I have a US company database which is 20 millions records. Firstly they is no budget for a massive RAM database server. So I think I am going to have to split the db into parts, 4 parts grouped by State.
My question is how is the best way to handle this with PHP, I am thinking get the users query find the State and then point to the relevant db? Any thoughts?
I think you need to look at the MySQL partitioning
sounds like you might want to consider sharding.
Not sure if you are using an ORM for data access, but some of them support sharding. Some info on sharding for php and mySQL here:
http://highscalability.com/database-sharding-netlog-mysql-and-php
just realised - link missing to the actual article in last url... try here: http://www.jurriaanpersyn.com/archives/2009/02/12/database-sharding-at-netlog-with-mysql-and-php/
You don't need PHP for all these operations. Maybe to generate SQL code. It's better to make SQL scripts that copy data from the original tables into the new. See "INSERT ... SELECT ..." and "CREATE TABLE ... AS SELECT ..." if you are not familiar with them yet.
If you have MySQL >=5.1, then try partitioning table so that any request hits only 1 partition.
If users need information only on 1 state, partition it by state. There can be a lot of partitions without overhead work for you. If users can see only a certain time frame, like month graphs in Webalizer, partition by months, and so on.
Also consider creating aggregate tables. Let me elaborate: in data warehouses there is a distinction between metrics and attributes.
An attribute is a column that tells where, when, what, what kind of.
A metric tells how much, how many.
An aggregate table has less level of detail: either less attributes (no geographical info, or no product info), or some steps upper the attributes in the full table (just state instead of city+state, year-month instead of date, and so on).
And the last: make sure your users really need the detailed old data. Some of the data becomes irrelevant in a couple of years. For instance, website referrers have no meaning after 1,5-2 years, since most of the websites change. The 2-years-old website traffic data can be just a number of daily/monthly graphs.
Related
Let's pretend with me here:
PHP/MySQL web-application. Assume a single server and a single MySQL DB.
I have 1,000 bosses. Every boss has 10 workers under them. These 10 workers (times 1k, totaling 10,000 workers) each have at least 5 database entries (call them work orders for this purpose) in the WebApplication every work day. That's 50k entries a day in this work orders table.
Server issues aside, I see two main ways to handle the basic logic of the database here:
Each Boss has an ID. There is one table called workorders and it has a column named BossID to associate every work order with a boss. This leaves you with approximately 1 million entries a month in a single table, and to me that seems to add up fast.
Each Boss has it's own table that is created when that Boss signed up, i.e. work_bossID where bossID = the boss' unique ID. This leaves you with 1,000 tables, but these tables are much more manageable.
Is there a third option that I'm overlooking?
Which method would be the better-functioning method?
How big is too big for number of entries in a table (let's assume a small number of columns: less than 10)? (this can include: it's time to get a second server when...)
How big is too big for number of tables in a database? (this can include: it's time to get a second server when...)
I know that at some point we have to bring in talks of multiple servers, and databases linked together... but again, let's focus on a single server here with a singly MySQL DB.
If you use a single server, I don't think there is a problem with how big the table gets. It isn't just the number of records in a table, but how frequently it is accessed.
To manage large datasets, you can use multiple servers. In this case:
You can keep all workorders in a single table, and mirror them across different servers (so that you have slave servers)
You can shard the workorders table by boss (in this case you access the server depending on where the workorder belongs) - search for database sharding for more information
Which option you choose depends on how you will use your database.
Mirrors (master/slave)
Keeping all workorders in a single table is good for querying when you don't know which boss a workorder belongs to, eg. if you are searching by product type, but any boss can have orders in any product type.
However, you have to store a copy of everything on every mirror. In addition only one server (the master) can deal with update (or adding workorder) SQL requests. This is fine if most of your SQL queries are SELECT queries.
Sharding
The advantage of sharding is that you don't have to store a copy of the record on every mirror server.
However, if you are searching workorders by some attribute for any boss, you would have to query every server to check every shard.
How to choose
In summary, use a single table if you can have all sorts of queries, including browsing workorders by an attribute (other than which boss it belongs to), and you are likely to have more SELECT (read) queries than write queries.
Use shards if you can have write queries on the same order of magnitude as read queries, and/or you want to save memory, and queries searching by other attributes (not boss) are rare.
