I'm the webmaster for a major US university. We have a great deal of requests on our website, which I've built and been in charge of for the last 7 years or so. I've been building ever-more-complex features into our website and it's always been my practice to put as much of the programming burden on our multi-processor Microsoft SQL server as possible - using stored procedures, views, etc, and fill-in what can't be done with PHP, ASP, or Perl from the IIS web server. Both servers are very powerful and capable machines. Since I've been doing this alone for so long without anyone else to brainstorm with, I'm curious if my approach is ideal for even higher load situations we'll have in the future.
My question is: Is it better practice to place more of the load burden on the SQL server using nested SELECT statements, views, stored procedures and aggregate functions, or should I be pulling multiple simpler queries and processing through them using server-side compile-time scripts like PHP? Keep on keepin' on or come up with a better way?
I've recently become more interested in performance after I did some load traces and learned just how much I've been putting on the shoulders of the SQL server. Both the web server and SQL servers are fast and responsive throughout the day, and almost without regard for how much I put on them, but I'd like to be ready and have trained myself and upgraded my existing code optimized best practices in mind by the time it becomes important.
Thanks for your advice and input.
You put each layer in your stack to use in the domain it fits best.
There is no use in having your database server send 1000 rows and using PHP to filter them if a WHERE-clause or GROUP-clause would suffice. It's not optimal to call the database to add two integers (SELECT 5+9 works fine, but php can do it itself, and you save the roundtrip).
You will probably want to look into scalability: what parts of your application can be divided unto multiple processes? If you're still just using 2 layers (script & db), there is a lot of room for scaling there. But always start with the bottleneck first.
Some examples: host static contents on CDN, use caching for your pages, read about nginx and memcached, use nosql (mongoDB), consider sharding, consider replication.
My opinion is that it's generally (mostly) best to favor letting the web servers do the processing. Two points:
First is scalability. Once your application gets enough usage, you'll need to start worrying about load balancing. And it's a lot easier to drop in a couple of extra web servers pointing to a common database than it is to set up a distributed database cluster. So best to take as much strain away from the Database as you can and keep it on a single machine for as long as possible.
The second point i'd like to make is about optimizing the queries. This will depend a lot on the queries you are using, and the database backend. When i first started working with databases, i fell into the trap of making elaborate SQL queries with multiple JOINs that fetched exactly the data i wanted, even if it was from four or five different tables. I reasoned that "That's what the database is there for - lets get it to do the hard work"
I quickly found that these queries took way too long to execute, and often ended up blocking the database from other requests. While it may seam inefficient to split your query into multiple requests (for example in a for loop), you'll often find that executing multiple small queries with fast indexes will make your application run far more smoothly than trying to pass all the hard work to the database
Firstly, you might want to check if there is any load which can be removed entirely by client side caching (.js, .css, static HTML and images), and use of technologies such as AJAX to do partial updates of screens - this will remove load on both web and sql servers.
Secondly, see if there is sql load which can be reduced by web server caching - e.g. static or low refresh data - if you have a lot of 'content' pages on your systems, have a look at common CMS caching techniques which will scale to allow many more users to view the same data without rebuilding the page or hitting the database.
I tend to do as much as possible outside the db, viewing db calls as expensive/time-intensive.
For example, when performing a select on a user table with fields name_given and name_family, I could fatten the query to return a column called full_name built by concatenation. But that kind of thing can be easily done in a model on your server-side scripting language (PHP, Ruby, etc).
Of course, there are cases when the db is the more "natural" place to perform an operation. But, in general, I incline more towards putting the load on the web server and optimize there with many of the techniques noted in other answers.
Related
I constantly read on the Internet how it's important to correctly architect my PHP applications so that they can scale.
I have built a simple/small CMS that is written in PHP (think of Wordpress, but waaaay simpler).
I essentially have URLs like such: http://example.com/?page_id=X where X is the id in my MySQL database that has the page content.
How can I configure my application to be load balanced where I'm simply performing PHP read activities.
Would something like Nginx as the front door setup to route traffic to multi-nodes running my same code to handle example.com/?page_id=X be enough to "load balance" my site?
