I have been using cache for a long time. We store data against some key and fetch it from cache whenever required. I know that StackOverflow and many other sites heavily rely on cache. My question is do they always use key-value mechanism for caching or do they form some sql like query within a cache? For instance, I want to view last week report. This report's content will vary each day. Do i need to store different reports against each day (where day as a key) or can I get this result from forming some query that aggregate result across different key? Does any caching product (like redis) provide this functionality?
Thanks In Advance
Cache is always done as a key-value hash table. This is how it stays so fast. If you're doing querying then you're not doing cache.
What you may be trying to ask is... you could have in your database a table that contains agregated report data. And you could query against that pre-calculated table.
One of the reasons for cache (e.g. memcached ) being fast is its simplicity of data access and querying protocol.
The more functionality you add, more tradeoff you will have to do on the efficiency part. A full fledged SQL engine in a "caching" database is not a good design. Though you can utilize a data structures oriented database like Redis to design your cache data to suit your querying needs. For example: one set or one hash for each date.
A step further, you can use databases like MongoDb , or memsql which are pretty fast and have rich querying support.So an aggregation report once a while won't be an issue.
However, as a design decision, you will have to accept that their caching throughput will not be as much as memcached or redis.
Related
We have an existing API with a very simple cache-hit/cache-miss system using Redis. It supports being searched by Key. So a query that translates to the following is easily cached based on it's primary key.
SELECT * FROM [Entities] WHERE PrimaryKeyCol = #p1
Any subsequent requests can lookup the entity in REDIS by it's primary key or fail back to the database, and then populate the cache with that result.
We're in the process of building a new API that will allow searches by a lot more params, will return multiple entries in the results, and will be under fairly high request volume (enough so that it will impact our existing DTU utilization in SQL Azure).
Queries will be searchable by several other terms, Multiple PKs in one search, various other FK lookup columns, LIKE/CONTAINS statements on text etc...
In this scenario, are there any design patterns, or cache strategies that we could consider. Redis doesn't seem to lend itself particularly well to these type of queries. I'm considering simply hashing the query params, and then cache that hash as the key, and the entire result set as the value.
But this feels like a bit of a naive approach given the key-value nature of Redis, and the fact that one entity might be contained within multiple result sets under multiple query hashes.
(For reference, the source of this data is currently SQL Azure, we're using Azure's hosted Redis service. We're also looking at alternative approaches to hitting the DB incl. denormalizing the data, ETLing the data to CosmosDB, hosting the data in Azure Search but there's other implications for doing these including Implementation time, "freshness" of data etc...)
Personally, I wouldn't try and cache the results, just the individual entities. When I've done things like this in the past, I return a list of IDs from live queries, and retrieve individual entities from my cache layer. That way the ID list is always "fresh", and you don't have nasty cache invalidation logic issues.
If you really do have commonly reoccurring searches, you can cache the results (of ids), but you will likely run into issues of pagination and such. Caching query results can be tricky, as you generally need to cache all the results, not just the first "page" worth. This is generally very expensive, and has high transfer costs that exceed the value of the caching.
Additionally, you will absolutely have freshness issues with caching query results. As new records show up, they won't be in the cached list. This is avoided with the entity-only cache, as the list of IDs is always fresh, just the entities themselves can be stale (but that has a much easier cache-expiration methodology).
If you are worried about the staleness of the entities, you can return not only an ID, but also a "Last updated date", which allows you to compare the freshness of each entity to the cache.
I am working with node.js and mongodb.
I am going to have a database setup and use socket.io to have real-time updates that will have the db queried again as well or push the new update to the client.
I am trying to figure out what is the best way to filter the database?
Some more information in regards to what is being queried and what the real time updates are:
A document in the database will include information such as an address, city, time, number of packages, name, price.
Filters include city/price/name/time (meaning only to see addresses within the same city, or within the same time period)
Real-time info: includes adding a new document to the database which will essentially update the admin on the website with a notification of a new address added.
Method 1: Query the db with the filters being searched?
Method 2: Query the db for all searches and then filter it on the client side (Javascript)?
Method 3: Query the db for all searches then store it in localStorage then query localStorage for what the filters are?
Trying to figure out what is the fastest way for the user to filter it?
Also, if it is different than what is the most cost effective way, then the most cost effective as well (which I am assuming is less db queries)...
