We need to stress test our Oracle database with about 5 million row inserts. According to our DBA, the only columns that need to be different are the Primary or foreign key...all other columns can be the same. He said if we do that, then Oracle will not do any sort of caching when inserting the data.
I just want to make sure that he is right and that by doing this, the stress testing results would be nearly as accurate as using random data. Thank you for your help.
In a very narrow set of circumstances, the DBA is correct. If ALL your queries are lookups based upon primary and foreign keys, then they may be right. In the past when the rule-based optimizer was king, then the data didn't matter so much. Record counts, yes, but not really the data.
In the real world, though, this is not the case. Do you have any other indexes? Then the data matters. Do you join against things other than primary/foreign keys? Then the data matters. Are your strings all 1 byte or null? I doubt it, and the size of these variable-length fields may affect the amount of IO. Basically, for any non-trivial schema in a non-trivial application, having "realistic" data can be significant. The Oracle optimizer takes into account a large variety of statistics when determining how to perform a query.
Are you REALLY only doing inserts in this load test? That's kinda silly. 5 million records is chump change by modern standards. Desktops do that in seconds, typically. Even simple applications will perform some select to do a lookup, or get a set of records based upon a non-key value.
You seem to be smart enough to evaluate the DBA's statement. If you can get him to put that in writing, sign off on it, and have the responsibility fall on him when his idea of a load test doesn't work as expected, then that's great. It sounds like you're the one responsible for this test, though.
If I were in your shoes, I would want to load test with the most accurate data possible. Copying from a production system or known test set of data is a much better option than "random" and light-years better than "nulls except for the primary key" approach.
Related
I am currently trying to improve the performance of a web application. The goal of the application is to provide (real time) analytics. We have a database model that is similiar to a star schema, few fact tables and many dimensional tables. The database is running with Mysql and MyIsam engine.
The Fact table size can easily go into the upper millions and some dimension tables can also reach the millions.
Now the point is, select queries can get awfully slow if the dimension tables get joined on the fact tables and also aggretations are done. First thing that comes in mind when hearing this is, why not precalculate the data? This is not possible because the users are allowed to use several freely customizable filters.
So what I need is an all-in-one system suitable for every purpose ;) Sadly it wasn't invented yet. So I came to the idea to combine 2 existing systems. Mixing a row oriented and a column oriented database (e.g. like infinidb or infobright). Keeping the mysql MyIsam solution (for fast inserts and row based queries) and add a column oriented database (for fast aggregation operations on few columns) to it and fill it periodically (nightly) via cronjob. Problem would be when the current data (it must be real time) is queried, therefore I maybe would need to get data from both databases which can complicate things.
First tests with infinidb showed really good performance on aggregation of a few columns, so I really think this could help me speed up the application.
So the question is, is this a good idea? Has somebody maybe already done this? Maybe there is are better ways to do it.
I have no experience in column oriented databases yet and I'm also not sure how the schema of it should look like. First tests showed good performance on the same star schema like structure but also in a big table like structure.
I hope this question fits on SO.
Greenplum, which is a proprietary (but mostly free-as-in-beer) extension to PostgreSQL, supports both column-oriented and row-oriented tables with high customizable compression. Further, you can mix settings within the same table if you expect that some parts will experience heavy transactional load while others won't. E.g., you could have the most recent year be row-oriented and uncompressed, the prior year column-oriented and quicklz-compresed, and all historical years column-oriented and bz2-compressed.
Greenplum is free for use on individual servers, but if you need to scale out with its MPP features (which are its primary selling point) it does cost significant amounts of money, as they're targeting large enterprise customers.
(Disclaimer: I've dealt with Greenplum professionally, but only in the context of evaluating their software for purchase.)
As for the issue of how to set up the schema, it's hard to say much without knowing the particulars of your data, but in general having compressed column-oriented tables should make all of your intuitions about schema design go out the window.
In particular, normalization is almost never worth the effort, and you can sometimes get big gains in performance by denormalizing to borderline-comical levels of redundancy. If the data never hits disk in an uncompressed state, you might just not care that you're repeating each customer's name 40,000 times. Infobright's compression algorithms are designed specifically for this sort of application, and it's not uncommon at all to end up with 40-to-1 ratios between the logical and physical sizes of your tables.
I have a database (running on postgres, precisely) , with the following structure :
user1 (schema)
|
- cars (table)
- airplanes (table, again)
...
user2
|
- cars
- airplanes
...
It's clearly not structurized the way classic relational databes should be, but it "just works" as it is now. As you can see, schemas are like primary keys used to identify entries.
In terms of performance -and nothing else-, is it worth rebuilding it so it'll have traditional primary keys (varchar being their type) & clustered indexes instead of schemas ?
