I am writing Couchbase DAO using Java API. I store all documents for one entity in particular bucket. I wonder what is the best way to get all documents from this bucket?
Thanks in advance!
First: do you plan to store each entity type in their own buckets? That will probably not work in the long run, unless you plan to only ever have no more than 10 total entities. Buckets are not made to organize data like that: they are meant to store a variety of different types of data.
Second: do you really want to get all data from a bucket? That seems like a very uncommon use case. It's almost like asking "how do I query all data from all tables in a relational database"
That being said, I could imagine a very specialized situation where you'd want to do this. So, you could:
Create a PRIMARY index and execute a N1QL query like SELECT * FROM mybucket;
Create a very simple map/reduce view index of the data.
Both of these things can be done with the Java SDK.
Related
I'm working on a project with an existing cassandra database.
The schema looks like this:
partition key (big int)
clustering key1 (timestamp)
data (text)
1
2021-03-10 11:54:00.000
{a:"somedata", b:2, ...}
My question is: Is there any advantage storing data in a json string?
Will it save some space?
Until now I discovered disadvantages only:
You cannot (easily) add/drop columns at runtime, since the application could override the json string column.
Parsing the json string is currently the bottleneck regarding performance.
No, there is no real advantage to storing JSON as string in Cassandra unless the underlying data in the JSON is really schema-less. It will also not save space but in fact use more because each item has to have a key+value instead of just storing the value.
If you can, I would recommend mapping the keys to CQL columns so you can store the values natively and accessing the data is more flexible. Cheers!
Erick is spot-on-correct with his answer.
The only thing I'd add, would be that storing JSON blobs in a single column makes updates (even more) problematic. If you update a single JSON property, the whole column gets rewritten. Also the original JSON blob is still there...just "obsoleted" until compaction runs. The only time that storing a JSON blob in a single column makes any sense, is if the properties don't change.
And I agree, mapping the keys to CQL columns is a much better option.
I don't disagree with the excellent and already accepted answer by #erick-ramirez.
However there is often a good case to be made for using frozen UDTs instead of separate columns for related data that is only ever going to be set and retrieved at the same time and will not be specifically filtered as part of your query.
The "frozen" part is important as it means less work for cassandra but does mean that you rewrite the whole value each update.
This can have a large performance boost over a large number of columns. The nice ScyllaDB people have a great post on that:
If You Care About Performance, Employ User Defined Types
(I know Scylla DB is not exactly Cassandra but I've seen multiple articles that say the same thing about Cassandra)
One downside is that you add work to the application layer and sometimes mapping complex UDTs to your Java types will be interesting.
What is the best way to implement the following scenario?
I need to call/query a data base table containing millions of records from a java application. Then for each records in the table, my application should call a third party API and get a status field as response. Then my application should again update each row in the table with the information (status) from the API.
Note - I am trying to figure out a method to do this in the best possible way. I understand that querying all the records together is not the best way forward.
Do not try to eat the elephant in one bite. Chunk it. Heard of pagination? Use it. See here: MySQL pagination without double-querying?
you can use oracle feature such as SQL loader, Data pumping Called via JDBC or script..
Databases are not designed to update millions of records via Java API repeatedly. This can take many minutes. If this is not enough, you may need to use a dataset embedded in Java (either caching or replacing your database)
I have a database with a lot of web pages stored.
I will need to process all the data I have so I have two options: recover the data to the program or process directly in database with some functions I will create.
What I want to know is:
do some processing in the database, and not in the application is a good
idea?
when this is recommended and when not?
are there pros and cons?
is possible to extend the language to new features (external APIs/libraries)?
I tried retrieving the content to application (worked), but was to slow and dirty. My
preoccupation was that can't do in the database what can I do in Java, but I don't know if this is true.
ONLY a example: I have a table called Token. At the moment, it has 180,000 rows, but this will increase to over 10 million rows. I need to do some processing to know if a word between two token classified as `Proper Name´ is part of name or not.
I will need to process all the data. In this case, doing directly on database is better than retrieving to application?
My preoccupation was that can't do in the database what can I do in
Java, but I don't know if this is true.
No, that is not a correct assumption. There are valid circumstances for using database to process data. For example, if it involves calling a lot of disparate SQLs that can be combined in a store procedure then you should do the processing the in the stored procedure and call the stored proc from your java application. This way you avoid making several network trips to get to the database server.