Keeping queries fast
Large databases are not really a big problem, if they are not overwhelmed by queries, because they can keep most of the database on hard disk, and only keep what was accessed recently in cache (on memory).
The other important thing to prevent any single query from running slowly is to make sure you add the right index for each query you might perform to avoid linear searches. This is to allow the database to binary search for the record(s) required.
If you need to maintain a count of records, whether of the whole table, or by attribute (category or boss), then keep counter caches.
When to get a new server
There isn't really a single number you can assign to determine when a new server is needed because there are too many variables. This decision can be made by looking at how fast queries are performing, and the CPU/memory usage of your server.
Scaling is often a case of experimentation as it's not always clear from the outset where the bottlenecks will be. Since you seem to have a pretty good idea of the kind of load the system will be under, one of the first things to do is capture this in a spreadsheet so you can work out some hypotheticals. This allows you do do a lot of quick "what if" scenarios and come up with a reasonable upper end for how far you have to scale with your first build.
For collecting large numbers of records there's some straight-forward rules:
Use the most efficient data type to represent what you're describing. Don't worry about using smaller integer types to shave off a few bytes, or shrinking varchars. What's important here is using integers for numbers, date fields for dates, and so on. Don't use a varchar for data that already has a proper type.
Don't over-index your table, add only what is strictly necessary. The larger the number of indexes you have, the slower your inserts will get as the table grows.
Purge data that's no longer necessary. Where practical delete it. Where it needs to be retained for an extended period of time, make alternate tables you can dump it into. For instance, you may be able to rotate out your main orders table every quarter or fiscal year to keep it running quickly. You can always adjust your queries to run against the other tables if required for reporting. Keep your working data set as small as practical.
Tune your MySQL server by benchmarking, tinkering, researching, and experimenting. There's no magic bullet here. There's many variables that may work for some people but might slow down your application. They're also highly dependent on OS, hardware, and the structure and size of your data. You can easily double or quadruple performance by allocating more memory to your database engine, for instance, either InnoDB or MyISAM.
Try using other MySQL forks if you think they might help significantly. There are a few that offer improved performance over the regular MySQL, Percona in particular.
If you query large tables often and aggressively, it may make sense to de-normalize some of your data to reduce the number of expensive joins that have to be done. For instance, on a message board you might include the user's name in every message even though that seems like a waste of data, but it makes displaying large lists of messages very, very fast.
With all that in mind, the best thing to do is design your schema, build your tables, and then exercise them. Simulate loading in 6-12 months of data and see how well it performs once really loaded down. You'll find all kinds of issues if you use EXPLAIN on your slower queries. It's even better to do this on a development system that's slower than your production database server so you won't have any surprises when you deploy.
The golden rule of scaling is only optimize what's actually a problem and avoid tuning things just because it seems like a good idea. It's very easy to over-engineer a solution that will later do the opposite of what you intend or prove to be extremely difficult to un-do.
MySQL can handle millions if not billions of rows without too much trouble if you're careful to experiment and prove it works in some capacity before rolling it out.
i had database size problem as well in one of my networks so big that it use to slow the server down when i run query on that table..
in my opinion divide your database into dates decide what table size would be too big for you - let say 1 million entries then calculate how long it will take you to get to that amount. and then have a script every that period of time to either create a new table with the date and move all current data over or just back that table up and empty it.
like putting out dated material in archives.
if you chose the first option you'll be able to access that date easily by referring to that table.
Hope that idea helps
Just create a workers table, bosses table, a relationships table for the two, and then all of your other tables. With a relationship structure like this, it's very dynamic. Because, if it ever got large enough you could create another relationship table between the work orders to the bosses or to the workers.
You might want to look into bigints, but I doubt you'll need that. I know it that the relationships table will get massive, but thats good db design.
Of course bigint is for mySQL, which can go up to -9223372036854775808 to 9223372036854775807 normal. 0 to 18446744073709551615 UNSIGNED*
I am in the process of creating a website where I need to have the activity for a user (similar to your inbox in stackoverflow) stored in sql. Currently, my teammates and I are arguing over the most effective way to do this; so far, we have come up with two alternate ways to do this:
Create a new table for each user and have the table name be theirusername_activity. Then when I need to get their activity (posting, being commented on, etc.) I simply get that table and see the rows in it...
