We Keep Coding

SQL query performance, archive vs status change

Straight to the point, I've tried searching on google and on SO but cant find what I'm looking for. It could be because of not wording my searching correctly.
My question is,
I have a couple of tables which will be holding anywhere between 1,000 lines to 100,000 per year. I'm trying to figure out, do I/ how should I handle archiving the data? I'm not well experienced with databases, but below are a few method's I've came up with and I'm unsure which is a better practice. Of course taking into account performance and ease of coding. I'm using Java 1.8, Sql2o and Postgres.
Method 1
Archive the data into a separate database every year.
I don't really like this method because when we want to search for old data, our application will need to search into a different database and it'll be a hassle for me to add in more code for this.
Method 2
Archive the data into a separate database for data older than 2-3 years.
And use status on the lines to improve the performance. (See method 3) This is something I'm leaning towards as an 'Optimal' solution where the code is not as complex to do but also keeps by DB relatively clean.
Method 3
Just have status for each line (eg: A=active, R=Archived) to possibly improving the performance of the query. Just having a "select * from table where status = 'A' " to reduce the the number of line to look through.

100,000 rows per year is not that much. [1]
There's no need to move that to a separate place. If you already have good indexes in place, you almost certainly won't notice any degraded performance over the years.
However, if you want to be absolutely sure, you could add a year column and create an index for that (or add that to your existing indexes). But really, do that only for the tables where you know you need it. For example, if your table already has a date column which is part of your index(es), you don't need a separate year column.
[1] Unless you have thousands of columns and/or columns that contain large binary blobs - which doesn't seems to be the case here.

As Vog mentions, 100,000 rows is not very many. Nor is 1,000,000 or 5,000,000 -- sizes that your tables may grow to.
In many databases, you could use a clustered index where the first key is the "active" column. However, Postgres does not really support clustered indexes.
Instead, I would suggest that you look into table partitioning. This is a method where the underlying storage is split among different "files". You can easily specify that a query reads one or more partitions by using the partitioning key in a where clause.
For your particular use-case, I would further suggest having views on the data only for the active data. This would only read one partition, so the performance should be pretty much the same as reading a table with only the most recent data.
That said, I'm not sure if it is better to partition by an active flag or by year. That depends on how you are accessing the data, particularly the older data.

How to efficiently store multiple different counter values on a user in a MySQL based application?

I want to store different kinds of counters for my user.
Platform: Java
E.g. I have identified:
currentNumRecords
currentNumSteps
currentNumFlowsInterval1440
currentNumFlowsInterval720
currentNumFlowsInterval240
currentNumFlowsInterval60
currentNumFlowsInterval30
etc.
Each of the counters above needs to be reset at the beginning of each month for each user. The value of each counter can be unpredictably high with peaks etc. (I mean that a lot of things are counted, so I want to think about a scalable solution).
Now my question is what approach to take to:
a) Should I have separate columns for each counter on the user table and doing things like 'Update set counterColumn = counterColumn+ 1' ?
b) put all the values in some kind of JSON/XML and put it in a single column? (in this case I always have to update all values at once)
The disadvantage I see is row locking on the user table everytime a single counter is incremented.
c) having an separate counter table with 3 columns (userid, name, counter) and doing one INSERT for each count + having a background job doing aggregates which are written to the User table? In this case would it be ok to store the aggregated counters as JSON inside a column in the user table?
d) Doing everything in MySQL or also use another technology? I also thought about using another solution for storing counters and only keeping the aggregates in MySQL. E.g. I have experimented with Apache Cassandra's distributed counters. My concerns are about the Transactions which cassandra does not have.
I need the counters to be exact because they are used for billing, thus I don't know if Cassandra is a good fit here, although the scalability of Cassandra seems tempting.
What about Redis for storing the counters + writing the aggregates in MySQL? Does Redis have stuff which helps me here? Or should I just store everything in a simple Java HashMap in-memory and have a aggregation background thread and don't use another technology?
In summary I am concerned about:
reduce row locking
have exact counters (transactions?)
Thanks for your ideas :)