Obviously, MySQL is not being load balanced in this situation, though for simplicity - that makes that out of scope for this question.
These are some well known techniques for scaling such an app.
Reduce DB hits
Most often the bottle neck will be your DB, so cache recent pages so that you reduce DB activity, perhaps in something like memcached.
Design your schema such that it is partition-able.
In the simplest case, separate your data into logical partitions, and store each partition in a separate mysql DB. Craigslist, for example, partitions data by city, and in some cases, by section within that. In your case, you could partition by Id quite simply.
Manage php sessions
Putting ngnx in front of a php website will not work if you use sessions. Load balancing php does have issues as sessions are persisted on local storage. Therefore you need to do session management explicitly. The traditional solution is to use memcached to store and look up some kind of cookie.
Don't optimize prematurely.
Focus on getting your application out so that the next magnitude of current users gets the optimal experience.
Note: Your main potential pain points are discussed here on SO
No, it is not at all important to scale your application if you don't need to.
My view on this is:
Make it work
Make sure it works correctly - testability, robustness
Make it work efficiently enough to be cost effective to run
Then, if you have to so much traffic that your system cannot handle it, AND you've already thrown all the hardware that (sensible) money can buy at it, then you need to scale. Not sooner.
Yes it is relatively easy to scale read-workloads, because you can simply perform reads against readonly database replicas. The challenge is to scale write-workloads.
A lot of sites have few writes, even if they're really busy.
The correct approach is to use some kind of load balancer such as:
http://www.softwareprojects.com/resources/programming/t-how-to-install-and-configure-haproxy-as-an-http-loa-1752.html
What this does is forward a certain user session only to a certain server, hence you dont have to worry about sessions and where they are stored at all. What you do have to worry is how to distribute the filesystem if the 2 servers are running on two different machines, especially if you make heavy use of the filesystem. Hope this article above helps...
Im on an optimization crusade for one of my sites, trying to cut down as many mysql queries as I can.
Im implementing partial caching, which writes .txt files for various modules of the site, and updates them on demand. I've came across one, that cannot remain static for all the users, so the .txt file thats written on the HD, will need to be altered on the fly via php.
Which is done via
flush();
ob_start();
include('file.txt');
$contents = ob_get_clean();
Then I modify the html in the $contents variable, and echo it out for different users.
Alternatively, I can leave it as it is, which runs a mysql query, which queries a small table that has category names (about 13 of them).
Which one is less expensive? Running a query every single time.... or doing it via the method I posted above, to inject html code on the fly, into a static .txt file?
Reading the file (save in very weird setups) will be minutely faster than querying the DB (no network interaction, &c), but the difference will hardly be measurable -- just try and see if you can measure it!
Optimize your queries first! Then use memcache or similar caching system, for data that is accessed frequently and then you can add file caching. We use all three combined and it runs very smooth. Small optimized queries aren't so bad. If your DB is in local server - network is not an issue. And don't forger to use MySQL query cache (i guess you do use MySQL).
Where is your the performance bottleneck?
If you don't know the bottleneck, you can't make any sensible assessment about optimisations.
Collect some metrics, and optimise accordingly.
Try both and choose the one that either is a clear winner or if not available, more maintainable. This depends on where the DB is, how much load it's getting, and whether you'll need to run more than one application instance (then they'd need to share this file on the network and it's not local anymore).
Here are the patterns that work for me when I'm refactoring PHP/MySQL site code.
The number of queries per page is absolutely critical - one complex query with joins is fastest as long as indexes are proper. A single page can almost always be generated with five or fewer queries in my experience, plus good use of classes and arrays of classes. Often one query for the session and one query for the app.
After indexes the biggest thing to work on is the caching configuration parameters.
Never have queries in loops.
Moving database queries to files has never been a useful strategy, especially since it often ends up screwing up your query integrity.
Alex and the others are right about testing. If your pages are noticeably slow, then they are slow for a reason (or reasons) - don't even start changing anything until you know what the reasons are and can measure the consequences of your changes. Refactoring by guessing is always a losing strategy espeically when (as in your case) you're adding complexity.
