timestamp' strictly greater than whatever the 'Last-Updated' time is in your summary record and add the two counts together.
SELECT count(*) FROM domain WHERE key='myKey' AND timestamp > '...'
You will also need a way to update your summary record periodically. You can do this on a schedule (every hour) or dynamically based on some other criteria (for example do it during regular processing whenever the query returns more than one page). Just make sure that when you update your summary record you base it on a time that is far enough in the past that you are past the eventual consistency window. 1 minute is more than safe.
This solution works in the face of concurrent updates because even if many summary records are written at the same time, they are all correct and whichever one wins will still be correct because the count and the 'Last-Updated' attribute will be consistent with each other.
This also works well across multiple domains even if you keep your summary records with the hit records, you can pull the summary records from all your domains simultaneously and then issue your queries to all domains in parallel. The reason to do this is if you need higher throughput for a key than what you can get from one domain.
This works well with caching. If your cache fails you have an authoritative backup.
The time will come where someone wants to go back and edit / remove / add a record that has an old 'Timestamp' value. You will have to update your summary record (for that domain) at that time or your counts will be off until you recompute that summary.
This will give you a count that is in sync with the data currently viewable within the consistency window. This won't give you a count that is accurate up to the millisecond.
The Hard Way
The other way way is to do the normal read - increment - store mechanism but also write a composite value that includes a version number along with your value. Where the version number you use is 1 greater than the version number of the value you are updating.
get(key) returns the attribute value="Ver015 Count089"
Here you retrieve a count of 89 that was stored as version 15. When you do an update you write a value like this:
put(key, value="Ver016 Count090")
The previous value is not removed and you end up with an audit trail of updates that are reminiscent of lamport clocks.
This requires you to do a few extra things.
the ability to identify and resolve conflicts whenever you do a GET
a simple version number isn't going to work you'll want to include a timestamp with resolution down to at least the millisecond and maybe a process ID as well.
in practice you'll want your value to include the current version number and the version number of the value your update is based on to more easily resolve conflicts.
you can't keep an infinite audit trail in one item so you'll need to issue delete's for older values as you go.
What you get with this technique is like a tree of divergent updates. you'll have one value and then all of a sudden multiple updates will occur and you will have a bunch of updates based off the same old value none of which know about each other.
When I say resolve conflicts at GET time I mean that if you read an item and the value looks like this:
11 --- 12
/
10 --- 11
\
11
You have to to be able to figure that the real value is 14. Which you can do if you include for each new value the version of the value(s) you are updating.
It shouldn't be rocket science
If all you want is a simple counter: this is way over-kill. It shouldn't be rocket science to make a simple counter. Which is why SimpleDB may not be the best choice for making simple counters.
That isn't the only way but most of those things will need to be done if you implement an SimpleDB solution in lieu of actually having a lock.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like this method precisely because there is no lock and the bound on the number of processes that can use this counter simultaneously is around 100. (because of the limit on the number of attributes in an item) And you can get beyond 100 with some changes.
Note
But if all these implementation details were hidden from you and you just had to call increment(key), it wouldn't be complex at all. With SimpleDB the client library is the key to making the complex things simple. But currently there are no publicly available libraries that implement this functionality (to my knowledge).
To anyone revisiting this issue, Amazon just added support for Conditional Puts, which makes implementing a counter much easier.
Now, to implement a counter - simply call GetAttributes, increment the count, and then call PutAttributes, with the Expected Value set correctly. If Amazon responds with an error ConditionalCheckFailed, then retry the whole operation.
Note that you can only have one expected value per PutAttributes call. So, if you want to have multiple counters in a single row, then use a version attribute.
pseudo-code:
begin
attributes = SimpleDB.GetAttributes
initial_version = attributes[:version]
attributes[:counter1] += 3
attributes[:counter2] += 7
attributes[:version] += 1
SimpleDB.PutAttributes(attributes, :expected => {:version => initial_version})
rescue ConditionalCheckFailed
retry
end
I see you've accepted an answer already, but this might count as a novel approach.
If you're building a web app then you can use Google's Analytics product to track page impressions (if the page to domain-item mapping fits) and then to use the Analytics API to periodically push that data up into the items themselves.
I haven't thought this through in detail so there may be holes. I'd actually be quite interested in your feedback on this approach given your experience in the area.
Thanks
Scott
For anyone interested in how I ended up dealing with this... (slightly Java-specific)
I ended up using an EhCache on each servlet instance. I used the UUID as a key, and a Java AtomicInteger as the value. Periodically a thread iterates through the cache and pushes rows to a simpledb temp stats domain, as well as writing a row with the key to an invalidation domain (which fails silently if the key already exists). The thread also decrements the counter with the previous value, ensuring that we don't miss any hits while it was updating. A separate thread pings the simpledb invalidation domain, and rolls up the stats in the temporary domains (there are multiple rows to each key, since we're using ec2 instances), pushing it to the actual stats domain.
I've done a little load testing, and it seems to scale well. Locally I was able to handle about 500 hits/second before the load tester broke (not the servlets - hah), so if anything I think running on ec2 should only improve performance.
Answer to feynmansbastard:
If you want to store huge amount of events i suggest you to use distributed commit log systems such as kafka or aws kinesis. They allow to consume stream of events cheap and simple (kinesis's pricing is 25$ per month for 1K events per seconds) – you just need to implement consumer (using any language), which bulk reads all events from previous checkpoint, aggregates counters in memory then flushes data into permanent storage (dynamodb or mysql) and commit checkpoint.
Events can be logged simply using nginx log and transfered to kafka/kinesis using fluentd. This is very cheap, performant and simple solution.
Also had similiar needs/challenges.
I looked at using google analytics and count.ly. the latter seemed too expensive to be worth it (plus they have a somewhat confusion definition of sessions). GA i would have loved to use, but I spent two days using their libraries and some 3rd party ones (gadotnet and one other from maybe codeproject). unfortunately I could only ever see counters post in GA realtime section, never in the normal dashboards even when the api reported success. we were probably doing something wrong but we exceeded our time budget for ga.
We already had an existing simpledb counter that updated using conditional updates as mentioned by previous commentor. This works well, but suffers when there is contention and conccurency where counts are missed (for example, our most updated counter lost several million counts over a period of 3 months, versus a backup system).
We implemented a newer solution which is somewhat similiar to the answer for this question, except much simpler.
We just sharded/partitioned the counters. When you create a counter you specify the # of shards which is a function of how many simulatenous updates you expect. this creates a number of sub counters, each which has the shard count started with it as an attribute :
COUNTER (w/5shards) creates :
shard0 { numshards = 5 } (informational only)
shard1 { count = 0, numshards = 5, timestamp = 0 }
shard2 { count = 0, numshards = 5, timestamp = 0 }
shard3 { count = 0, numshards = 5, timestamp = 0 }
shard4 { count = 0, numshards = 5, timestamp = 0 }
shard5 { count = 0, numshards = 5, timestamp = 0 }
Sharded Writes
Knowing the shard count, just randomly pick a shard and try to write to it conditionally. If it fails because of contention, choose another shard and retry.
If you don't know the shard count, get it from the root shard which is present regardless of how many shards exist. Because it supports multiple writes per counter, it lessens the contention issue to whatever your needs are.
Sharded Reads
if you know the shard count, read every shard and sum them.
If you don't know the shard count, get it from the root shard and then read all and sum.
Because of slow update propogation, you can still miss counts in reading but they should get picked up later. This is sufficient for our needs, although if you wanted more control over this you could ensure that- when reading- the last timestamp was as you expect and retry.