I have to implement a database solution wherein contention is handled in a clustered environment. There is a scenario wherein there are multiple users trying to access a bank account at the same time and deposit money into it if balance is less than $100, how can I make sure that no extra money is deposited? Basically , this query is supposed to fire :-
update acct set balance=balance+25 where acct_no=x ;
Since database is clustered , account ends up getting deposited multiple times.
I am looking for purely oracle based solution.
Clustering doesn't matter for the system which is trying to prevent the scenario you're fearing/seeing, which is locking.
Behold scenario user A and then user B trying to do an update, based on a check (less than 100 dollar in account):
If both the check and the update is done in the same transaction, locking will prevent that user B does a check, UNTIL user A has done both the check, and the actual insert. In other words, user B will find the check failing, and will not perform the asked action.
When a user says "at the same time", you should know that the computer does not know that concept, as all transactions are sequential, no matter what millisecond is identical. Behold the ID that is kept in the Redo Logs, there's only one counter. Transaction X and Y is done before or after each other, never at the same time.
That doesn't sound right ... When Oracle locks a row for update, the lock should be across all nodes. What you describe doesn't sound right. What version of Oracle are you using, and can you provide a step-by-step example of what you're doing?
Oracle 11 doc here:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/consist.htm#CNCPT020
I read that Oracle maintains row versions to deal with concurrency. I want to run an update query on a very big real-time database but this update job must alter the most recent version of the row.
Is this possible via PL/SQL or simply SQL?
Edited below **
Let me clear the scenario, the real-life issue that we faced on a very large database. Our client is a well-known cell phone service provider.
Our database has a table that manages records of the current balance left on the customer's cell phone account. Among the other columns of the table, one column stores the amount of recharge done and one other column manages the current active balance left.
We have two independent PL/SQL scripts. One script is automatically fired when the customer recharges his phone and updates his balance.
The second script is about deduction certain charges from the customers account. This is a batch job as it applies to all the customers. This script is scheduled to run at certain intervals of a day. When this script is run, it loads 50,000 records in the memory, updates certain columns and performs bulk update back to the table.
The issue happened is like this:
A customer, whose ID is 101, contacted his local shop to get his phone recharged. He pays the amount. But till the time his phone was about to recharge, the scheduled time of the second script fired the second script. The second script loaded the records of 50,000 customers in the memory. In this in-memory records, one of the record of this customer too.
Till the time the second script's batch update finishes, the first script successfully recharged the customer's account.
Now what happened is that is the actual table, the column: "CurrentAccountBalance" gets updated to 150, but the in-memory records on which the second script was working had the customer's old balance i.e, 100.
The second script had to deduct 10 from the column: "CurrentAccountBalance". When, according to actual working, the customer's "CurrentAccountBalance" should be 140, this issue made his balance 90.
Now how to deal with this issue.
I think what you want is what is anyway happening if you UPDATE.
It is true that Oracle keeps old data for a while, but just to support consistent reads. That is, read operations that see only the state as it was at start of the transaction--even if the data was overwritten in the meantime. It's called Multi Version Concurrency Control and can be controlled by the Transaction Isolation Level.
You can explicitly request the most recent one by selecting `FOR UPDATE; that adds a lock for the record so that nobody else can update it in the meanwhile (until your transaction ends).
However, if you need to write anything (e.g., UPDATE) Oracle works always on the most recent version.
As #Markus suggested, you have a race condition. If you're loading records into memory and working on them before updating the rows in the table, and something else may try to update them in the meantime, then you need to lock them while you work on them. (I'm assuming whatever you're doing is too complicated to do a simple one-step update). Something like this would work:
DECLARE
CURSOR c is SELECT * FROM current_balance_table FOR UPDATE;
BEGIN
FOR r IN c LOOP
/* Do whatever calculations you need */
new_value := r.CurrantAccountBalance - 10;
UPDATE current_balance_table SET CurrentAccountBalance = new_value
WHERE CURRENT OF c;
END LOOP:
END;
The problem now is that all records are locked for the duration of the loop, so your customer in the shop will either not be able to update their balance, or will have a log wait before the update takes effect - though when it does it will work on the updated value you stored. So you'd have to break the cursor up into small chunks, balancing performance of your script against the impact on anyone else trying to update the same table.
