We Keep Coding

How to optimize one big insert with hibernate

For my website, I'm creating a book database. I have a catalog, with a root node, each node have subnodes, each subnode has documents, each document has versions, and each version is made of several paragraphs.
In order to create this database the fastest possible, I'm first creating the entire tree model, in memory, and then I call session.save(rootNode)
This single save will populate my entire database (at the end when I'm doing a mysqldump on the database it weights 1Go)
The save coasts a lot (more than an hour), and since the database grows with new books and new versions of existing books, it coasts more and more. I would like to optimize this save.
I've tried to increase the batch_size. But it changes nothing since it's a unique save. When I mysqldump a script, and I insert it back into mysql, the operation coast 2 minutes or less.
And when I'm doing a "htop" on the ubuntu machine, I can see the mysql is only using 2 or 3 % CPU. Which means that it's hibernate who's slow.
If someone could give me possible techniques that I could try, or possible leads, it would be great... I already know some of the reasons, why it takes time. If someone wants to discuss it with me, thanks for his help.
Here are some of my problems (I think): For exemple, I have self assigned ids for most of my entities. Because of that, hibernate is checking each time if the line exists before it saves it. I don't need this because, the batch I'm executing, is executed only one, when I create the databse from scratch. The best would be to tell hibernate to ignore the primaryKey rules (like mysqldump does) and reenabeling the key checking once the database has been created. It's just a one shot batch, to initialize my database.
Second problem would be again about the foreign keys. Hibernate inserts lines with null values, then, makes an update in order to make foreign keys work.
About using another technology : I would like to make this batch work with hibernate because after, all my website is working very well with hibernate, and if it's hibernate who creates the databse, I'm sure the naming rules, and every foreign keys will be well created.
Finally, it's a readonly database. (I have a user database, which is using innodb, where I do updates, and insert while my website is running, but the document database is readonly and mYisam)
Here is a exemple of what I'm doing
TreeNode rootNode = new TreeNode();
recursiveLoadSubNodes(rootNode); // This method creates my big tree, in memory only.
hibernateSession.beginTrasaction();
hibernateSession.save(rootNode); // during more than an hour, it saves 1Go of datas : hundreads of sub treeNodes, thousands of documents, tens of thousands paragraphs.
hibernateSession.getTransaction().commit();

It's a little hard to guess what could be the problem here but I could think of 3 things:
Increasing batch_size only might not help because - depending on your model - inserts might be interleaved (i.e. A B A B ...). You can allow Hibernate to reorder inserts and updates so that they can be batched (i.e. A A ... B B ...).Depending on your model this might not work because the inserts might not be batchable. The necessary properties would be hibernate.order_inserts and hibernate.order_updates and a blog post that describes the situation can be found here: https://vladmihalcea.com/how-to-batch-insert-and-update-statements-with-hibernate/
If the entities don't already exist (which seems to be the case) then the problem might be the first level cache. This cache will cause Hibernate to get slower and slower because each time it wants to flush changes it will check all entries in the cache by iterating over them and calling equals() (or something similar). As you can see that will take longer with each new entity that's created.To Fix that you could either try to disable the first level cache (I'd have to look up whether that's possible for write operations and how this is done - or you do that :) ) or try to keep the cache small, e.g. by inserting the books yourself and evicting each book from the first level cache after the insert (you could also go deeper and do that on the document or paragraph level).
It might not actually be Hibernate (or at least not alone) but your DB as well. Note that restoring dumps often removes/disables constraint checks and indices along with other optimizations so comparing that with Hibernate isn't that useful. What you'd need to do is create a bunch of insert statements and then just execute those - ideally via a JDBC batch - on an empty database but with all constraints and indices enabled. That would provide a more accurate benchmark.
Assuming that comparison shows that the plain SQL insert isn't that much faster then you could decide to either keep what you have so far or refactor your batch insert to temporarily disable (or remove and re-create) constraints and indices.
Alternatively you could try not to use Hibernate at all or change your model - if that's possible given your requirements which I don't know. That means you could try to generate and execute the SQL queries yourself, use a NoSQL database or NoSQL storage in a SQL database that supports it - like Postgres.
We're doing something similar, i.e. we have Hibernate entities that contain some complex data which is stored in a JSONB column. Hibernate can read and write that column via a custom usertype but it can't filter (Postgres would support that but we didn't manage to enable the necessary syntax in Hibernate).

