We have a time series table with the following definition
CREATE TABLE timeseries.mytable
(
`ts` DateTime('UTC'),
`src_ip` String,
`dst_ip` String,
`col_other` String
)
ENGINE = MergeTree()
PARTITION BY toDate(tr)
ORDER BY (dst_ip,ts,src_ip)
SETTINGS index_granularity = 8192
SELECT count(*) FROM timeseries.mytable;
# Elapsed 0.004 sec. Has 383M records
SELECT count(*) FROM timeseries.timeseries WHERE dst_ip = 'a.b.c.d';
# Elapsed: 0.085 sec.
SELECT count(*) FROM timeseries.timeseries WHERE src_ip = 'a.b.c.d';
# Elapsed: 53.031 sec
As can be seen above, filtering the data using the first sorted column (dst_ip) is very quick.
How can I make the select using the third sorted column (src_ip) faster?
Some remarks:
the third query (WHERE src_ip = 'a.b.c.d') works slowly because of index is not used and CH uses full scan. No good way to make it faster besides as redesign the primary key or if this query calculates just aggregates use the additional AggregatingMergeTree-table
use-cases which you provided looks as artificial because the calculation of row count by all dataset is not key use-case for timeseries data. Why the result not restricted by dst_ip and ts?
consider using ClickHouse AggregatingMergeTree Approach when need to calculate aggregated-values (as count in your case)
design of primary key required the understanding as CH use it in query optimization (see Primary Keys and Indexes in Queries, More secrets of ClickHouse Query Performance)
it recommends using the monotonic index
to choose the best index need to make the series of tests to find the index fittest for concrete use-cases
I would suggest the next primary keys:
/* [pretty suspicious suggestion] Remove date-column (it makes much slower the all date range queries with a range less than Daily). */
ORDER BY (dst_ip, src_ip)
/* Define the granularity of date. Instead of toStartOfHour can be used any interval less than 'Daily' (where Daily is defined by partition key) */
ORDER BY (dst_ip, toStartOfHour(ts), src_ip)
/* Move the date to the first position (it makes faster queries with date range without dst_ip and get monotonic-index related advantages). */
ORDER BY (toStartOfHour(ts), dst_ip, src_ip)
For each primary key need to choose the more effective Index granularity-value.
As for 2022, the solution is to use Data Skipping Index https://clickhouse.com/docs/en/engines/table-engines/mergetree-family/mergetree/#table_engine-mergetree-data_skipping-indexes for src_ip
You should try testing by keeping different order in ORDER BY clause depending upon value cardinality of your columns. In this case, maybe trying bringing src_ip before ts in ORDER by class.
In MergeTree engine, rows are sorted on the basis of ORDER BY keys in each partition.
After that, you can decide the final arrangement of columns in ORDER by clause depending upon how your application will query data most of the items.
You can find a similar discussion here.
I've been doing a lot of reading lately on Cassandra, and specifically how to structure rows to take advantage of indexing/sorting, but there is one thing I am still unclear on; how many "index" items (or filters if you will) should you include in a column family (CF) row?
Specifically: I am building an app and will be using Cassandra to archive log data, which I will use for analytics.
Example types of analytic searches will include (by date range):
total visits to specific site section
total visits by Country
traffic source
I plan to store the whole log object in JSON format, but to avoid having to go through each item to get basic data, or to create multiple CF just to get basic data, I am curious to know if it's a good idea to include these above "filters" as columns (compound column segment)?
Example:
Row Key | timeUUID:data | timeUUID:country | timeUUID:source |
======================================================
timeUUID:section | JSON Object | USA | example.com |
So as you can see from the structure, the row key would be a compound key of timeUUID (say per day) plus the site section I want to get stats for. This lets me query a date range quite easily.
Next, my dilemma, the columns. Compound column name with timeUUID lets me sort & do a time based slice, but does the concept make sense?
Is this type of structure acceptable by the current "best practice", or would it be frowned upon? Would it be advisable to create a separate "index" CF for each metric I want to query on? (even when it's as simple as this?)
I would rather get this right the first time instead of having to restructure the data and refactor my application code later.
I think the idea behind this is OK. It's a pretty common way of doing timeslicing (assuming I've understood your schema anyway - a create table snippet would be great). Some minor tweaks ...
