Background
I am looking to purely store whether or not a query has already been performed. If it has, the query should be run against a cache of data (internal db, out of process) and if not it should run against the original datasource (3rd party external webservice). The motivation for this caching is that the number of calls we are allowed to make to this API is limited and we are likely to perform the same query multiple times.
After the query has been run once against the original datasource, it will only ever be run against the cached datasource in subsequent calls. Note: I'm deliberately ignoring the question of cache expiration for the sake of simplicity in this question.
Given that each query may contain many parameters (currently only 5), and the number of parameters may increase over time I don't want to be querying the cached datasource with something like "WHERE x AND y AND z AND a AND b AND c AND d AND...".
To that end, all I want is to know whether this exact query has been run before and if it has I'll assume the data for it is already available in the cached datastore (albeit in a different format). I think some form of "cachekey" that identifies any query with the same parameters and associated values would work for me. Every time I attempt a query I would just generate the cache key based on the state of the query object and check the cachekey store to establish if the query has ever been run before. The cachekey store needs to faciliate fast lookups.
Question
What I'm finding tricky to work out is what this cachekey should look like and how to generate it. So far I'm leaning towards
concatenate interesting query parameters and their values into a byte array
create an MD5 from the byte array
store this cachekey in a binary(16) indexed column
For the sake of argument I'm willing to accept that there will be some collisions that might result in the cache reporting that cached data is available for the query when it isn't given that the likelyhood is pretty small (although how small I'm not 100% sure).
Does the above solution for creating the cachekey seem reasonable or are there any other approaches that I should consider?
Your potential solution is exactly what I've done in the past and it has worked well. I actually concatenated the method/call name, then all the parameter values together into a string, then ran MD5 on it and got my cache key.
I don't see how there could be collisions. If you change a parameter value, the cache key would be different, which would potentially bring back different data.
(All that to say I'm not sure what you mean by "interesting" parameters.)
Related
My application should handle a lot of entities (100.000 or more) with location and needs to display them only within a given radius. I basically store everything in SQL but using Redis for caching and optimization (mainly GEORADIUS).
I am adding the entities like the following example (not exactly this, I use Laravel framework with the built-in Redis facade but it does the same as here in the background):
GEOADD k 19.059982 47.494338 {\"id\":1,\"name\":\"Foo\",\"address\":\"Budapest, Astoria\",\"lat\":47.494338,\"lon\":19.059982}
Is it bad practice? Or will it make a negative impact on performance? Should I store only ID-s as member and make a following query to get the corresponding entities?
This is a matter of the requirements. There's nothing wrong with storing the raw data as members as long as it is unique (and it unique given the "id" field). In fact, this is both simple and performant as all data is returned with a single query (assuming that's what actually needed).
That said, there are at least two considerations for storing the data outside the Geoset, and just "referencing" it by having members reflect some form of their key names:
A single data structure, such as a Geoset, is limited by the resources of a single Redis server. Storing a lot of data and members can require more memory than a single server can provide, which would limit the scalability of this approach.
Unless each entry's data is small, it is unlikely that all query types would require all data returned. In such cases, keeping the raw data in the Geoset generates a lot of wasted bandwidth and ultimately degrades performance.
When data needs to be updated, it can become too expensive to try and update (i.e. ZDEL and then GEOADD) small parts of it. Having everything outside, perhaps in a Hash (or maybe something like RedisJSON) makes more sense then.
For querying an sqlite table based on a list of IDs (i.e. distinct primary keys) I am using following statement (example based on the Chinook Database):
SELECT * FROM Customer WHERE CustomerId IN (1,2,3,8,20,35)
However, my actual list of IDs might become rather large (>1000). Thus, I was wondering if this approach using the IN statement is the most efficient or if there is a better/optimized way to query an sqlite table based on a list of primary keys.
If the number of elements in the IN is large enough, SQLite constructs a temporary index for them. This is likely to be more efficient than creating a temporary table manually.
The length of the IN list is limited only be the maximum length of an SQL statement, and by memory.
Because the statement you wrote does not include any instructions to SQLite about how to find the rows you want the concept of "optimizing" doesn't really exist -- there's nothing to optimize. The job of planning the best algorithm to retrieve the data belongs to the SQLite query optimizer.
Some databases do have idiosyncrasies in their query optimizers which can lead to performance issues but I wouldn't expect SQLite to have any trouble finding the correct algorithm for this simple query, even with lots of values in the IN list. I would only worry about trying to guide the query optimizer to another execution plan if and when you find that there's a performance problem.
SQLite Optimizer Overview
IN (expression-list) does use an index if available.
Beyond that, I can't glean any guarantees from it, so the following is subject to a performance measaurement.
