I Have a Spring boot project where I would like to execute a specific query in a database from x different threads while preventing different threads from reading the same database entries. So far I was able to run the query in multiple threads but had no luck on finding a way to "split" the read load. My code so far is as follows:
#Async
#Transactional
public CompletableFuture<Book> scanDatabase() {
final List<Book> books = booksRepository.findAllBooks();
return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(books);
}
Any ideas on how should I approach this?
There are plenty of ways to do that.
If you have a numeric field in the data that is somewhat random you can add a condition to your where clause like ... and some_value % :N = :i with :N being a parameter for the number of threads and :i being the index of the specific thread (0 based).
If you don't have a numeric field you can create one by using a hash function and apply it on some other field in order to turn it into something numeric. See your database specific documentation for available hash functions.
You could use an analytic function like ROW_NUMBER() to create a numeric value to be use in the condition.
You could query the number of rows in a first query and then query a the right Slice using Spring Datas pagination feature.
And many more variants.
They all have in common that the complete set of rows must not change during the processing, otherwise you may get rows queried multiple times or not at all.
If you can't guarantee that you need to mark the records to be processed by a thread before actually selecting them, for example by marking them in an extra field or by using a FOR UPDATE clause in your query.
And finally there is the question if this is really what you need.
Querying the data in multiple threads probably doesn't make the querying part faster since it makes the query more complex and doesn't speed up those parts that typically limit the throughput: network between application and database and I/O in the database.
So it might be a better approach to select the data with one query and iterate through it, passing it on to a pool of thread for processing.
You also might want to take a look at Spring Batch which might be helpful with processing large amounts of data.
Related
I am planning to leverage AWS DynamoDB for one the legacy application. I have did the data modelling for persist the data in DDB and I have came with single table, as it is coming to effective in my use case.
But, there is one of the requirement where I need to show the total qualified record count for a Query for Pagination.
Apart of Scanning the whole table, is there any out of box to to get total qualified record counts?
Thanks
You can use describe table API for that.
It will return several json values including ItemCount which you
need.
This might be not 100% updated as of its no-sql nature. They update it after every ~6 hours. If you need live count, you have to scan entire table but scan is also eventually consistent operation.
If your question is about count on the basis of some condition then
no, you have to use scan or query depends how you want to implement
conditions
more details
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/dynamodb/describe-table.html
Title is probably not very clear so let me explain.
I want to process a in-process join (nodeJs) on 2 tables*, Session and SessionAction. (1-N)
Since these tables are rather big (millions of records both) my idea was to get slices based on an orderBy sessionId (which they both share), and sort of lock-step walk through both tables in batches.
This however proves to be awefully slow. I'm using pseudo code as follows for both the tables to get the batches:
table('x').orderBy({index:"sessionId"}.filter(row.sessionId > start && row.sessionId < y)
It seems that even though I'm essentially filtering on a attribute sessionId which has got an index, the query planner is not smart enough to see this and every query does a complete tablescan to do the orderby before filtering afterwards (or so it seems)
Of course, this is incredibly wasteful but I don't see another option. E.g.:
Order after filter is not supported by Rethink.
Getting a slice of the ordered table doesn't work either, since slice-enumeration (i.e.: the xth until the yth record) for lack of a better work doesn't add up between the 2 tables.
Questions:
Is my approach indeed expected to be slow, due to having to do a table scan at each iteration/batch?
If so, how could I design my queries to get it working faster?
*) It's too involved to do it using Rethink Reql only.
filter is never indexed in RethinkDB. (In general a particular command will only use a secondary index if you pass index as one of its optional arguments.) You can write that query like this to avoid scanning over the whole table:
r.table('x').orderBy({index: 'sessionID'}).between(start, y, {index: 'sessionId'})
My task is to dump entire Azure tables with arbitrary unknown schemas. Standard code to do this resembles the following:
TableQuery<DynamicTableEntity> query = new TableQuery<DynamicTableEntity>();
foreach (DynamicTableEntity entity in table.ExecuteQuery(query))
{
// Write a dump of the entity (row).