You don't need a timeUUID as your row key. Given that you suggest partitioning by individual days (which are inherently unique) you don't need a UUID aspect. A timestamp is probably fine, or even simpler a varchar in the format YYYYMMDD (or whatever arrangement you prefer).
You will probably also want to swap your row key composition around to section:time. The reason for this is that if you need to specify an IN clause (i.e. to grab multiple days) you can only do it on the last part of the key. This means you can do WHERE section = 'foo' and time IN (....). I imagine that's a more common use case - but the decision is obviously yours.
If your common case is querying the most recent data don't forget to cluster your timeUUID columns in descending order. This keeps the hot columns at the head.
Double storing content is fine (i.e. once for the JSON payload, and denormalised again for data you need to query). Storage is cheap.
I don't think you need indexes, but it depends on the queries you intend to run. If your queries are simple then you may want to store counters by (date:parameter) instead of values and just increment them as data comes in.
I am designing a table in Teradata with about 30 columns. These columns are going to need to store several time-interval-style values such as Daily, Monthly, Weekly, etc. It is bad design to store the actual string values in the table since this would be an attrocious repeat of data. Instead, what I want to do is create a primitive lookup table. This table would hold Daily, Monthly, Weekly and would use Teradata's identity column to derive the primary key. This primary key would then be stored in the table I am creating as foreign keys.
This would work fine for my application since all I need to know is the primitive key value as I populate my web form's dropdown lists. However, other applications we use will need to either run reports or receive this data through feeds. Therefore, a view will need to be created that joins this table out to the primitives table so that it can actually return Daily, Monthly, and Weekly.
My concern is performance. I've never created a table with such a large amount of foreign key fields and am fairly new to Teradata. Before I go on the long road of figuring this all out the hard way, I'd like any advice I can get on the best way to achieve my goal.
Edit: I suppose I should add that this lookup table would be a mishmash of unrelated primitives. It would contain group of values relating to time intervals as already mentioned above, but also time frames such as 24x7 and 8x5. The table would be designed like this:
ID Type Value
--- ------------ ------------
1 Interval Daily
2 Interval Monthly
3 Interval Weekly
4 TimeFrame 24x7
5 TimeFrame 8x5
Edit Part 2: Added a new tag to get more exposure to this question.
What you've done should be fine. Obviously, you'll need to run the actual queries and collect statistics where appropriate.
One thing I can recommend is to have an additional row in the lookup table like so:
ID Type Value
--- ------------ ------------
0 Unknown Unknown
Then in the main table, instead of having fields as null, you would give them a value of 0. This allows you to use inner joins instead of outer joins, which will help with performance.
I have designed my database in such a way that One of my table contains 52 columns. All the attributes are tightly associated with the primary key attribute, So there is no scope of further Normalization.
Please let me know if same kind of situation arises and you don't want to keep so many columns in a single table, what is the other option to do that.
It is not odd in any way to have 50 columns. ERP systems often have 100+ columns in some tables.
One thing you could look into is to ensure most columns got valid default values (null, today etc). That will simplify inserts.
Also ensure your code always specifies the columns (i.e no "select *"). Any kind of future optimization will include indexes with a subset of the columns.
One approach we used once, is that you split your table into two tables. Both of these tables get the primary key of the original table. In the first table, you put your most frequently used columns and in the second table you put the lesser used columns. Generally the first one should be smaller. You now can speed up things in the first table with various indices. In our design, we even had the first table running on memory engine (RAM), since we only had reading queries. If you need to get the combination of columns from table1 and table2 you need to join both tables with the primary key.
A table with fifty-two columns is not necessarily wrong. As others have pointed out many databases have such beasts. However I would not consider ERP systems as exemplars of good data design: in my experience they tend to be rather the opposite.
Anyway, moving on!
You say this:
"All the attributes are tightly associated with the primary key
attribute"
Which means that your table is in third normal form (or perhaps BCNF). That being the case it's not true that no further normalisation is possible. Perhaps you can go to fifth normal form?