From a Performance Perspective, actually from any perspective surely this is a NIGHTMARE, REBUILD!
Without knowing any more about your situation, I guess the answer would be YES, this would effect performance. Ordinarilly simple queries would not only be much more complicated to write and maintain but the db would produce query plans that were significantly more costly to execute.
Edit: I've worked with, and designed, DB's to handle a lot of data in high workload environments (banking and medical) and I have never seen anything like it; well not in the modern world!
So it looks like each user just has their own schema? Often large, large data sets are split up close to this (more often by customer in a lot of business scenarios). It's often a premature optimization because it introduces additional complexity to your application and a single table with a user column would scale to a reasonable number of rows.
However, whether or not you'll gain any performance from combining into a single schema really is determinate on whether or not you do many cross-user queries (in other words, queries that have to cross schemas/tables) and whether the data in each set of tables is exclusive to that user. If you're replicating data from other user's table to another, then you need to at least redesign those tables into a common schema.
I personally try to avoid a per-schema approach under normal circumstances (due to additional maintenance overhead and app complexity), but it has its place. And I'd hardly call this a "nightmare" unless I'm not understanding something correctly.
Here's another one I've been thinking about lately.
We have concluded in earlier discussions : 'natural primary keys are bad, artificial primary keys are good.'
Working with Hibernate earlier I have seen that Hibernate default creates one sequence for all tables. At first I was puzzled by this, why would you do this. But later I saw the advantage that it makes linking parents and children fool proof. Because no tables have the same primary key value, accidentally linking a parent with a table that is not a child gives no results.
Does anyone see any downsides to this approach. I only see one : you cannot have more than 999999999999999999999999999 records in your database.
There could be performance issues with all code getting values from a single sequence - see this Ask Tom thread.
Depending on how sequences are implemented in the database, always hitting the same sequence can be better or worse. When only a few or only one thread request new values, there will be no locking issues. But a bad implementation could cause congestion.
Another problem is rolling back transactions: Sequences don't get rolled back (because someone else might have requested a higher value already), so you can have large gaps which will eat your number space much more quickly than you might expect. OTOH, it will take some time to eat 2 or 4 billion IDs (if you "only" use 32 bit (signed) ints), so it's rarely an issue in practice.
Lastly, you can't easily reset the sequence if you have to. But if you need to have a restarting sequence (say, number of records since midnight), you can tell Hibernate to create/use a second sequence.
A major advantage is that you can uniquely identify objects anywhere in the DB just by the ID. That means you can severely cut down the log information you write in the production system and still find something if you only have the ID.
I prefer having one sequence per table. This comes from one general observation: Some tables ("master tables") have a relatively small row count and have to be kept "forever". For example, the customer table in an ERP.
In other tables ("transaction tables"), many rows are generated perpetually, but after some time, those rows can be archived (or simply deleted). The most extreme example is a tracing table used for debugging purposes; it might grow by hundreds of rows per second, but each row is obsolete after a few days.
Small IDs in the master tables make it easier when working directly on the database, e.g. for debugging purposes.
select * from orders where customerid=415
vs
select * from orders where customerid=89461836571
But this is only a minor issue. The bigger issue is cycling. If you use one sequence for all tables, you simply cannot let it restart. With one sequence per table, you can restart the sequences for the transaction tables when you have archived or deleted the old data. Master tables hardly ever have that problem, since they grow much slower.
I see little value in having only one sequence for all tables. The arguments told so far do not convince me.
There are a couple of disadvantages of using a single sequence:-
reduced concurrency. Handing out the next sequence value involves synchronisation. In practice, I do not think this is likely to be a big problem
Oracle has special code when maintaining btree indexes to detect monotonically increasing values and balance the tree approriately
The CBO might have a better time estimating range queries on the index (if you ever did this) if most values were filled in
An advantage might be that you can determine the order of inserts amongst different tables.
Certainly there are pros and cons to the one-sequence versus one-sequence-per-table approach. Personally I find the ability to assign a truly unique identifier to a row, making each id column a uuid, to be enough of a benefit to outweigh any disadvantages. As Aaron D. succinctly writes:
you can uniquely identify objects anywhere in the DB just by the ID
And, for most applications, due to the way Hibernate3 batches IMPORT statements, this will not be a performance bottleneck unless massive amounts of records are vying for the same db resource (SELECT hibernate_sequence.nextval FROM dual).
Also, this sequence mapping is not supported in the latest release (1.2) of Grails. Though it was supported in Grails 1.1 (!). It now requires subclassing one of the Hibernate dialect classes as a workaround.