}
Depending on the table, this works at a rate of 1000-3000 rows per second on my system. I'm guessing this (lack of) performance has something to do with separate HTTP requests issued to retrieve the data in chunks. Unfortunately, some of the tables are multi-gigabyte in size, so this takes a rather long time.
Is there a good way to parallelize the above or speed it up some other way? It would seem that those HTTP requests could be sent by multiple threads, as in web crawlers and the like. However, I don't see an immediate method to do so.
Unless you know the PartitionKeys of the entities in the table (or some other querying criteria which includes PartitionKey), AFAIK you would need to take a top down approach which you're doing right now. In order for you to fire queries in parallel which would work efficiently you have to include PartitionKey in your queries.
Question: How can I process (read in) batches of records 1000 at a time and ensure that only the current batch of 1000 records is in memory? Assume my primary key is called 'ID' and my table is called Customer.
Background: This is not for user pagination, it is for compiling statistics about my table. I have limited memory available, therefore I want to read my records in batches of 1000 records at a time. I am only reading in records, they will not be modified. I have read that StatelessSession is good for this kind of thing and I've heard about people using ScrollableResults.
What I have tried: Currently I am working on a custom made solution where I implemented Iterable and basically did the pagination by using setFirstResult and setMaxResults. This seems to be very slow for me but it allows me to get 1000 records at a time. I would like to know how I can do this more efficiently, perhaps with something like ScrollableResults. I'm not yet sure why my current method is so slow; I'm ordering by ID but ID is the primary key so the table should already be indexed that way.
As you might be able to tell, I keep reading bits and pieces about how to do this. If anyone can provide me a complete way to do this it would be greatly appreciated. I do know that you have to set FORWARD_ONLY on ScrollableResults and that calling evict(entity) will take an entity out of memory (unless you're doing second level caching, which I do not yet know how to check if I am or not). However I don't see any methods in the JavaDoc to read in say, 1000 records at a time. I want a balance between my lack of available memory and my slow network performance, so sending records over the network one at a time really isn't an option here. I am using Criteria API where possible. Thanks for any detailed replies.
May useing of ROWNUM feature of oracle will hepl you.
Lets say we need to fetch 1000 rows(pagesize) of table CUSTOMERS and we need to fetch second page(pageNumber)
Creating and Calling some query like this may be the answer
select * from
(select rownum row_number,customers.* from Customer
where rownum <= pagesize*pageNumber order by ID)
where row_number >= (pagesize -1)*pageNumber
Load entities as read-only.
For HQL
Query.setReadOnly( true );
For Criteria
Criteria.setReadOnly( true );
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/3.6/reference/en-US/html/readonly.html#readonly-api-querycriteria
Stateless session quite different with State-Session.
Operations performed using a stateless session never cascade to associated instances. Collections are ignored by a stateless session
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/3.3/reference/en/html/batch.html#batch-statelesssession
Use flash() and clear() to clean up session cache.
session.flush();
session.clear();
Question about Hibernate session.flush()
ScrollableResults should works that you expect.
Do not forget that each item that you loaded takes memory space unless you evict or clear and need to check it really works well.
ScrollableResults in Mysql J/Connecotr works fake, it loads entire rows, but I think oracle connector works fine.
Using Hibernate's ScrollableResults to slowly read 90 million records
If you find alternatives, you may consider to use this way
1. Select PrimaryKey of every rows that you will process
2. Chopping them into PK chunk
3. iterate -
select rows by PK chunk (using in-query)
process them what you want
I am writing a stored procedure to perform a dynamic search that spans 10+ database tables. With millions of records in each table and a dynamic set of search parameters*, I am having some trouble optimizing the procedure.
Is there a "best practice" for building these kinds of queries? E.g. Use strings to build a dynamic query, use a huge list of IF THEN .. ELSE statements, etc? Can anyone provide a simple example or point me to some literature that will help? Here's some psuedocode for the stored procedure I am developing, which accepts a collection of parameters and a ref cursor.
v_query = "SELECT .....";
v_name = ... -- retrieve "name" parameter from collection
if v_name is not null then
v_query := v_query || ' AND table.Name = ' || v_name;
end if;
open search_cursor for v_query;
...
*By "dynamic set of search parameters," I mean that I pass in a collection of parameters. I figured this would be easier than making the caller pass in 20 parameters if they only want to search on one.