On a site with a reasonable amount of traffic , would it matter if the application/business logic is written as stored procedures ,triggers and views , instead of inside the PHP code itself?
What would be the best way to go keeping scalability in mind.
I can't provide you statistics, but unless you plan to change PHP for another language in the future, i can say keeping the business logic in PHP is more "scalability friendly".
Its always easier and cheaper to solve web server load problems than having them in the database. Your database will always need to be lighting quick and just throwing mirrors at it won't solve the problem. The more database slaves you have, the more writes you have to do.
In my experience, you should put business logic in PHP code rather than move it onto the database. Assuming your database is on a separate server, you don't want your database to be busy calculating formulas when requests come in.
Keep your database lightning fast to handle selects, inserts and updates.
I think you will have far better scalibility keeping database code in the database where it can be performance tuned as the number of records gets larger. You will also have better data integrity which is critical to the data even being useful. You don't see a lot of terrabyte sized relational dbs with all their code in the application.
Read some books on database performance tuning and then decide if you want to risk your company's data on application code.
There are several things to consider when trying to decide whether to place the business logic in the database or in the application code.
Will the same database be accessed
from different websites / web
applications? Will the sites /
applications be written in the same
language or in a different language?
If the database will be used from a single site, and the site is written in a single language then this becomes a non-issue. Otherwise, you'll need to consider the added complexity of stored procedures, triggers, etc vs trying to maintain database access logic etc in multiple code bases.
What are relational databases in
general good for and what is MySQL
good for specifically? What is PHP
best at?
This consideration is fairly straight-forward. Relational databases across the board and specifically in any variant of SQL are going to do a great job at inserting, updating, and deleting data. Generally they also handle ATOMIC transactions well. However, most variants of SQL (including MySQL) are not good at complex calculations, on-the-fly date handling, file system access etc.
PHP on the other hand is very fast at handling calculations, dates, file system accesses. By taking a little time you can even design your PHP code to work in such a way that records are only retrieved once and then stored when necessary.
What are you most familiar /
comfortable with using?
Obviously it tends to make more sense to use the tool with which you are most familiar.
As a last point consider that just because a drill can be used to cut sheet rock or because a hammer can be used to drive a screw doesn't mean that they should be used for these things. Sometimes I think that programmers do more potential damage by trying to make more powerful tools that do everything rather than making simpler tools that do one thing really, really well.
A well done PHP application should be enought, but keep in mind that it also requires you to do the less calls to the database you can. Store values you'll need later in PHP, shorten queries, cache, etc.
MySQL optimization is always a must, as it will also decrease the amount of databse calls by PHP, and thus getting a better performance. Therefore, there's no way you can't think of stored procedures, etc, if your aim is to increase performance. But MySQL by itself would't be enought if your PHP code isn't well done (lots of unecessary database calls), that's why I think PHP must be well coded, keeping in mind the hole process while developing it, so that unecessary stuff doesn't get in the way. Cache for instance, in "duet" with proper MySQL, is a great boost on performance.
My POV, even not having much experience in developing large applications is to write business logic in the DB for some reasons:
1 - Maintainability, I think that languages deprecate functions and changes many other things in a short time period, so if PHP changes version, you'll need to adapt your code to the new version
2 - DBs tends to be more language stable, so when a new version of a RDBMS comes out, it usually doesn't change many things in the way you write your queries or SPs, or it even doesn't change. Writing your logic in DB will reduce code adaptation because of a new DB version
3 - A RDBMS is more likely to be alive for a long period rather than a programming language. Also, as your data is critical, there is a big worry from the RDBMS developers for automatic migration of your whole data to the new RDBMS version, including your SPs. When clipper died, there were no ways to migrate systems to a new programming language, they had to be completely rewritten.
4 - If you think someday to change completely the language you are writing the application for some reason(language death, for example), the only thing to be rewritten will be the presentation and the SP calls, not business logic.
I'd like to know from other people here if what I pointed out makes sense, and if not, why. I'm on the same situation as Sabeen Malik, I'm thinking to begin my first huge project and I'm tending towards SPs because of what I wrote. So it's time to correct my POV if it's not so correct.