Axis 1: how to pass the expression-list
hardocde as string. Overhead for int-to-string conversion and string-to-int parsing
bind parameters (i.e. the statement is ... WHERE CustomerID in (?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?....), which is easier to build from a predefined string than hardcoded values). Prevents int → string → int conversion, but the default limit for number of parameters is 999. This can be increased by SQLITE_LIMIT_VARIABLE_NUMBER, but might lead to excessive allocations.
Temporary table. Possibly less efficient than any of the above methods after the statement is prepared, but that doesn't help if most time is spent preparing the statement
Axis 2: Statement optimization
If the same expression-list is used in multiple queries against changing CustomerIDs, one of the following may help:
reusing a prepared statement with hardcoded values (i.e. don't pass 1001 parameters)
create a temporary table for the CustomerIDs with index (so the index is created once, not on the fly for every query)
If the expression-list is different with every query, ist is probably best to let SQLite do its job. The following might be an improvement
create a temp table for the expression-list
bulk-insert expression-list elements using union all
use a sub query
(from my experience with SQLite, I'd expect it to be on par or slightly worse)
Axis 3 Ask Richard
the sqlite mailing list (yeah I know, that technology even older than rotary phones!) is pretty active with often excellent advise, including from the author of SQLite. 90% chance someone will dismiss you ass "Measure before asking suhc a question!", 10% chance someone gives you detailed insight.
I have an otherwise perfectly relational data schema in place for my Postgres 8.4 DB, but I need the ability to associate arbitrary key/value pairs with several of my tables, with the assigned keys varying by row. Key/value pairs are user-generated, so I have no way of predicting them ahead of time or wrangling orderly schema changes.
I have the following requirements:
Key/value pairs will be read often, written occasionally. Reads must be reasonably fast.
No (present) need to query off of the keys or values. (But it might come in handy some day.)
I see the following possible solutions:
The Entity-Attribute-Value pattern/antipattern. Annoying, but the annoyance would be generally offset by my ORM.
Storing key/value pairs as serialized JSON data on a text column. A simple solution, and again the ORM comes in handy, but I can kiss my future self's need for queries good-bye.
Storing key/value pairs in some other NoSQL db--probably a key/value or document store. ORM is no help here. I'll have to manage the separate queries (and looming data integrity issues?) myself.
I'm concerned about query performance, as I hope to have a lot of these some day. I'm also concerned about programmer performance, as I have to build, maintain, and use the darned thing. Is there an obvious best approach here? Or something I've missed?
That's precisely what the hstore datatype is for in PostgreSQL.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/hstore.html
It's really fast (you can index it) and quite easy to handle. The only drawback is that you can only store character data, but you'd have that problem with the other solutions as well.
Indexes support "exists" operator, so you can query quite quickly for rows where a certain key is present, or for rows where a specific attribute has a specific value.
And with 9.0 it got even better because some size restrictions were lifted.
hstore is generally good solution for that, but personally I prefer to use plain key:value tables. One table with definitions, other table with values and relation to bind values to definition, and relation to bind values to particular record in other table.
Why I'm against hstore? Because it's like a registry pattern. Often mentioned as example of anti pattern. You can put anything there, it's hard to easy validate if it's still needed, when loading a whole row (in ORM especially), the whole hstore is loaded which can have much junk and very little sense. Not mentioning that there is need to convert hstore data type into your language type and convert back again when saved. So you get some overhead of type conversion.
So actually I'm trying to convert all hstores in company I'm working for into simple key:value tables. It's not that hard task though, because structures kept here in hstore are huge (or at least big), and reading/writing an object crates huge overhead of function calls. Thus making a simple task like that "select * from base_product where id = 1;" is making a server sweat and hits performance badly. Want to point that performance issue is not because db, but because python has to convert several times results received from postgres. While key:value is not requiring such conversion.
As you do not control data then do not try to overcomplicate this.
create table sometable_attributes (
sometable_id int not null references sometable(sometable_id),
attribute_key varchar(50) not null check (length(attribute_key>0)),
attribute_value varchar(5000) not null,
primary_key(sometable_id, attribute_key)
);
This is like EAV, but without attribute_keys table, which has no added value if you do not control what will be there.
For speed you should periodically do "cluster sometable_attributes using sometable_attributes_idx", so all attributes for one row will be physically close.
I am faced with the choice where to store some reference data (essentially drop down values) for my application. This data will not change (or if it does, I am fine with needing to restart the application), and will be frequently accessed as part of an AJAX autocomplete widget (so there may be several queries against this data by one user filling out one field).
Suppose each record looks something like this:
category
effective_date
expiration_date
field_A
field_B
field_C
field_D
The autocomplete query will need to check the input string against 4 fields in each record and discrete parameters against the category and effective/expiration dates, so if this were a SQL query, it would have a where clause that looks something like:
... WHERE category = ?
AND effective_date < ?
AND expiration_date > ?
AND (colA LIKE ? OR colB LIKE ? OR colC LIKE ?)