In the end I will have a TON of tables
Possibly Faster
Have one huge table called activity, with an extra field for their username; when I want to get their activity I simply get the rows from that table "...WHERE username=".$loggedInUser
Less tables, cleaner
(assuming I index the tables correctly, will this still be slower?)
Any alternate methods would also be appreciated
"Create a new table for each user ... In the end I will have a TON of tables"
That is never a good way to use relational databases.
SQL databases can cope perfectly well with millions of rows (and more), even on commodity hardware. As you have already mentioned, you will obviously need usable indexes to cover all the possible queries that will be performed on this table.
Number 1 is just plain crazy. Can you imagine going to manage it, and seeing all those tables.
Can you imagine the backup! Or the dump! That many create tables... that would be crazy.
Get you a good index, and you will have no problem sorting through records.
here we talk about MySQL. So why would it be faster to make separate tables?
query cache efficiency, each insert from one user would'nt empty the query cache for others
Memory & pagination, used tables would fit in buffers, unsued data would easily not be loaded there
But as everybody here said is semms quite crazy, in term of management. But in term of performances having a lot of tables will add another problem in mySQL, you'll maybe run our of file descriptors or simply wipe out your table cache.
It may be more important here to choose the right engine, like MyIsam instead of Innodb as this is an insert-only table. And as #RC said a good partitionning policy would fix the memory & pagination problem by avoiding the load of rarely used data in active memory buffers. This should be done with an intelligent application design as well, where you avoid the load of all the activity history by default, if you reduce it to recent activity and restrict the complete history table parsing to batch processes and advanced screens you'll get a nice effect with the partitionning. You can even try a user-based partitioning policy.
For the query cache efficiency, you'll have a bigger gain by using an application level cache (like memcache) with history-per-user elements saved there and by emptying it at each new insert .
You want the second option, and you add the userId (and possibly a seperate table for userid, username etc etc).
If you do a lookup on that id on an properly indexed field you'd only need something like log(n) steps to find your rows. This is hardly anything at all. It will be way faster, way clearer and way better then option 1. option 1 is just silly.
In some cases, the first option is, in spite of not being strictly "the relational way", slightly better, because it makes it simpler to shard your database across multiple servers as you grow. (Doing this is precisely what allows wordpress.com to scale to millions of blogs.)
The key is to only do this with tables that are entirely independent from a user to the next -- i.e. never queried together.
In your case, option 2 makes the most case: you'll almost certainly want to query the activity across all or some users at some point.
Use option 2, and not only index the username column, but partition (consider a hash partition) on that column as well. Partitioning on username will provide you some of the same benefits as the first option and allow you to keep your sanity. Partitioning and indexing the column this way will provide a very fast and efficient means of accessing data based on the username/user_key. When querying a partitioned table, the SQL Engine can immediately lop off partitions it doesn't need to scan as it can tell based off of the username value queried vs. the ability of that username to reside within a partition. (in this case only one partition could contain records tied to that user) If you have a need to shard the table across multiple servers in the future, partitioning doesn't hinder that ability.
You will also want to normalize the table by separating the username field (and any other elements in the table related to username) into its own table with a user_key. Ensure a primary key on the user_key field in the username table.
This majorly depends now on where you need to retrieve the values. If its a page for single user, then use first approach. If you are showing data of all users, you should use single table. Using multiple table approach is also clean but in sql if the number of records in a single table are very high, the data retrieval is very slow
I have a pretty large social network type site I have working on for about 2 years (high traffic and 100's of files) I have been experimenting for the last couple years with tweaking things for max performance for the traffic and I have learned a lot. Now I have a huge task, I am planning to completely re-code my social network so I am re-designing mysql DB's and everything.
Below is a photo I made up of a couple mysql tables that I have a question about. I currently have the login table which is used in the login process, once a user is logged into the site they very rarely need to hit the table again unless editing a email or password. I then have a user table which is basicly the users settings and profile data for the site. This is where I have questions, should it be better performance to split the user table into smaller tables? For example if you view the user table you will see several fields that I have marked as "setting_" should I just create a seperate setting table? I also have fields marked with "count" which could be total count of comments, photo's, friends, mail messages, etc. So should I create another table to store just the total count of things?