MySQL sucks at using advanced DB techniques, it's simple and fast. PHP, being a dynamic language, makes processing data very easy. Therefore, it usually makes sense to use PHP.
I'm creating and app that will rely on a database, and I have all intention on using a flat file db, is there any serious reasons to stay away from this?
I'm using mimesis (http://mimesis.110mb.com)
it's simpler than using mySQL, which I have to admit I have little experience with.
I'm wondering about the security of the db. but the files are stored as php and it seems to be a solid database solution.
I really like the ease of backing up and transporting the databases, which I have found harder with mySQL. I see that everyone seems to prefer the mySQL way - and it likely is faster when it comes to queries but other than that is there any reason to stay away from flat-file dbs and (finally) properly learn mysql ?
edit
Just to let people know,
I ended up going with mySQL, and am using the CodeIgniter framework. Still like the flat file db, but have now realized that it's way more complex for this project than necessary.
Use SQLite, you get a database with many SQL features and yet it's only a single file.
Greetings, I'm the creator of Mimesis. Relational databases and SQL are important in situations where you have massive amounts of data that needs to be handled. Are flat files superior to relation databases? Well, you could ask Google, as their entire archiving system works with flat files, and its the most popular search engine on Earth. Does Mimesis compare to their system? Likely not.
Mimesis was created to solve a particular niche problem. I only use free websites for my online endeavors. Plenty of free sites offer the ability to use PHP. However, they don't provide free SQL database access. Therefore, I needed to create a database that would store data, implement locking, and work around file permissions. These were the primary design parameters of Mimesis, and it succeeds on all of those.
If you need an idea of Mimesis's speed, if you navigate to the first page it will tell you what country you're viewing the site from. This free database is taken from the site ip2nation.com and ported into a Mimesis ffdb. It has hundreds if not thousands of entries.
Furthermore, the hit counter on the main page has already tracked over 7000 visitors. These are UNIQUE visits, which means that the script has to search the database to see if the IP address that's visiting already exists, and also performs a count of the total IPs.
If you've noticed the main page loads up pretty quickly and it has two fairly intensive Mimesis database scripts running on the backend. The way Mimesis stores data is done to speed up read and write procedures and also translation procedures. Most ffdb example scripts or other ffdb scripts out there use a simple CVS file or other some such structure for storing data. Mimesis actually interprets binary data at some levels to augment its functionality. Mimesis is somewhat of a hybrid between a flat file database and a relational database.
Most other ffdb scripts involve rewriting the COMPLETE file every time an update is made. Mimesis does not do this, it rewrites only the structural file and updates the actual row contents. So that even if an error does occur you only lose new data that's added, not any of the older data. Mimesis also maintains its history. Unless the table is refreshed the data that rows had previously is still contained within.
I could keep going on about all the features, but this isn't intended as a "Mimesis is the greatest database ever" rant. Moreso, its intended to open people's eyes to the fact that SQL isn't the ONLY technology available, and that flat files, when given proper development paradigms are superior to a relational database, taking into account they are more specialized.
Long live flat files and the coders who brave the headaches that follow.
The answer is "Fine" if you only NEED a flat-file structure. One test: Would a single simple spreadsheet handle all needs? If not, you need a relational structure, not a flat file.
If you're not sure, perhaps you can start flat-file. SQLite is a great app for getting started.
It's not good to learn you made the wrong choice, if you figure it out too far along in the process. But if you understand the importance of a relational structure, and upsize early on if needed, then you are fine.
I really like the ease of backing up
and transporting the databases, which
I have found harder with mySQL.
Use SQLite as mentioned in another answer. There is only one file to backup, or set up periodic dumps of the MySQL databases to SQL files. This is a relatively simple thing to do.
I see that everyone seems to prefer
the mySQL way - and it likely is
faster when it comes to queries
Speed is definitely a consideration. Databases tend to be a lot faster, because the data is organized better.
other than that is there any reason to
stay away from flat-file dbs and
(finally) properly learn mysql ?
There sure are plenty of reasons to use a database solution, but there are arguments to be made for flat files. It is always good to learn things other than what you "usually" use.
Most decisions depend on the application. How many concurrent users are you going to have? Do you need transaction support?