Multiple Prepared Statements or a Batch

My question is very simple and in the title. Google and stack overflow are giving me nothing so I figured it was time to ask a question.
I am currently in the process of making an sql query for when users register to my site. I have ALWAYS only used prepared statements b/c the extra coding in callable statements, and the performance hit of regular statements are both turn offs. However this query is causing me to think of possible alternatives to my previous one size fits all (prepared statements) ways.
This query has a total of 4 round trips to the database. The steps are
Insert a user into the database, get back the generated key (their user id) within a result set.
Take the user id and insert a row into the album table. Get back a generated key (album id)
Take the album id and insert a row into the images table. Get back a generated key (image id)
Take the image id and update the user tables current default column with the image id
Aside: For anyone interested in the way I am getting the keys back after my inserts it is with Statement.RETURN_GENERATED_KEYS and you can read a great article about this here - IBM Article
So anyway I'd like to know if the use of 4 round trip (but cacheable) prepared statements is okay or if I should go with batched (but not cacheable) statements?

JDBC batch statements let you reduce the number of roundtrips under a condition that there is no data dependency among the rows that you are inserting or updating. Your scenario fails this condition, because the changes are dependent on each other's data: statements 2 through 4 must pick up an ID from the prior statement 1 through 3.
On the other hand, four round-trips is definitely suboptimal. That is why scenarios like yours call for stored procedures: you can put all this logic into a create_user_proc, and return the user ID back to the caller. All insertions from 1 to 4 would happen inside your SQL code, letting you manage ID dependencies in SQL. You would be able to call this stored procedure in a single roundtrip, which is definitely faster, especially if you process multiple user registrations per minute.

I would advice to write one Stored Proc doing all this four operation and passing the all the required params from application (to stored proc) at once and there in stored proc, you can get the generated keys for resultset

To increase performance and reduce database round trips, I agree with dasblinkenlight and ajduke - stored procedures will achieve this.
But, it this really a performance bottleneck in your application?
How often do users register on your site?
Compare this to how often information is read from these tables (once per page access?)
If information in these tables are being read thousands of times more than being written via new registrations, then it might not be worth going for the stored procedure approach.
Why you might not want to use stored procedures and stick to prepared statements:
not as portable as using prepared statements (a different syntax/language for each database, some simpler databases don't even support them)
will not work with ORM solutions such as JPA* - you mentioned using PreparedStatements directly so this probably does not apply to you, at least not now but it might limit you later on if you wanted to use ORM in the future
*JPA 2.1 might actually support stored procedures, but as of writing it has not yet been released.

Synchronizing table data across databases

I have one table that records its row insert/update timestamps on a field.
I want to synchronize data in this table with another table on another db server. Two db servers are not connected and synchronization is one way (master/slave). Using table triggers is not suitable
My workflow:
I use a global last_sync_date parameter and query table Master for
the changed/inserted records
Output the resulting rows to xml
Parse the xml and update table Slave using updates and inserts
The complexity of the problem rises when dealing with deleted records of Master table. To catch the deleted records I think I have to maintain a log table for the previously inserted records and use sql "NOT IN". This becomes a performance problem when dealing with large datasets.
What would be an alternative workflow dealing with this scenario?