I feel like this might be a rather inefficient query, but I suppose I don't know enough about how databases optimize their indexes, etc. I do know that a lot of really smart people work really hard to make database engines really fast at this exact type of thing.
The alternative I see is to store it in my application memory. I could have a list of these records for each category, and then iterate over each record in the category to see if the filter criteria is met. This is definitely O(n), since I need to examine every record in the category.
Has anyone faced a similar choice? Do you have any insight to offer?
EDIT: Thanks for the insight, folks. Sending the entire data set down to the client is not really an option, since the data set is so large (several MB).
Definitely cache it in memory if it's not changing during the lifetime of the application. You're right, you don't want to be going back to the database for each call, because it's completely unnecessary.
There's can be debate about exactly how much to cache on the server (I tend to cache as little as possible until I really need to), but for information that will not change and will be accessed repeatedly, you should almost always cache that in the Application object.
Given the number of directions you're coming at this data (filtering on 6 or more columns), I'm not sure how much more you'll be able to optimize the information in memory. The first thing I would try is to store it in a list in the Application object, and query it using LINQ-to-objects. Or, if there is one field that is used significantly more than the others, or try using a Dictionary instead of a list. If the performance continues to be a problem, try using storing it in a DataSet and setting indexes on it (but of course you loose some code-simplicity and maintainability this way).
I do not think there is a one size fits all answer to your question. Depending on the data size and usage patterns the answer will vary. More than that the answer may change over time.
This is why in my development I built some intermediate layer which allows me to change how the caching is done by changing configuration (with no code changes). Every while we analyze various stats (cache hit ratio, etc.) and decide if we want to change cache behavior.
BTW there is also a third layer - you can push your static data to the browser and cache it there too
Can you just hard-wire it into the program (as long as you stick to DRY)? Changing it only requires a rebuild.
I have a Message entity that has a messageID property. I'd like to ensure that there's only ever one instance of a Message entity with a given messageID. In SQL, I'd just add a unique constraint to the messageID column, but I don't know how to do this with Core Data. I don't believe it can be done in the data model itself, so how do you go about it?
My initial thought is to use a validation method to do a fetch on the NSManagedObject's context for the ID, see if it finds anything but itself, and if so, fails the validation. I suspect this will work - but I'm worried about the performance of something like that. I went through a lot of effort to minimize the fetch requests needed for the entire import routine, and having it validate by performing a fetch for every single new message entity seems a bit excessive. I can get all pre-existing objects I need and identify all the new objects I need to insert into the store using just two fetch queries before I do the actual work of importing and connecting everything together. This would add a fetch to every single update or insert in addition to those two - which would seem to eliminate any performance advantage I had by pre-processing the import data in the first place!
The main reason this is an issue is that the importer can (potentially) run several batches concurrently on several threads and may include some overlapping/duplicate data that needs to ultimately result in just one object in the store and not duplicate entries. Is there a reasonable way to do this and does what I'm asking for make sense for Core Data?
The only way to guarantee uniqueness is to do a fetch. Fortunately you can just do a -countForFetchRequest:error: and check to see if it is zero or not. That is the least expensive way to guarantee uniqueness at this time.
You can probably accomplish this in the validation or run it in the loop that is processing the data. Personally I would do it above the creation of the NSManagedObject so that you do not have the unnecessary allocs when a record already exists.
I don't think there is a way to easily guarantee an attribute is unique without doing a lot of work on your own. You can, of course use CFUUIDCreate to create a globally unique UUID, which should be unique, even in a multithreaded environment. But...
The objectID (type NSManagedObjectID) of all managed objects is guaranteed to be unique within the persistent store coordinator. Since you can add arbitrarily many persistent stores to the coordinator, this guarantee basically guarantees that the objectIDs are globally unique. Why don't you use the objectID as your messageID? You can't, of course, change the objectID once it's assigned (and it won't get assigned until the context containing the inserted object is saved; until then it will be a temporary but still unique ID).
So you have a NSManagedContext for each thread, backed by the same persistent store, is that correct? And before you save the NSManagedContext, you'd like to make sure the messageID is unique, that is, that you are not updating an existing row, and that it is not in one of the other contexts, correct?
Given that model (correct me if I misunderstand), I think you'd be better served having one object that manages access to the persistent store. That way, all threads would update one context and you can do your validation in there, using Marcus's -countForFetchRequest:error: suggestion. Granted, that places a bottleneck on this operation.
Just to add my 2 cents: I think inconsistencies will occur sooner or later anyway, and the only way to mitigate them seems to be to do it on an application-level with rather complex code.
So in my case I decided to allow duplicate values for what are supposed to be "unique" fields.
I added code, however, that detects these problems later (e.g. when a fetch that should return 1 object returns more than 1) and fixes them when they occur (usually by deleting).
It's a "go ahead, make a mistake, ill fix it later for you"-strategy.
This is not ideal, of course, but a valid way to attack this problen, imho.