Fifth normal form is about removing join dependencies. All your columns are dependent on the primary key but there may also be dependencies between columns: e.g, there are multiple values of COL42 associated with each value of COL23. Join dependencies means that when we add a new value of COL23 we end up inserting several records, one for each value of COL42. The Wikipedia article on 5NF has a good worked example.
I admit not many people go as far as 5NF. And it might well be that even with fifty-two columns you table is already in 5NF. But it's worth checking. Because if you can break out one or two subsidiary tables you'll have improved your data model and made your main table easier to work with.
Another option is the "item-result pair" (IRP) design over the "multi-column table" MCT design, especially if you'll be adding more columns from time to time.
MCT_TABLE
---------
KEY_col(s)
Col1
Col2
Col3
...
IRP_TABLE
---------
KEY_col(s)
ITEM
VALUE
select * from IRP_TABLE;
KEY_COL ITEM VALUE
------- ---- -----
1 NAME Joe
1 AGE 44
1 WGT 202
...
IRP is a bit harder to use, but much more flexible.
I've built very large systems using the IRP design and it can perform well even for massive data. In fact it kind of behaves like a column organized DB as you only pull in the rows you need (i.e. less I/O) rather that an entire wide row when you only need a few columns (i.e. more I/O).
To elaborate ..
a) A table (BIGTABLE) has a capacity to hold a million rows with a primary Key as the ID. (random and unique)
b) What algorithm can be used to arrive at an ID that has not been used so far. This number will be used to insert another row into table BIGTABLE.
Updated the question with more details..
C) This table already has about 100 K rows and the primary key is not an set as identity.
d) Currently, a random number is generated as the primary key and a row inserted into this table, if the insert fails another random number is generated. the problem is sometimes it goes into a loop and the random numbers generated are pretty random, but unfortunately, They already exist in the table. so if we re try the random number generation number after some time it works.
e) The sybase rand() function is used to generate the random number.
Hope this addition to the question helps clarify some points.
The question is of course: why do you want a random ID?
One case where I encountered a similar requirement, was for client IDs of a webapp: the client identifies himself with his client ID (stored in a cookie), so it has to be hard to brute force guess another client's ID (because that would allow hijacking his data).
The solution I went with, was to combine a sequential int32 with a random int32 to obtain an int64 that I used as the client ID. In PostgreSQL:
CREATE FUNCTION lift(integer, integer) returns bigint AS $$
SELECT ($1::bigint << 31) + $2
$$ LANGUAGE SQL;
CREATE FUNCTION random_pos_int() RETURNS integer AS $$
select floor((lift(1,0) - 1)*random())::integer
$$ LANGUAGE sql;
ALTER TABLE client ALTER COLUMN id SET DEFAULT
lift((nextval('client_id_seq'::regclass))::integer, random_pos_int());
The generated IDs are 'half' random, while the other 'half' guarantees you cannot obtain the same ID twice:
select lift(1, random_pos_int()); => 3108167398
select lift(2, random_pos_int()); => 4673906795
select lift(3, random_pos_int()); => 7414644984
...
Why is the unique ID Random? Why not use IDENTITY?
How was the ID chosen for the existing rows.
The simplest thing to do is probably (Select Max(ID) from BIGTABLE) and then make sure your new "Random" ID is larger than that...
EDIT: Based on the added information I'd suggest that you're screwed.
If it's an option: Copy the table, then redefine it and use an Identity Column.
If, as another answer speculated, you do need a truly random Identifier: make your PK two fields. An Identity Field and then a random number.
If you simply can't change the tables structure checking to see if the id exists before trying the insert is probably your only recourse.
There isn't really a good algorithm for this. You can use this basic construct to find an unused id:
int id;
do {
id = generateRandomId();
} while (doesIdAlreadyExist(id));
doSomethingWithNewId(id);
Your best bet is to make your key space big enough that the probability of collisions is extremely low, then don't worry about it. As mentioned, GUIDs will do this for you. Or, you can use a pure random number as long as it has enough bits.
This page has the formula for calculating the collision probability.
A bit outside of the box.
Why not pre-generate your random numbers ahead of time? That way, when you insert a new row into bigtable, the check has already been made. That would make inserts into bigtable a constant time operation.
You will have to perform the checks eventually, but that could be offloaded to a second process that doesn’t involve the sensitive process of inserting into bigtable.