For those using Grails/GORM, have a look at this JIRA entry:
Oracle Sequence mappings ignored
Following on from my previous question, I'm looking to run some performance tests on various potential schema representations of an object model. However, the catch is that while the model is conceptually complete, it's not actually finalised yet - and so the exact number of tables, and numbers/types of attributes in each table aren't definite.
From my (possibly naive) perspective it seems like it should be possible to put together a representative prototype model for each approach, and test the performance of each of these to determine which is the fastest approach for each case.
And that's where the question comes in. I'm aware that the performance characteristics of databases can be very non-intuitive, such that a small (even "trivial") change can lead to an order of magnitude difference. Thus I'm wondering what common pitfalls there might be when setting up a dummy table structure and populating it with dummy data. Since the environment is likely to make a massive difference here, the target is Oracle 10.2.0.3.0 running on RHEL 3.
(In particular, I'm looking for examples such as "make sure that one of your tables has a much more selective index than the other"; "make sure you have more than x rows/columns because below this you won't hit page faults and the performance will be different"; "ensure you test with the DATETIME datatype if you're going to use it because it will change the query plan greatly", and so on. I tried Google, expecting there would be lots of pages/blog posts on best practices in this area, but couldn't find the trees for the wood (lots of pages about tuning performance of an existing DB instead).)
As a note, I'm willing to accept an answer along the lines of "it's not feasible to perform a test like this with any degree of confidence in the transitivity of the result", if that is indeed the case.
There are a few things that you can do to position yourself to meet performance objectives. I think they happen in this order:
be aware of architectures, best practices and patterns
be aware of how the database works
spot-test performance to get additional precision or determine impact of wacky design areas
More on each:
Architectures, best practices and patterns: one of the most common reasons for reporting databases to fail to perform is that those who build them are completely unfamiliar with the reporting domain. They may be experts on the transactional database domain - but the techniques from that domain do not translate to the warehouse/reporting domain. So, you need to know your domain well - and if you do you'll be able to quickly identify an appropriate approach that will work almost always - and that you can tweak from there.
How the database works: you need to understand in general what options the optimizer/planner has for your queries. What's the impact to different statements of adding indexes? What's the impact of indexing a 256 byte varchar? Will reporting queries even use your indexes? etc
Now that you've got the right approach, and generally understand how 90% of your model will perform - you're often done forecasting performance with most small to medium size databases. If you've got a huge one, there's a ton at stake, you've got to get more precise (might need to order more hardware), or have a few wacky spots in the design - then focus your tests on just this. Generate reasonable test data - and (important) stats that you'd see in production. And look to see what the database will do with that data. Unless you've got real data and real prod-sized servers you'll still have to extrapolate - but you should at least be able to get reasonably close.
Running performance tests against various putative implementation of a conceptual model is not naive so much as heroically forward thinking. Alas I suspect it will be a waste of your time.
Let's take one example: data. Presumably you are intending to generate random data to populate your tables. That might give you some feeling for how well a query might perform with large volumes. But often performance problems are a product of skew in the data; a random set of data will give you an averaged distribution of values.
Another example: code. Most performance problems are due to badly written SQL, especially inappropriate joins. You might be able to apply an index to tune an individual for SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE blah but that isn't going to help you forestall badly written queries.
The truism about premature optimization applies to databases as well as algorithms. The most important thing is to get the data model complete and correct. If you manage that you are already ahead of the game.
edit
Having read the question which you linked to I more clearly understand where you are coming from. I have a little experience of this Hibernate mapping problem from the database designer perspective. Taking the example you give at the end of the page ...
Animal > Vertebrate > Mammal > Carnivore > Canine > Dog type hierarchy,
... the key thing is to instantiate objects as far down the chain as possible. Instantiating a column of Animals will perform much slower than instantiating separate collections of Dogs, Cats, etc. (presuming you have tables for all or some of those sub-types).
This is more of an application design issue than a database one. What will make a difference is whether you only build tables at the concrete level (CATS, DOGS) or whether you replicate the hierarchy in tables (ANIMALS, VERTEBRATES, etc). Unfortunately there are no simple answers here. For instance, you have to consider not just the performance of data retrieval but also how Hibernate will handle inserts and updates: a design which performs well for queries might be a real nightmare when it comes to persisting data. Also relational integrity has an impact: if you have some entity which applies to all Mammals, it is comforting to be able to enforce a foreign key against a MAMMALS table.
Performance problems with databases do not scale linearly with data volume. A database with a million rows in it might show one hotspot, while a similar database with a billion rows in it might reveal an entirely different hotspot. Beware of tests conducted with sample data.