One option would be to have an outer cursor selecting all the customers you're targeting with no locking, and then an inner one that locks the balance record for that customer while that row is calculated and updated. You'd have to commit after each inner loop to release the lock for that row. This involves a lot more locking/unlocking and committing after every row update slows things down a lot. But it minimises the impact on the individual customer in the shop, as only a single row is locked at a time and the length of time that is locked is minimised. So, you need to find the right balance.
Here is the issue.
On a site I've recently taken over it tracks "miles" you ran in a day. So a user can log into the site, add that they ran 5 miles. This is then added to the database.
At the end of the day, around 1am, a service runs which calculates all the miles, all the users ran in the day and outputs a text file to App_Data. That text file is then displayed in flash on the home page.
I think this is kind of ridiculous. I was told they had to do this due to massive performance issues. They won't tell me exactly how they were doing it before or what the major performance issue was.
So what approach would you guys take? The first thing that popped into my mind was a web service which gets the data via an AJAX call. Perhaps every time a new "mile" entry is added, a trigger is fired and updates the "GlobalMiles" table.
I'd appreciate any info or tips on this.
Thanks so much!
Answering this question is a bit difficult since there we don't know all of your requirements and something didn't work before. So here are some different ideas.
First, revisit your assumptions. Generating a static report once a day is a perfectly valid solution if all you need is daily reports. Why hit the database multiple times throghout the day if all that's needed is a snapshot (for instance, lots of blog software used to write html files when a blog was posted rather than serving up the entry from the database each time -- many still do as an optimization). Is the "real-time" feature something you are adding?
I wouldn't jump to AJAX right away. Use the same input method, just move the report from static to dynamic. Doing too much at once is a good way to get yourself buried. When changing existing code I try to find areas that I can change in isolation wih the least amount of impact to the rest of the application. Then once you have the dynamic report then you can add AJAX (and please use progressive enhancement).
As for the dynamic report itself you have a few options.
Of course you can just SELECT SUM(), but it sounds like that would cause the performance problems if each user has a large number of entries.
If your database supports it, I would look at using an indexed view (sometimes called a materialized view). It should support allows fast updates to the real-time sum data:
CREATE VIEW vw_Miles WITH SCHEMABINDING AS
SELECT SUM([Count]) AS TotalMiles,
COUNT_BIG(*) AS [EntryCount],
UserId
FROM Miles
GROUP BY UserID
GO
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX ix_Miles ON vw_Miles(UserId)
If the overhead of that is too much, #jn29098's solution is a good once. Roll it up using a scheduled task. If there are a lot of entries for each user, you could only add the delta from the last time the task was run.
UPDATE GlobalMiles SET [TotalMiles] = [TotalMiles] +
(SELECT SUM([Count])
FROM Miles
WHERE UserId = #id
AND EntryDate > #lastTaskRun
GROUP BY UserId)
WHERE UserId = #id
If you don't care about storing the individual entries but only the total you can update the count on the fly:
UPDATE Miles SET [Count] = [Count] + #newCount WHERE UserId = #id
You could use this method in conjunction with the SPROC that adds the entry and have both worlds.
Finally, your trigger method would work as well. It's an alternative to the indexed view where you do the update yourself on a table instad of SQL doing it automatically. It's also similar to the previous option where you move the global update out of the sproc and into a trigger.
The last three options make it more difficult to handle the situation when an entry is removed, although if that's not a feature of your application then you may not need to worry about that.
Now that you've got materialized, real-time data in your database now you can dynamically generate your report. Then you can add fancy with AJAX.