It sounds like you need a transactional message queue.
How this works is simple. When you update the master db you can send a message to the message broker (of whatever the update was) which can go to any number of queues. Each slave db can have its own queue and because queue's preserve order the process should eventually synchronize correctly (ironically this is sort of how most RDBMS do replication internally).
Think of the Message Queue as a sort of SCM change-list or patch-list database. That is for the most part the same (or roughly the same) SQL statements sent to master should be replicated to the other databases eventually. Don't worry about loosing messages as most message queues support durability and transactions.
I recommend you look at spring-amqp and/or spring-integration especially since you tagged this question with spring-batch.
Based on your comments:
See Spring Integration: http://static.springsource.org/spring-integration/reference/htmlsingle/ .
Google SEDA. Whether you go this route or not you should know about Message queues as it goes hand-in-hand with batch processing.
RabbitMQ has a good picture diagram of how messaging works
The contents of your message might be the entire row and whether its a CRUD, UPDATE, DELETE. You can use whatever format (e.g. JSON. See spring integration on recommendations).
You could even send the direct SQL statements as a message!
BTW your concern of NOT IN being a performance problem is not a very good one as there are a plethora of work-arounds but given your not wanting to do DB specific things (like triggers and replication) I still feel a message queue is your best option.
EDIT - Non MQ route
Since I gave you a tough time about asking this quesiton I will continue to try to help.
Besides the message queue you can do some sort of XML file like you we were trying before. THE CRITICAL FEATURE you need in the schema is a CREATE TIMESTAMP column on your master database so that you can do the batch processing while the system is up and running (otherwise you will have to stop the system). Now if you go this route you will want to SELECT * WHERE CREATE_TIME < ? is less than the current time. Basically your only getting the rows at a snapshot.
Now on your other database for the delete your going to remove rows by inner joining on a ID table but with != (that is you can use JOINS instead of slow NOT IN). Luckily you only need all the ids for delete and not the other columns. The other columns you can use a delta based on the the update time stamp column (for update, and create aka insert).

I am not sure about the solution. But I hope these links may help you.
http://knowledgebase.apexsql.com/2007/09/how-to-synchronize-data-between.htm
http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/348386/Copy-Synchronize-Table-Data-between-databases

Have a look at Oracle GoldenGate:
Oracle GoldenGate is a comprehensive software package for enabling the
replication of data in heterogeneous data environments. The product
set enables high availability solutions, real-time data integration,
transactional change data capture, data replication, transformations,
and verification between operational and analytical enterprise
systems.
SymmetricDS:
SymmetricDS is open source software for multi-master database
replication, filtered synchronization, or transformation across the
network in a heterogeneous environment. It supports multiple
subscribers with one direction or bi-directional asynchronous data
replication.
Daffodil Replicator:
Daffodil Replicator is a Java tool for data synchronization, data
migration, and data backup between various database servers.

Why don't you just add a TIMESTAMP column that indicates the last update/insert/delete time? Then add a deleted column -- ie. mark the row as deleted instead of actually deleting it immediately. Delete it after having exported the delete action.
In case you cannot alter schema usage in an existing app:
Can't you use triggers at all? How about a second ("hidden") table that gets populated with every insert/update/delete and which would constitute the content of the next to be generated xml export file? That is a common concept: a history (or "log") table: it would have its own progressing id column which can be used as an export marker.

Very interesting question.
In may case I was having enough RAM to load all ids from master and slave tables to diff them.
If ids in master table are sequential you try to may maintain a set of full filled ranges in master table (ranges with all ids used, without blanks, like 100,101,102,103).
To find removed ids without loading all of them to the memory you may execute SQL query to count number of records with id >= full_region.start and id <= full_region.end for each full filled region. If result of query == (full_region.end - full_region.end) + 1 it means all record in region are not deleted. Otherwise - split region into 2 parts and do the same check for both of them (in a lot of cases only one side contains removed records).
After some length of range (about 5000 I think) it will faster to load all present ids and check for absent using Set.
Also there is a sense to load all ids to the memory for a batch of small (10-20 records) regions.

Make a history table for the table that needs to be synchronized (basically a duplicate of that table, with a few extra fields perhaps) and insert the entire row every time something is inserted/updated/deleted in the active table.
Write a Spring batch job to sync the data to Slave machine based on the history table's extra fields
hope this helps..