Wanted to inform that Mimesis has moved from the original URL to http://mimesis.site11.com/
Furthermore, I am shifting the focus of Mimesis from an ffdb to a key-value store. It's more sensible Given the types of information I'm storing and the methods I use to retrieve it. There was also a grave error present in the coding of Mimesis (which I've since fixed). However, I'm still in the testing phase of the new key-value store type. I've also been side-tracked by other things. Locking has also been changed from the use of file creation to directory creation as the mutex mechanism.
Interoperability. MySQL can be interfaced by basically any language that counts. Mimesis is unlikely to be usable outside PHP.
This becomes significant the moment you try to use profilers, or modify data from the outside.
You might also look at http://lukeplant.me.uk/resources/flatfile/ for the PHP Flatfile Package.
The issue with going flatfile is that in order to adjust the situation for further development you have to alter a significant amount of code in order to improve the foundation of the system. Whereas if it was a pure SQL system it would require little to no modification to proceed in the future.
An SQL database is overkill if your storage needs are small. When I was young and dumb, I used a text file and flock()ed it when I needed to access it. This doesn't scale, but I still feel that non-database solutions have been completely ignored in Web 2.0.
Does anyone not use an SQL database for storage? What are the alternatives?
There are a lot of alternatives. But having SQLite which gives you SQL power combined with no fuss of file based storage, there is no need to look for these alternatives. SQLite is light enough to be used in cell phones and MP3 players, so I don't see how it could be considered an overkill.
So unless your application needs something very specific, don't bother. Most alternatives are a lot harder to use and have less performance.
SQLite is invented for this.
It's just a flat-file that contains a complete SQL database. You can query, update, insert, delete, there's little to no overhead in installation and all you need is the driver (which comes standard in PHP )
SQLite is a software library that implements a self-contained, serverless, zero-configuration, transactional SQL database engine.
Kind of weird that nobody mentioned this already?
CouchDB (http://couchdb.apache.org/index.html) is a non-sql database, and seems to be a popular project these days, as well as Google's bigtable, or GT.M (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm) which has been around forever.
Object databases abound as well; dbforobjects (http://www.db4o.com/), ZODB (http://www.zope.org/Products/StandaloneZODB), just to name a few.
All of these are supposedly faster and simpler than traditional SQL databases for certain use cases, but none approach the simplicity of a flat file.
A distributed hash table like google bigtable or hadoop is a simple and scalable non SQL database and often suits the websites far better than a SQL database. SQL is great for complex relational data, but most websites don't have this requirement. Most websites store and retrieve data in a few forms and don't need to run complex operations on the data.
Take a look at one of these solutions as they will provide all of the concurrent access that you need but don't subscribe to the traditional ideas of data normalisation. They can be thought of as pretty analogous to a bunch of named text files.
It probably depends how dynamic your web site is. I used wiki software once that used RCS to check in and out text files. I wouldn't recommend that solution for something that gets as many updates as StackOverflow or Wikipedia. The thing about database is that they scale well, and the database engine writers have figured out all the fiddly little details of simultaneous access, load balancing, replication, etc.
I would say that it doesn't depend on whether you store less or more information, it depends on how often you are requesting the stored data. Databasemanagers are superb on caching queries, so they are often the better choice performance wise. How ever, if you don't need a dynamic web page and are just loading static data - maybe a text file is the better option. Which format the data is stored in (i.e. XML, JSON, key=pair) doesn't matter - it's I/O operations that are performance heavy.
When I'm developing web applications, I always use a RDBMS as the primary data holder. If the web application don't need to serve dynamic data at every request, I simply apply a cache functionality storing the data in a cache file that gets requested when no new data have been added to the primary data source (the RDBMS).
I wouldn't choose whether to use an SQL database based on how much data I wanted to store - I would choose based on what kind of data I wanted to store and how it is to be used.
Wikipeadia defines a database as: A database is a structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system. And I think your answer lies there: If you want to store records such as customer accounts, access rights and so on then a DB such as mySQL or SQLite or whatever is not overkill. They give you a tried and trusted mechanism for managing those records.