If they are truely having performance issues due to to many hits on the database then I suggest that you take all the input and cram it into a message queue (MSMQ). Then you can have a service on the other end that picks up the messages and does a bulk insert of the data. This way you have fewer db hits. Then you can output to the text file on the update too.
I would create a summary table that's rolled up once/hour or nightly which calculates total miles run. For individual requests you could pull from the nightly summary table plus any additional logged miles for the period between the last rollup calculation and when the user views the page to get the total for that user.
How many users are you talking about and how many log records per day?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to create something similiar to Google Calendar, so I created an events table that contains all the events for a user.
The hard part is handling re-occurring events, the row in the events table has an event_type field that tells you what kind of event it is, since an event can be for a single date only, OR a re-occuring event every x days.
The main design challenge is handling re-occurring events.
When a user views the calendar, using the month's view, how can I display all the events for the given month? The query is going to be tricky, so I thought it would be easier to create another table and create a row for each and every event, including the re-occuring events.
What do you guys think?
I'm tackling exactly this problem, and I had completely spaced iCalendar (rfc 2445) up until reading this thread, so I have no idea how well this will or won't integrate with that. Anyway the design I've come up with so far looks something like this:
You can't possibly store all the instances of a recurring event, at least not before they occur, so I simply have one table that stores the first instance of the event as an actual date, an optional expiration, and nullable repeat_unit and repeat_increment fields to describe the repetition. For single instances the repition fields are null, otherwise the units will be 'day', 'week', 'month', 'year' and increment is simply the multiple of units to add to start date for the next occurrence.
Storing past events only seems advantageous if you need to establish relationships with other entities in your model, and even then it's not necessary to have an explicit "event instance" table in every case. If the other entities already have date/time "instance" data then a foreign key to the event (or join table for a many-to-many) would most likely be sufficient.
To do "change this instance"/"change all future instances", I was planning on just duplicating the events and expiring the stale ones. So to change a single instances, you'd expire the old one at it's last occurrence, make a copy for the new, unique occurrence with the changes and without any repetition, and another copy of the original at the following occurrence that repeats into the future. Changing all future instances is similar, you would just expire the original and make a new copy with the changes and repition details.
The two problems I see with this design so far are:
It makes MWF-type events hard to represent. It's possible, but forces the user to create three separate events that repeat weekly on M,W,F individually, and any changes they want to make will have to be done on each one separately as well. These kind of events aren't particularly useful in my app, but it does leave a wart on the model that makes it less universal than I'd like.
By copying the events to make changes, you break the association between them, which could be useful in some scenarios (or, maybe it would just be occasionally problematic.) The event table could theoretically contain a "copied_from" id field to track where an event originated, but I haven't fully thought through how useful something like that would be. For one thing, parent/child hierarchical relationships are a pain to query from SQL, so the benefits would need to be pretty heavy to outweigh the cost for querying that data. You could use a nested-set instead, I suppose.
Lastly I think it's possible to compute events for a given timespan using straight SQL, but I haven't worked out the exact details and I think the queries usually end up being too cumbersome to be worthwhile. However for the sake of argument, you can use the following expression to compute the difference in months between the given month and year an event:
(:month + (:year * 12)) - (MONTH(occursOn) + (YEAR(occursOn) * 12))
Building on the last example, you could use MOD to determine whether difference in months is the correct multiple:
MOD(:month + (:year * 12)) - (MONTH(occursOn) + (YEAR(occursOn) * 12), repeatIncrement) = 0
Anyway this isn't perfect (it doesn't ignore expired events, doesn't factor in start / end times for the event, etc), so it's only meant as a motivating example. Generally speaking though I think most queries will end up being too complicated. You're probably better off querying for events that occur during a given range, or don't expire before the range, and computing the instances themselves in code rather than SQL. If you really want the database to do the processing then a stored procedure would probably make your life a lot easier.
As previously stated, don't reinvent the wheel, just enhance it.
Checkout VCalendar, it is open source, and comes in PHP, ASP, and ASP.Net (C#)!