I do not know what are you processing though. Are you parsing XML data stored in your database? Then perhaps you should use XQuery and a lot of the modern databases support it.
ONLY an example: I have a table called Token. At the moment, it has
180,000 rows, but this will increase to over 10 million rows. I need
to do some processing to know if a word between two token classified
as `Proper Name´ is part of name or not.
Is there some indicator in the data that tells it's a proper name? Fetching 10 million rows (highly susceptible to OutOfMemoryException) and then going through them is not a good idea. If there are certain parameters about the data that can be put in a where clause in a SQL to limit the number of data being fetched is the way to go in my opinion. Surely you will need to do explains on your SQL, check the correct indices are in place, check index cluster ratio, type of index, all that will make a difference. Now if you can't fully eliminate all "improper names" then you should try to get rid of as many as you can with SQL and then process the rest in your application. I am assuming this is a batch application, right? If it is a web application then you definitely want to create a batch application to do the staging of the data for you before web applications query it.
I hope my explanation makes sense. Please let me know if you have questions.
Directly interacting with the DB for every single thing is a tedious job and affects the performance...there are several ways to get around this...you can use indexing, caching or tools such as Hibernate which keeps all the data in the memory so that you don't need to query the DB for every operation...there are tools such as luceneIndexer which are very popular and could solve your problem of hitting the DB everytime...
I'm getting introduced to serialization and ran into some problems when pairing it with LinkedList
Consider i have the following table:
CREATE TABLE JAVA_OBJECTS (
ID BIGINT NOT NULL UNIQUE AUTO_INCREMENT,
OBJ_NAME VARCHAR(50),
OBJ_VALUE BLOB
);
And i'm planning to store 3 object types - so the table may look like so -
ID OBJ_NAME OBJ_VALUE
============================
1 Class1 BLOB
2 Class2 BLOB
3 Class1 BLOB
4 Class3 BLOB
5 Class3 BLOB
And i'll use 3 different LinkedList's to manage these objects..
I've been able to implement LoadFromTable() and StoreIntoTable(Class1 obj1).
My question is - if i change an attribute for a Class2 object in LinkedList<Class2>, how do i effect the change in the DB for this individual item? Also take into account that the order of the elements in LinkedList may change..
Thanks : )
* EDIT
Yes, i understand that i'll have to delete/update a row in my DB table. But how do i keep track of WHICH row to update? I'm only storing the objects in the List, not their respective IDs in the table.
You'll have to store their IDs in the objects you are storing. However, I would suggest not trying to roll your own ORM system, and instead use something like Hibernate.
If you change an attribute in a an object or the order of items. You will have to delete that row and insert the updated list again.
How do i effect the change in the DB for this individual item?
I hope I get you right. The SQL update and delete statements allow you to add a WHERE clause in which you chose the ID of the row to update.
e.g.
UPDATE JAVA_OBJECTS SET OBJ_NAME ="new name" WHERE ID = 2
EDIT:
To prevent problems with your Ids you could wrap you object
class Wrapper {
int dbId;
Object obj;
}
And add them instead of the 'naked' object into your LinkedList
You can use AUTO_INCREMENT attribute for your table and then use the mysql_insert_id() function to retrieve the id assigned to the row added/updated by the last INSERT/UPDATE statement. Along with this maintain a map (eg a HashMap) from the java object to the Id. Using this map you can keep track of which row to delete/update.
Edit: See the answer to this question as well.
I think the real problem here is, that you mix and match different levels of abstraction. By storing serialized Java objects into a relational database as BLOBs you have to consider several drawbacks:
You loose interoperability. Applications written in other languages than Java are not able to read the data back. Even other Java applications have to have the class files of the serialized classes in their classpath.
Changing the class definitions of the stored classes will end up in maintenance nightmares.
You give up the advantages of a relational database. Serialization hides the actual data from the database. So the database is presented only with a black box. You are unable to execute any meaningfull query against the real data. All what you have is the ID and block of bytes.
You have to implement low level data handling by yourself. Actually the database is made to handle your data effectively, but because of serialization you hinder it doing its job. So you are on your own and you are running into that problem right now.