A potential option for allowing deletes within your current workflow:
In the case that the trigger restriction is limited to triggers with references across databases, a possible solution within your current workflow would be to create a helper table in your Master database to store only the unique identifiers of the deleted rows (or whatever unique key would enable you to most efficiently delete your deleted rows).
Those ids would need to be inserted by a trigger on your master table on delete.
Using the same mechanism as your insert/updates, create a task following your inserts and updates. You could export your helper table to xml, as you noted in your current workflow.
This task would simply delete the rows out of the slave table, then delete all data from your helper table following completion of the task. Log any errors from the task so that you can troubleshoot this since there is no audit trail.

If your database has a transaction dump log, just ship that one.
It is possible with MySQL and should be possible with PostgreSQL.

I would agree with another comment - this requires the usage of triggers. I think another table should hold the history of your sql statements. See this answer about using 2008 extended events... Then, you can get the entire sql, and store the result query in the history table. Its up to you if you want to store it as a mysql query or a mssql query.

Here's my take. Do you really need to deal with this? I assume that the slave is for reporting purposes. So the question I would ask is how up to date should it be? Is it ok if the data is one day old? Do you plan a nightly refresh?
If so, forget about this online sync process, download the full tables; ship it to the mysql and batch load it. Processing time might be a lot quicker than you think.

Result Set to Multi Hash Map

I have a situation here. I have a huge database with >10 columns and millions of rows. I am using a matching algorithm which matches each input records with the values in database.
The database operation is taking lot of time when there are millions of records to match. I am thinking of using a multi-hash map or any resultset alternative so that i can save the whole table in memory and prevent hitting database again....
Can anybody tell me what should i do??

I don't think this is the right way to go. You are trying to do the database's work manually in Java. I'm not saying that you are not capable of doing this, but most databases have been developed for many years and are quite good in doing exactly the thing that you want.
However, databases need to be configured correctly for a given type of query to be executed fast. So my suggestion is that you first check whether you can tweak the database configuration to improve the performance of the query. The most common thing is to add the right indexes to your table. Read How MySQL Uses Indexes or the corresponding part of the manual of your particular database for more information.
The other thing is, if you have so much data storing everything in main memory is probably not faster and might even be infeasible. Not to say that you have to transfer the whole data first.
In any case, try to use a profiler to identify the bottleneck of the program first. Maybe the problem is not even on the database side.

How to Iterate across records in a MySql Database using Java

I have a customer with a very small set of data and records that I'd normally just serialize to a data file and be done but they want to run extra reports and have expandability down the road to do things their own way. The MySQL database came up and so I'm adapting their Java POS (point of sale) system to work with it.
I've done this before and here was my approach in a nutshell for one of the tables, say Customers:
I setup a loop to store the primary key into an arraylist then setup a form to go from one record to the next running SQL queries based on the PK. The query would pull down the fname, lname, address, etc. and fill in the fields on the screen.
I thought it might be a little clunky running a SQL query each time they click Next. So I'm looking for another approach to this problem. Any help is appreciated! I don't need exact code or anything, just some concepts will do fine
Thanks!

I would say the solution you suggest yourself is not very good not only because you run SQL query every time a button is pressed, but also because you are iterating over primary keys, which probably are not sorted in any meaningful order...
What you want is to retrieve a certain number of records which are sorted sensibly (by first/last name or something) and keep them as a kind of cache in your ArrayList or something similar... This can be done quite easily with SQL. When the user starts iterating over the results by pressing "Next", you can in the background start loading more records.
The key to keep usability is to load some records before the user actually request them to keep latency small, but keeping in mind that you also don't want to load the whole database at once....

Take a look at indexing your database. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=377652

Use JPA with the built in Hibernate provider. If you are not familiar with one or both, then download NetBeans - it includes a very easy to follow tutorial you can use to get up to speed. Managing lists of objects is trivial with the new JPA and you won't find yourself reinventing the wheel.

the key concept here is pagination.
Let's say you set your page size to 10. This means you select 10 records from the database, in a certain order, so your query should have an order by clause and a limit clause at the end. You use this resultset to display the form while the users navigates with Previous/Next buttons.
When the user navigates out of the page then you fetch an other page.
https://www.google.com/search?q=java+sql+pagination