It's hard to say because we don't see exact conditions of the filter, but in general:
Mongo can use only 1 index in a query condition. Thus whatever fields are covered by this index can be used in an efficient filtering. Otherwise it might do full table scan which is slow. If you are using an index then you are probably doing the most efficient query. (Mongo can still use another index for sorting though).
Sometimes you will be forced to do processing on client side because Mongo can't do what you want or it takes too many queries.
The least efficient option is to store results somewhere just because IO is slow. This would only benefit you if you use them as cache and do not recalculate.
Also consider overhead and latency of networking. If you have to send lots of data back to the client it will be slower. In general Mongo will do better job filtering stuff than you would do on the client.
According to you if you can filter by addresses within time period then you could have an index that cuts down lots of documents. You most likely need a compound index - multiple fields.
I am planning to do some in memory caching of my data for operations in my web service. This data would be basically lookup values which do not change frequently. I was planning to get all that data in datasets (multiple tables) and store them till the data does not change on DB side. This is so because some of my data never changes, where some may change quite frequently. Any idea?
I would probably cache it at the DataTable level, then each table could have it's own caching rules (expiration time, last updated, etc, etc).
What is the best way in terms of speed of the platform and maintainability to access data (read only) on Dynamics CRM 4? I've done all three, but interested in the opinions of the crowd.
Via the API
Via the webservices directly
Via DB calls to the views
...and why?
My thoughts normally center around DB calls to the views but I know there are purists out there.
Given both requirements I'd say you want to call the views. Properly crafted SQL queries will fly.
Going through the API is required if you plan to modify data, but it isnt the fastest approach around because it doesnt allow deep loading of entities. For instance if you want to look at customers and their orders you'll have to load both up individually and then join them manually. Where as a SQL query will already have the data joined.
Nevermind that the TDS stream is a lot more effecient that the SOAP messages being used by the API & webservices.
UPDATE
I should point out in regard to the views and CRM database in general: CRM does not optimize the indexes on the tables or views for custom entities (how could it?). So if you have a truckload entity that you lookup by destination all the time you'll need to add an index for that property. Depending upon your application it could make a huge difference in performance.
I'll add to jake's comment by saying that querying against the tables directly instead of the views (*base & *extensionbase) will be even faster.
In order of speed it'd be:
direct table query
view query
filterd view query
api call
Direct table updates:
I disagree with Jake that all updates must go through the API. The correct statement is that going through the API is the only supported way to do updates. There are in fact several instances where directly modifying the tables is the most reasonable option:
One time imports of large volumes of data while the system is not in operation.
Modification of specific fields across large volumes of data.
I agree that this sort of direct modification should only be a last resort when the performance of the API is unacceptable. However, if you want to modify a boolean field on thousands of records, doing a direct SQL update to the table is a great option.
Relative Speed
I agree with XVargas as far as relative speed.
Unfiltered Views vs Tables: I have not found the performance advantage to be worth the hassle of manually joining the base and extension tables.
Unfiltered views vs Filtered views: I recently was working with a complicated query which took about 15 minutes to run using the filtered views. After switching to the unfiltered views this query ran in about 10 seconds. Looking at the respective query plans, the raw query had 8 operations while the query against the filtered views had over 80 operations.
Unfiltered Views vs API: I have never compared querying through the API against querying views, but I have compared the cost of writing data through the API vs inserting directly through SQL. Importing millions of records through the API can take several days, while the same operation using insert statements might take several minutes. I assume the difference isn't as great during reads but it is probably still large.
Most of the time,we just get the result from database,and then save it in cache server,with an expiration time.
When do we need to persistent that key/value pair,what's the significant benifit to do so?
If you need to persist the data, then you would want a key/value database. In particular, as part of the NoSQL movement, many people have suggested replacing traditional SQL databases with Key/Value pair databases - but ultimately, the choice remains with you which paradigm is a better fit for your application.
Use a key/value database when you are using a key/value cache and you don't need a sql database.
When you use memcached/mysql or similar, you need to write two sets of data access code - one for getting objects from the cache, and another from the database. If the cache is your database, you only need the one method, and it is usually simpler code.
You do lose some functionality by not using SQL, but in a lot of cases you don't need it. Only the worst applications actually leave constraint checking to the database. Ad-hoc queries become impractical at scale. The occasional lost or inconsistent record simply doesn't matter if you are working with tweets rather than financial data. How do you justify the added complexity of using a SQL database?