The reason I have them all on 1 table now is because I was thinking maybe it would be better if I could cut down on mysql queries, instead of hitting 3 tables to get information on every page load I could hit 1.
Sorry if this is confusing, and thanks for any tips.
alt text http://img2.pict.com/b0/57/63/2281110/0/800/dbtable.jpg
As long as you don't SELECT * FROM your tables, having 2 or 100 fields won't affect performance.
Just SELECT only the fields you're going to use and you'll be fine with your current structure.
should I just create a seperate setting table?
So should I create another table to store just the total count of things?
There is not a single correct answer for this, it depends on how your application is doing.
What you can do is to measure and extrapolate the results in a dev environment.
In one hand, using a separate table will save you some space and the code will be easier to modify.
In the other hand you may lose some performance ( and you already think ) by having to join information from different tables.
About the count I think it's fine to have it there, although it is always said that is better to calculate this kind of stuff, I don't think for this situation it hurt you at all.
But again, the only way to know what's better your you and your specific app, is to measuring, profiling and find out what's the benefit of doing so. Probably you would only gain 2% of improvement.
You'll need to compare performance testing results between the following:
Leaving it alone
Breaking it up into two tables
Using different queries to retrieve the login data and profile data (if you're not doing this already) with all the data in the same table
Also, you could implement some kind of caching strategy on the profile data if the usage data suggests this would be advantageous.
You should consider putting the counter-columns and frequently updated timestamps in its own table --- every time you bump them the entire row is written.
I wouldn't consider your user table terrible large in number of columns, just my opinion. I also wouldn't break that table into multiple tables unless you can find a case for removal of redundancy. Perhaps you have a lot of users who have the same settings, that would be a case for breaking the table out.
Should take into account the average size of a single row, in order to find out if the retrieval is expensive. Also, should try to use indexes as while looking for data...
The most important thing is to design properly, not just to split because "it looks large". Maybe the IP or IPs could go somewhere else... depends on the data saved there.
Also, as the socialnetworksite using this data also handles auth and autorization processes (guess so), the separation between login and user tables should offer a good performance, 'cause the data on login is "short enough", while the access to the profile could be done only once, inmediately after the successful login. Just do the right tricks to improve DB performance and it's done.
(Remember to visualize tables as entities, name them as an entity, not as a collection of them)
Two things you will want to consider when deciding whether or not you want to break up a single table into multiple tables is:
MySQL likes small, consistent datasets. If you can structure your tables so that they have fixed row lengths that will help performance at the potential cost of disk space. One thing that from what I can tell is common is taking fixed length data and putting it in its own table while the variable length data will go somewhere else.
Joins are in most cases less performant than not joining. If the data currently in your table will normally be accessed all at the same time then it may not be worth splitting it up as you will be slowing down both inserts and quite potentially reads. However, if there is some data in that table that does not get accessed as often then that would be a good candidate for moving out of the table for performance reasons.
I can't find a resource online to substantiate this next statement but I do recall in a MySQL Performance talk given by Jay Pipes that he said the MySQL optimizer has issues once you get more than 8 joins in a single query (MySQL 5.0.*). I am not sure how accurate that magic number is but regardless joins will usually take longer than queries out of a single table.
I have a site where the users can view quite a large number of posts. Every time this is done I run a query similar to UPDATE table SET views=views+1 WHERE id = ?. However, there are a number of disadvantages to this approach:
There is no way of tracking when the pageviews occur - they are simply incremented.
Updating the table that often will, as far as I understand it, clear the MySQL cache of the row, thus making the next SELECT of that row slower.
Therefore I consider employing an approach where I create a table, say:
object_views { object_id, year, month, day, views }, so that each object has one row pr. day in this table. I would then periodically update the views column in the objects table so that I wouldn't have to do expensive joins all the time.
This is the simplest solution I can think of, and it seems that it is also the one with the least performance impact. Do you agree?
(The site is build on PHP 5.2, Symfony 1.4 and Doctrine 1.2 in case you wonder)
Edit:
The purpose is not web analytics - I know how to do that, and that is already in place. There are two purposes:
Allow the user to see how many times a given object has been shown, for example today or yesterday.