Also you could check out Day Pilot which offers a calendar written in Asp.Net 2.0. They offer a lite version that you could check out, and if it works for you, you could purchase a license.
Update (9/30/09):
Unless of course the wheel is broken! Also, you can put a shiny new coat of paint if you like (ie: make a better UI). But at least try to find some foundation to build off of, since the calendar system can be tricky (with Repeating events), and it's been done thousands of times.
Attempting to store each instance of every event seems like it would be really problematic and, well, impossible. If someone creates an event that occurs "every thursday, forever", you clearly cannot store all the future events.
You could try to generate the future events on demand, and populate the future events only when necessary to display them or to send notification about them. However, if you are going to build the "on-demand" generation code anyway, why not use it all the time? Instead of pulling from the event table, and then having to use on-demand event generation to fill in any new events that haven't been added to the table yet, just use the on-demand event generation exclusively. The end result will be the same. With this scheme, you only need to store the start and end dates and the event frequency.
I don't see any way that you can avoid having on-demand event generation, so I can't see the utility in the event table. If you want it for the sake of caching, then I think you're taking the wrong approach. First, it's a poor cache because you can't avoid on-demand event generation anyway. Second, you should probably be caching at a higher level anyway. If you want to cache, then cache generated pages, not events.
As far as making your polling more efficient, if you are only polling every 15 minutes, and your database and/or server can't handle the load, then you are already doomed. There's no way your database will be able to handle users if it can't handle much, much more frequent polling without breaking a sweat.
I would say start with the ical standard. If you use it as your model, then you'll be able to do everything that google calendar, outlook, mac ical (the program), and get virtually instant integration with them.
From there, time to bone up on your ajax and javascript cuz you can't have a flashy web ui with drag drop and multiple calendars without a ton of ajax and javascript.
You should have a start date, end date, and expiration date. Single day events would have the same start date and end date, and allows you to do partial day events as well. As for re-occuring events, then the start and end date would be for the same day, but have different times, then you have an enumeration or table that specifies the repeat frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, etc).
This allows you to say "this event appears every day" for daily, "this event appears on the 2nd day of every week" for weekly, "this event appears on the 5th day of every month" for monthly, "this event appears on the 215th day of every year" for yearly as long as the date is less than the expiration date.
Darren,
That is how I have designed my events table actually, but when thinking about it, say I have 100K users who have create events, this table will be hit pretty hard, especially if I am going to be sending out emails to remind people of their events (events can be for specific times of the day also!), so I could be polling this table every 15 minutes potentially!
This is why I wanted to create another table that would expand out all the events/re-occuring events, this way I can simple hit that table and get the users months view of events without doing any complicated querying and business logic, AND it will make polling much more effecient also.
The question is, should this secondary table be for the next day or month? What makes more sense? Since the maximum a user can view is a months view, I am leaning towards a table that writes out all the events for a given month.
(ofcourse I will have to maintain this secondary table for any edits the user might make to the original events table).
ChanChan,
I have designed it with the same sort of functionality actually, but I am just referring to how I will go about storing events, specifically how to handle re-occurring events.
The brute-force-ish but still reasonable way would be to create a new row in your single events table for every instance of the recurring event, all pointing not to the event preceding it in the series but to the first event in the series. This simplifies selecting and/or deleting all elements in a particular series, since you can select based on parent id. It also allows users to delete individual items from a series without affecting the rest of them.
This query gets you the series that starts on element 3:
SELECT * FROM events WHERE id = 3 OR parentid = 3
To get all items for this month, assuming you'd have a start date and an end date in your events table, all you'd have to do is:
SELECT * FROM events WHERE startdate >= '2008-08-01' AND enddate <= '2008-08-31'
Handling the creation/modification of series programmatically wouldn't be very difficult, but it really would depend on the feature set you want to provide and how you think it'll be used. If you want to differentiate between series and events, you could have a separate series table and a nullable series_id on your events, allowing you the freedom to muck about with individual events while still retaining control over your series.