If, on the other hand, your website stores and delivers unchanging file-based content such as PDFs, reports, mp3s and so on then simply storing them in a well-defined directory layout on a disk is more than enough. I would also include XML documents here: if you had for example a production department that created articles for a website in XML format there is no need to put them in a DB - store them on disk and use XSLT to deliver them.
Your choice of SQL or not will also depend on how the content you wish to store is to be retrieved. SQL is obviously good for retrieving many records based on search criteria whereas a directory tree, XML database, RDF database, etc are more likely to be used to retrieve single records.
Choice of storage mechanism is very important when trying to scale high-traffic site and stuffing everything into a SQL DB will quickly become a bottleneck.
It depends what you are storing. My blog uses Blosxom (written in Perl but a similar thing could be done for PHP) where each individual entry is a separate text file. The first line is plain text (the title) and the rest is unrestricted HTML. Following a few simple rules, these are rendered to form a simple but effective blogging framework.
It does have drawbacks but it also means that each post is a discrete file, which works well for updating on a local machine and then publishing to a remote web server. This is limited when it comes to efficient querying though, so certainly not a good choice if you want fine-grained control and web-based interaction with your data.
Check CouchDB.
I have used LINQ to XML as a data source in a .NET project. It was a small solution, and used caching to mitigate performance concerns. I would do it again for the quick site that just needs to keep data in a common place without increasing server requirements.
Depends on what you're storing and how you need to access it. Generally sql provides great reporting and manual management ability. Almost everything needs some way to manage what's stored and report on it.
In Perl I use DBM or Storable for such tasks. DBM will update automatically when variable is updated.
One level down from SQL databases is an ISAM (Indexed Sequential Access Method) - basically tables and indexes but no SQL and no explicit relationships among tables. As long as the conceptual basis fits your design, it will scale nicely. I've used Codebase effectively for a long time.
If you want to work with SQL-database-type data, then consider FileMaker.
A Simple answer is that you can use any data storage format, from standard defined, to database (which generally involved a protocol), even a bespoke file-format.
There are trade-offs for every choice you make in IT, and certainly websites are no different. In the early 2000's file-based forum systems were popular as it allows anyone with limited technical ability to edit pages and posts. Completely static sites swiftly become unmanageable and content does not benefit from upgrades to the site user-interface; however the site if coded correctly can simply be moved to a sub-directory, or ripped into the new design. CMS's and dynamic systems bring with them their own set of problems, namely that there does not yet exist a widely adopted standard for data storage amongst them; that they often rely on third-party plugins to provide features between design styles (despite their documentation advocating for separation of function & form).
In 2016, it's pretty uncommon not to use a standard storage mechanism, such as a *SQL RDBMS; although static site generators such as Jekyll (powers a lot of GitHub pages); and independent players such as October CMS still provision for static file-based storage.
My personal preference is to use an *SQL enabled RDBMS, it provides me syntax that is standardised at least at the vendor level, familiar and powerful syntax, but unlike a lot of people I don't think this is the only way, and in most cases would advocate for using a site-generator to save parts that don't have to be dynamic to a static store as this is the cheapest way to live on the web.
TLDR; it's up to you, SQL & RDBMS backed are popular.
Well, this is a bit of an open-ended question from the OP and there are two questions ... around SQL alternatives and non-SQL.
In general, in the "Why is SQL good" category ... it's a mature and robust standard that provides referential-integrity. Java JDBC supports it fully as do tools like TOAD and there a many SQL implementations such as SQL-Lite referenced earlier.
Now specific to a "for a web-site" is not particularly indicative of anything. Does a web-site need referential integrity? Maybe. If the business nature of the web-site is largely unstructured content, then one can consider any kind of persistent storage really from so called "no-SQL" databases like AWS DynamoDB to Mongo (not a fan though).
For managing the complexities of SQL stores - one suggestion versus a list of every persistence store ever created ... is AWS Aurora (part of RDS service). It is multi-region active-active and fully MySQL-compliant. JDBC/ODBC based driver frameworks would work out-of-the-box and it effectively offers "zero administration".
I would check out XML if I were you. See w3schools XML tutorial section on the left side. Tons of possibilities without using SQL database.