Allow the moderators of the site to see simple view statistics without going into Google Analytics, Omniture or whatever solution. Furthermore, the results in the backend must be realtime, a feature which GA cannot offer at this time. I do not wish to use the Analytics API to retrieve the usage data (not realtime, GA requires JavaScript).
Quote : Updating the table that often will, as far as I understand it, clear the MySQL cache of the row, thus making the next SELECT of that row slower.
There is much more than this. This is database killer.
I suggest u make table like this :
object_views { object_id, timestamp}
This way you can aggregate on object_id (count() function).
So every time someone view the page you will INSERT record in the table.
Once in a while you must clean the old records in the table. UPDATE statement is EVIL :)
On most platforms it will basically mark the row as deleted and insert a new one thus making the table fragmented. Not to mention locking issues .
Hope that helps
Along the same lines as Rage, you simply are not going to get the same results doing it yourself when there are a million third party log tools out there. If you are tracking on a daily basis, then a basic program such as webtrends is perfectly capable of tracking the hits especially if your URL contains the ID's of the items you want to track... I can't stress this enough, it's all about the URL when it comes to these tools (Wordpress for example allows lots of different URL constructs)
Now, if you are looking into "impression" tracking then it's another ball game because you are probably tracking each object, the page, the user, and possibly a weighted value based upon location on the page. If this is the case you can keep your performance up by hosting the tracking on another server where you can fire and forget. In the past I worked this using SQL updating against the ID and a string version of the date... that way when the date changes from 20091125 to 20091126 it's a simple query without the overhead of let's say a datediff function.
First just a quick remark why not aggregate the year,month,day in DATETIME, it would make more sense in my mind.
Also I am not really sure what is the exact reason you are doing that, if it's for a marketing/web stats purpose you have better to use tool made for that purpose.
Now there is two big family of tool capable to give you an idea of your website access statistics, log based one (awstats is probably the most popular), ajax/1pixel image based one (google analytics would be the most popular).
If you prefer to build your own stats database you can probably manage to build a log parser easily using PHP. If you find parsing apache logs (or IIS logs) too much a burden, you would probably make your application ouput some custom logs formated in a simpler way.
Also one other possible solution is to use memcached, the daemon provide some kind of counter that you can increment. You can log view there and have a script collecting the result everyday.
If you're going to do that, why not just log each access? MySQL can cache inserts in continuous tables quite well, so there shouldn't be a notable slowdown due to the insert. You can always run Show Profiles to see what the performance penalty actually is.
On the datetime issue, you can always use GROUP BY MONTH( accessed_at ) , YEAR( accessed_at) or WHERE MONTH(accessed_at) = 11 AND YEAR(accessed_at) = 2009.
How to increase the performance for mysql database because I have my website hosted in shared server and they have suspended my account because of "too many queries"
the stuff asked "index" or "cache" or trim my database
I don't know what does "index" and cache mean and how to do it on php
thanks
What an index is:
Think of a database table as a library - you have a big collection of books (records), each with associated data (author name, publisher, publication date, ISBN, content). Also assume that this is a very naive library, where all the books are shelved in order by ISBN (primary key). Just as the books can only have one physical ordering, a database table can only have one primary key index.
Now imagine someone comes to the librarian (database program) and says, "I would like to know how many Nora Roberts books are in the library". To answer this question, the librarian has to walk the aisles and look at every book in the library, which is very slow. If the librarian gets many requests like this, it is worth his time to set up a card catalog by author name (index on name) - then he can answer such questions much more quickly by referring to the catalog instead of walking the shelves. Essentially, the index sets up an 'alternative ordering' of the books - it treats them as if they were sorted alphabetically by author.
Notice that 1) it takes time to set up the catalog, 2) the catalog takes up extra space in the library, and 3) it complicates the process of adding a book to the library - instead of just sticking a book on the shelf in order, the librarian also has to fill out an index card and add it to the catalog. In just the same way, adding an index on a database field can speed up your queries, but the index itself takes storage space and slows down inserts. For this reason, you should only create indexes in response to need - there is no point in indexing a field you rarely search on.