There are problems with using the static query approach; also be very careful about using the CURSOR_SHARING=FORCE option - it can really raise hell with your system if you haven't done a coverage test to ensure that all your other queries will work the way you want.
Problems with static queries:
The (x is null or x = col) predicates tend to kill any chance of using indexes. Since the query plan is computed at the time query is parsed the first time, the indexes you use will be based on the values for the first run of the query; later runs, which may not constrain on the same columns, will still use the same indexes.
Having one static statement with substitution variables will prevent the optimizer from making an intelligent choice about which index to use based on the data distribution. In a dynamic query (or in the first run of a query with bind variables), Oracle will see how selective your constraint is; a highly selective constraint will become a prime candidate for index use. For example, if your table had a row for every person in the U.S., STATE='Alaska' will be much more likely to use the index on STATE than STATE='California'.
Of course, in both these cases, if the dynamic columns in your WHERE clause are not indexed anyway, it doesn't matter, although I'd be surprised if that were the case in a database the size you're talking about.
Also, consider the real cost of all that hard parsing. Yes, hard parses serialize system resources, which makes them expensive, but only in the context of high volume queries. By their nature, ad-hoc queries do not get run very often. The cost you pay for all the hard parses you incur in an entire day will likely be hundreds of times less than the cost of a single query that uses the wrong indexes.
In the past, I've implemented these systems pretty much like you've done here - a base query portion, then iterating over a constraint list and adding WHERE clause predicates. I don't think it's hard for someone to maintain or understand, especially if you're talking about constraints that don't involve adding a lot of subqueries or extra tables to the FROM clause.
One thing to consider: If this system is primarily an offline one (in other words, not constantly being updated or inserted into - populated by periodic loads of bulk data), you may want to look into using BITMAP indexes. Bitmap indexes differ from regular b-tree indexes in that multiple indexes on a single table can be used simultaneously, and bitmap indexes are much, much smaller on disk than b-trees. They work very well for applications like this - where you will have a variety of constraints that can't be defined at design time. You will only want to put bitmap indexes on columns that have relatively few distinct values - say, one value constitutes no less than 1/1000 of the table - so don't use bitmaps on unique columns.
However, the downside is that bitmap indexes will noticeably degrade the performance of inserts and updates. The best practice for bitmaps is to use them in data warehouse applications, and they are dropped prior to loads and recreated afterwards.
Except in very particular cases, I don't think it is advisable (or even possible) to try to generate an optimized query. My advice is not to use dynamic SQL if you can : hard to read, hard to debug, hard to optimize, hard to maintain.
First, write a generic query that will work with any parameter sent to your procedure. According to your example, that would give something like :
SELECT * FROM table WHERE ((v_name IS NULL) OR (table.Name=v_name));
As you see, you could easily add other parameters to this query without using dynamic SQL. This query is much easier to read and debug. Ask your DBA for optimization tips.
Then, if you have a particular set of parameters that you know are often passed together, you could write a particular query for this set that you could specifically optimize. Pseudocode :
IF particular_set
THEN
/* Specific query */
ELSE
/* Generic query */
END IF;
The difficult part is to try not to have too many specific queries here, or you could fall into a maintenance hell.
We've had a similar requirement for one of our clients. They have half a dozen tables with millions of rows, and they wanted adhoc search capability on most of the columns.
The solution was a separate package for each table, which would take the search criteria and construct the SQL to run the search. We took advantage of the old system that was being replaced, to discover what the most common types of searches the users were doing, and made sure that those searches ran the best, by tuning the queries that were being generated (supported by the strategic use of indexes). Because each package was only responsible for queries against one table, it could have specific code designed to work with that table (including the odd hint, in a few rare cases).
One question/problem that you'll need to address is, do you hard-code the criteria (e.g. WHERE SURNAME='SMITH') or use bind variables? Using bind variables reduces hard parsing, which reduces load on the database server; however it can be impractical to use bind variables when the SQL is dynamically generated. The way we ended up going was to set CURSOR_SHARING=FORCE (which has its own disadvantages) which was a reasonable compromise in our case.
Read http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:6711305251199