Or go generate a few billion random numbers, and delete the duplicates, then you won't have to worry for quite some time.
Make the key field UNIQUE and IDENTITY and you wont have to worry about it.
If this is something you'll need to do often you will probably want to maintain a live (non-db) data structure to help you quickly answer this question. A 10-way tree would be good. When the app starts it populates the tree by reading the keys from the db, and then keeps it in sync with the various inserts and deletes made in the db. So long as your app is the only one updating the db the tree can be consulted very quickly when verifying that the next large random key is not already in use.
Pick a random number, check if it already exists, if so then keep trying until you hit one that doesn't.
Edit: Or
better yet, skip the check and just try to insert the row with different IDs until it works.
First question: Is this a planned database or a already functional one. If it already has data inside then the answer by bmdhacks is correct. If it is a planned database here is the second question:
Does your primary key really need to be random? If the answer is yes then use a function to create a random id from with a known seed and a counter to know how many Ids have been created. Each Id created will increment the counter.
If you keep the seed secret (i.e., have the seed called and declared private) then no one else should be able to predict the next ID.
If ID is purely random, there is no algorithm to find an unused ID in a similarly random fashion without brute forcing. However, as long as the bit-depth of your random unique id is reasonably large (say 64 bits), you're pretty safe from collisions with only a million rows. If it collides on insert, just try again.
depending on your database you might have the option of either using a sequenser (oracle) or a autoincrement (mysql, ms sql, etc). Or last resort do a select max(id) + 1 as new id - just be carefull of concurrent requests so you don't end up with the same max-id twice - wrap it in a lock with the upcomming insert statement
I've seen this done so many times before via brute force, using random number generators, and it's always a bad idea. Generating a random number outside of the db and attempting to see if it exists will put a lot strain on your app and database. And it could lead to 2 processes picking the same id.
Your best option is to use MySQL's autoincrement ability. Other databases have similar functionality. You are guaranteed a unique id and won't have issues with concurrency.
It is probably a bad idea to scan every value in that table every time looking for a unique value. I think the way to do this would be to have a value in another table, lock on that table, read the value, calculate the value of the next id, write the value of the next id, release the lock. You can then use the id you read with the confidence your current process is the only one holding that unique value. Not sure how well it scales.
Alternatively use a GUID for your ids, since each newly generated GUID is supposed to be unique.
Is it a requirement that the new ID also be random? If so, the best answer is just to loop over (randomize, test for existence) until you find one that doesn't exist.
If the data just happens to be random, but that isn't a strong constraint, you can just use SELECT MAX(idcolumn), increment in a way appropriate to the data, and use that as the primary key for your next record.
You need to do this atomically, so either lock the table or use some other concurrency control appropriate to your DB configuration and schema. Stored procs, table locks, row locks, SELECT...FOR UPDATE, whatever.
Note that in either approach you may need to handle failed transactions. You may theoretically get duplicate key issues in the first (though that's unlikely if your key space is sparsely populated), and you are likely to get deadlocks on some DBs with approaches like SELECT...FOR UPDATE. So be sure to check and restart the transaction on error.
First check if Max(ID) + 1 is not taken and use that.
If Max(ID) + 1 exceeds the maximum then select an ordered chunk at the top and start looping backwards looking for a hole. Repeat the chunks until you run out of numbers (in which case throw a big error).
if the "hole" is found then save the ID in another table and you can use that as the starting point for the next case to save looping.
Skipping the reasoning of the task itself, the only algorithm that
will give you an ID not in the table
that will be used to insert a new line in the table
will result in a table still having random unique IDs
is generating a random number and then checking if it's already used
The best algorithm in that case is to generate a random number and do a select to see if it exists, or just try to add it if your database errs out sanely. Depending on the range of your key, vs, how many records there are, this could be a small amount of time. It also has the ability to spike and isn't consistent at all.
Would it be possible to run some queries on the BigTable and see if there are any ranges that could be exploited? ie. between 100,000 and 234,000 there are no ID's yet, so we could add ID's there?
Why not append your random number creator with the current date in seconds. This way the only way to have an identical ID is if two users are created at the same second and are given the same random number by your generator.