What caching is:
If the librarian has many people coming in and asking the same questions over and over, it may be worth his time to write the answer down at the front desk. Instead of checking the stacks or the catalog, he can simply say, "here is the answer I gave to the last person who asked that question".
In your script, this may apply in different ways. You can store the results of a database query or a calculation or part of a rendered web page; you can store it to a secondary database table or a file or a session variable or to a memory service like memcached. You can store a pre-parsed database query, ready to run. Some libraries like Smarty will automatically store part or all of a page for you. By storing the result and reusing it you can avoid doing the same work many times.
In every case, you have to worry about how long the answer will remain valid. What if the library got a new book in? Is it OK to use an answer that may be five minutes out of date? What about a day out of date?
Caching is very application-specific; you will have to think about what your data means, how often it changes, how expensive the calculation is, how often the result is needed. If the data changes slowly, it may be best to recalculate and store the result every time a change is made; if it changes often but is not crucial, it may be sufficient to update only if the cached value is more than a certain age.
Setup a copy of your application locally, enable the mysql query log, and setup xdebug or some other profiler. The start collecting data, and testing your application. There are lots of guides, and books available about how to optimize things. It is important that you spend time testing, and collecting data first so you optimize the right things.
Using the data you have collected try and reduce the number of queries per page-view, Ideally, you should be able to get everything you need in less 5-10 queries.
Look at the logs and see if you are asking for the same thing twice. It is a bad idea to request a record in one portion of your code, and then request it again from the database a few lines later unless you are sure the value is likely to have changed.
Look for queries embedded in loop, and try to refactor them so you make a single query and simply loop on the results.
The select * you mention using is an indication you may be doing something wrong. You probably should be listing fields you explicitly need. Check this site or google for lots of good arguments about why select * is evil.
Start looking at your queries and then using explain on them. For queries that are frequently used make sure they are using a good index and not doing a full table scan. Tweak indexes on your development database and test.
There are a couple things you can look into:
Query Design - look into more advanced and faster solutions
Hardware - throw better and faster hardware at the problem
Database Design - use indexes and practice good database design
All of these are easier said than done, but it is a start.
Firstly, sack your host, get off shared hosting into an environment you have full control over and stand a chance of being able to tune decently.
Replicate that environment in your lab, ideally with the same hardware as production; this includes things like RAID controller.
Did I mention that you need a RAID controller. Yes you do. You can't achieve decent write performance without one - which needs a battery backed cache. If you don't have one, each write needs to physically hit the disc which is ruinous for performance.
Anyway, back to read performance, once you've got the machine with the same spec RAID controller (and same discs, obviously) as production in your lab, you can try to tune stuff up.
More RAM is usually the cheapest way of achieving better performance - make sure that you've got MySQL configured to use it - which means tuning storage-engine specific parameters.
I am assuming here that you have at least 100G of data; if not, just buy enough ram that your entire DB fits in ram then read performance is essentially solved.
Software changes that others have mentioned such as optimising queries and adding indexes are helpful too, but only once you've got a development hardware environment that enables you to usefully do performance work - i.e. measure performance of your application meaningfully - which means real hardware (not VMs), which is consistent with the hardware environment used in production.
Oh yes - one more thing - don't even THINK about deploying a database server on a 32-bit OS, it's a ruinous waste of good ram.
Indexing is done on the database tables in order to speed queries. If you don't know what it means you have none. At a minumum you should have indexes on every foriegn key and on most fileds that are used frequently in the where clauses of your queries. Primary keys should have indexes automatically assuming you set them up to begin with which I would find unlikely in someone who doesn't know what an index is. Are your tables normalized?
BTW, since you are doing a division in your math (why I haven't a clue), you should Google integer math. You may neot be getting correct results.
You should not select * ever. Instead, select only the data you need for that particular call. And what is your intention here?
order by votes*1000+((1440 - ($server_date - date))/60)2+visites600 desc
You may have poorly-written queries, and/or poorly written pages that run too many queries. Could you give us specific examples of queries you're using that are ran on a regular basis?
sure
this query to fetch the last 3 posts
select * from posts where visible = 1 and date > ($server_date - 86400) and dont_show_in_frontpage = 0 order by votes*1000+((1440 - ($server_date - date))/60)*2+visites*600 desc limit 3
what do you think?