You need good sound database design practices in order to keep your design simple and sound. Worry about whether your database meets the data requirements, and whether your model is relevant, complete, correct and relational (provided you're building a relational database) before you even start worrying about speed.
Then, once you've got something that's simple, sound, and correct, start worrying about speed. You'd be amazed at how much you can speed things up by just tweaking the physical features of your database, without changing any app code. To do this, you need to learn a lot about your particular DBMS.
They never said database development would be easy. They just said it would be this much fun!
We have a table with, say, 5 indices (one clustered).
Question: will it somehow negatively affect optimizer performance - either speed or accuracy of index picks - if all 5 indices start with the same exact field? (all other things being equal).
It was suggested by someone at the company that it may have detrimental effect on performance, and thus one of the indices needs to have the first two fields switched.
I would prefer to avoid change if it is not necessary, since they didn't back up their assertion with any facts/reasoning, but the guy is senior and smart enough that I'm inclined to seriously consider what he suggests.
NOTE1: The basic answer "tailor the index to the where clauses and overall queries" is not going to help me - the index that would be changed is a covered index for the only query using it and thus the order of the fields in it would not affect the IO amount. I have asked a separate SO question just to confirm that assertion.
NOTE2: That field is a date when the records are inserted, and the table is pretty big, if this matters. It has data for ~100 days, about equal # of rows per date, and the first index is a clustered index starting with that date field.
The optimizer has to think more about which if any of the indexes to use if there are five. That cost is usually not too bad, but it depends on the queries you're asking of it. In principle, once the query is optimized, the time taken to execute it should be about the same. If you are preparing SELECT statements for multiple uses, that won't matter much. If every query is prepared afresh and never reused, then the overhead may become a drag on the system performance - particularly if it turns out that it really doesn't matter which of the indexes is actually used for most queries (a moderately strong danger when five indexes all share the same leading columns).
There is also the maintenance cost when the data changes - updating five indexes takes noticably longer than just one index, plus you are using roughly five times as much disk storage for five indexes as for one.
I do not wish to speak for your senior colleague but I believe you have misinterpreted what he said, or he has not expressed himself explicitly enough for you to understand.
One of the things that stand out about poorly designed, and therefore poorly performing tables are, they have many indices on them, and the leading columns of the indices are all the same. Every single time.
So it is pointless debating (the debate is too isolated) whether there is a server cost for indices which all have the same leading columns; the problem is the poorly designed table which exposes itself in myriad ways. That is a massive server cost on every access. I suspect that that is where your esteemed colleague was coming from.
A monotonic column for an index is very poor choice (understood, you need at least one) for an index. But when you use that monotonic column to force uniqueness in some other index, which would otherwise be irrelevant (due to low cardinality, such as SexCode), that is another red flag to me. You've merely forced an irrelevant index to be slightly relevant); the queries, except for the single covered query, perform poorly on anything beyond the simplest select via primary key.
There is no such thing as a "covered index", but I understand what you mean, you have added an index so that a certain query will execute as a covered query. Another flag.
I am with Mitch, but I am not sure you get his drift.
Last, responding to your question in isolation, having five indices with the leading columns all the same would not cause a "performance problem", beyond that which your already have due to the poor table design, but it will cause angst and unnecessary manual labour for the developers chasing down weird behaviour, such as "how come the optimiser used index_1 for my query but today it is using index_4?".
Your language consistently (and particularly in the comments) displays a manner of dealing with issues in isolation. The concept of a server and a database, is that it is a shared central resource, the very opposite of isolation. A problem that is "solved" in isolation will usually result in negative performance impact for everyone outside that isolated space.
If you really want the problem dealt with, fully, post the CREATE TABLE statement.
I doubt it would have any major impact on SELECT performance.
BUT it probably means you could reorganise those indexes (based on a respresentative query workload) to better serve queries more efficiently.
I'm not familiar with the recent version of Sybase, but in general with all SQL servers,
the main (and almost) only performance impact indexes have is with INSERT, DELETE and UPDATE queries. Basically each change to the database requires the data table per-se (or the clustered index) to be updated, as well as all the indexes.
With regards to SELECT queries, having "too many" indexes may have a minor performance impact for example by introducing competing hard disk pages for cache. But I doubt this would be a significant issue in most cases.
The fact that the first column in all these indexes is the date, and assuming a generally monotonic progression of the date value, is a positive thing (with regards to CRUD operations) for it will keep the need of splitting/balancing the index tables to a minimal. (since most inserts at at the end of the indexes).
Also this table appears to be small enough ("big" is a relative word ;-) ) that some experimentation with it to assert performance issues in a more systematic fashion could probably be done relatively safely and easily without interfering much with production. (Unless the 10k or so records are very wide or the query per seconds rate is high etc..)