So in most cases you benifit from separation of concerns and using the right tool for a job.
Here are some suggestions:
Separate the internal data handling inside your application from persistent storage. Design your database schema in a way to enable the built-in database features to handle the data efficently. In case of a relational database like MySQL you can choose from different technologies like plain JDBC, object relational mappers like JPA or simple mappers like MyBatis. Separation here means to avoid to contaminate the database with implementation specific concerns.
If you have for example in your Java application a List of Person instances and each Person consists of a name and an age. Then you would represent that list in a relational database as a table consisting of a VARCHAR field for the name and a numeric field for the age and maybe a third field for a unique key. Then the database is able to do what it can do best: managing large amounts of data.
Inside your application you typically separate the persistent layer from the rest of your program containing the code to communicate with the database.
In some use cases a relational database may not be the appropiate tool. Maybe in a single user desktop application with a small set of data it may be the best to simply serialize your Person list into a plain file and read it back at the next start up.
But there exists other alternatives to persist your data. Maybe some kind of object oriented database is the right tool. In particular I have experiences with Fast Objects. As a simplification it is serialization on steroids. There is no need for a layer like JPA or JDBC between your application and your database. You are able to store the class instances directly into the database. But unlike the relational database with its BLOB field, the OODB knows your classes and the actual data and can benefit from that.
Another alternative may be JDBM or Berkeley DB.
So separation of concerns and choosing the right persistence strategy (and using it the right way) is a key concern for the success of your project. But doing it right is hard even for experienced developers.
I have a requirement to implement contact database. This contact database is special in a way that user should be able to dynamically (on runtime) add properties he/she wants to track about the contact. Some of these properties are of type string, other numbers and dates. Some of the properties have pre-defined values, others are free fields etc.. User wants to be also able to query such structure fast and easily. The database needs to handle easily 500 000 contacts each having around 10 properties.
It leads to dynamic property model having Contact class with dynamic properties.
class Contact{
private Map<DynamicProperty, Collection<DynamicValue> values> propertiesAndValues;
//other userfull methods
}
The question is how can I store such a structure in "some database" - it does not have to be RDBMS so that I can easily express queries such as
Get all contacts whose name starts with Martin, they are from Company of size 5000 or less, order by time when this contact was inserted in a database, only first 100 results (provide pagination), where each of these segments correspond to a dynamic property.
I need:
filtering - equal, partial equal, (bigger, smaller for integers, dates) and maybe aggregation - but it is not necessary at this point
sorting
pagination
I was considering RDBMS, but this leads more less to this structure which is quite hard to query and it tends to be slow for this amount of data
contact(id serial pk,....);
dynamic_property(dp_id serial pk, ...);
--only one of the values is not empty
dynamic_property_value(dpv_id serial pk, dynamic_property_fk int, value_integer int, date_value timestamp, text_value text);
contact_properties(pav_id serial pk, contact_id_fk int, dynamic_propert_fk int);
property_and_its_value(pav_id_fk int, dpv_id int);
I consider following options:
store contacts in RDBMS and use Lucene for querying - is there anything that would help with this?
Store dynamic properties as XML and store it to rdbms and use xpath support - unfortunatelly it seems to be pretty slow for 500000 contacts
use another database - Mango DB or Jackrabbit to store this information
Which way would you go and why?
Wikipedia has a great entry on Entity-Attribute-Value modeling which is a data modeling technique for representing entities with arbitrary properties. It's typically used for clinical data, but might apply to your situation as well.
Have you considered using Lucene for your querying needs? You could probably get away with just using Lucene and store all your data in the index. Although I wouldn't recommend using Lucene as your only persistence store.
Alternatively, you could use Lucene along with a RDBMS and take advantage of something like Compass.
You could try other kind of databases like CouchDB which is a document oriented db and is distributed
If you want a dumb solution, for your contacts table you could add some 50 columns like STRING_COLUMN1, STRING_COLUMN2... upto 10, DATE_COLUMN1..DATE_COLUMN10. You have another DESCRIPTION column. So if a row has a name which is a string then STRING_COLUMN1 stores the value of your name and the DESCRIPTION column value would be "STRING_COLUMN1-NAME". In this case querying can be a bit tricky. I know many purists laugh at this, but I have seen a similar requirement solved this way in one of the apps :)