From past experience I would create a new record for each occurring event and then have a column which references the previous event so you can track all events in a series.
This has two advantages:
No complicated routines to work out the next event date
Individual occurrences can be edited without effecting the rest
Hope this gives you some food for thought :)
I have to agree with #ChanChan on reading the ical spec for how to store these things. There is no easy way to handle recurrences, especially ones that have exceptions. I've built and rebuilt and rebuilt a database to handle this, and I keep coming back to ical.
It's not a bad idea to create a subordinate table, depending on use cases. The algorithm for calculating exactly when occurrences . . . um, occur . . . can indeed be quite complex. There's no getting away from running it, but it's worth considering caching the results.
#GateKiller
I hadn't thought of the case where you edit individual occurrences. It makes sense you would store the occurrences separately in that case.
When you do that, though, how far in the future do you store events? Do you pick an arbitrary date? Do you auto-generate the new occurrences the first time a user browses out into future months/years?
Also, how do you handle the case where the user wants to edit the whole series. "We've had a meeting every Tuesday morning at 10:30 but we're going to start meeting on Wednesday at 8"
I think I understand your second paragraph to mean you are considering a second events table that has a row for each occurrence of an event. I would avoid that.
Re-occurring events should have a start date and a stop date (which could be Null for events that continue every X days "forever") You'll have to decide what kinds of frequency you want to allow -- every X days, the Nth day of each month, every given weekday, etc.
I'd probably tend toward two tables - one for one time events and a second for recurring events. You'll have to query and display the two separately.
If I were going to tackle this (and I'd try as hard as I can to avoid reinventing this wheel) I'd look for open-source libraries or, at the very least, open source projects with Calendars that you can look at. Any recommendations guys?
undefined wrote:
…this table will be hit pretty
hard, especially if I am going to be
sending out emails to remind people of
their events (events can be for
specific times of the day also!), so I could be polling this table every 15 minutes potentially!
Create a table for the notifications. Poll only it.
Update the notification table when events (recurring or otherwise) are updated.
EDIT: A database View might not violate normal forms, if that's a concern. But, you'll probably want to track which notifications were sent and which have not yet been sent somewhere anyway.
Derek Park,
I would be creating each and every instance of an event in a table, and this table would be regenerated every month (so any event that was set to reoccurr 'forever' would be regenerated one month in advance using a windows service or maybe at the sql server level).
The polling won't only be done every 15 minutes, that might only be for polls related to email notifications. When someone wants to view their events for a month, I will have to fetech all their events, and re-occuring events and figure out which events to display (since a re-occuring event might have been created 6 months ago, but relates to a month the user is viewing).
Zack, i'm not too concerned with having a perfectly normalized database, the fact that I'm thinking of creating a secondary table is already breaking one of the rules hehe. My core database tables are following 'the rules', but I don't mind creating secondary tables/columns at times when it benefits things performance wise.
That is how I have designed my events table actually, but when thinking about it, say I have 100K users who have create events, this table will be hit pretty hard, especially if I am going to be sending out emails to remind people of their events (events can be for specific times of the day also!), so I could be polling this table every 15 minutes potentially!
Databases do exception jobs of handling sets of data, so i wouldn't be too worried about that. What you should do is use this as your primary table, and then as events expire then move them into another table (like an archive).
The next thing is you want to try is to query the db as little as possible, so move the information into a caching tier (like velocity) and just persist data to the database.
Then, you can partition the information across multiple databases for scaling purposes. ie users 1-10000 calendars exist on server 1, 10001 - 20000 exist on server 2, etc.
That's how i would scale a solution like this, but i still think the original solution i proposed is the way to go, it's just how you scale it that becomes the question.
The Ra-Ajax Calendar starter-kit features a sample of handling the RenderDate event which can modify the dates of specifically. Though the "recurring events" is more of an algorithmic thing and here I doubt very few calendars will help you much...
If anyone is doing Ruby there's a great library Runt that does this kind of thing. Worth checking out. http://runt.rubyforge.org/