You're sort of saying contradictory things.
The number of counts can be huge or at least unpredictable per user.
To me this means they must be uniform, like an array. It is not possible to have an unbounded number of heterogenous data, unless you have an unbounded amount of code and an unbounded number of developer hours to expend.
If they are uniform they should be flattened into a table user_counter where each row is of the form (user_id, counter_name, counter_value). However you will need to think carefully about what sort of indices you will need, etc. Updating at the beginning of the month if they are all set to zero or some default value is one SQL query.
Basically (c). (a) and (b) are most absurd and MySQL is still a suitable technology for this.

Your requirement is not so untypical. In general this is statistical session/user/... bound written data.
The first thing is to split things if not already done so. Make a mostly readonly database, and separately collect these data. So a separated user table for the normal properties.
The statistical data could be held in an in-memory table. You could also use means other than a database, a message queue, session attributes.

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 implement several threads in Java for downloading a single table data?

How can I implement several threads with multiple/same connection(s), so that a single large table data can be downloaded in quick time.
Actually in my application, I am downloading a table having 12 lacs (1 lac = 100,000) records which takes atleast 4 hrs to download in normal connection speed and more hrs with slow connection.
So there is a need to implement several threads in Java for downloading a single table data with multiple/same connection(s) object. But no idea how to do this.
How to position a record pointer in several threads then how to add all thread records into a single large file??
Thanks in Advance

First of all, is it not advisable to fetch and download such a huge data onto the client. If you need the data for display purposes then you dont need more records that fit into your screen. You can paginate the data and fetch one page at a time. If you are fetching it and processsing in your memory then you sure would run out of memory on your client.
If at all you need to do this irrespective of the suggestion, then you can spawn multiple threads with separate connections to the database where each thread will pull a fraction of data (1 to many pages). If you have say 100K records and 100 threads available then each thread can pull 1K of records. It is again not advisable to have 100 threads with 100 open connections to the DB. This is just an example. Limit the no number of threads to some optimal value and also limit the number of records each thread is pulling. You can limit the number of records pulled from the DB on the basis of rownum.

As Vikas pointed out, if you're downloading a gigabytes of data to the client-side, you're doing something really really wrong, as he had said you should never need to download more records that can fit into your screen. If however, you only need to do this occasionally for database duplication or backup purpose, just use the database export functionality of your DBMS and download the exported file using DAP (or your favorite download accelerator).

It seems that there are multiple ways to "multi thread read from a full table."
Zeroth way: if your problem is just "I run out of RAM reading that whole table into memory" then you could try processing one row at a time somehow (or a batch of rows), then process the next batch, etc. Thus avoiding loading an entire table into memory (but still single thread so possibly slow).
First way: have a single thread query the entire table, putting individual rows onto a queue that feeds multiple worker threads [NB that setting fetch size for your JDBC connection might be helpful here if you want this first thread to go as fast as possible]. Drawback: only one thread is querying the initial DB at a time, which may not "max out" your DB itself. Pro: you're not re-running queries so sort order shouldn't change on you half way through (for instance if your query is select * from table_name, the return order is somewhat random, but if you return it all from the same resultset/query, you won't get duplicates). You won't have accidental duplicates or anything like that. Here's a tutorial doing it this way.
Second way: pagination, basically every thread somehow knows what chunk it should select (XXX in this example), so it knows "I should query the table like select * from table_name order by something start with XXX limit 10". Then each thread basically processes (in this instance) 10 at a time [XXX is a shared variable among threads incremented by the calling thread].
The problem is the "order by something" it means that for each query the DB has to order the entire table, which may or may not be possible, and can be expensive especially near the end of a table. If it's indexed this should not be a problem. The caveat here is that if there are "gaps" in the data, you'll be doing some useless queries, but they'll probably still be fast. If you have an ID column and it's mostly contiguous, you might be able to "chunk" based on ID, for instance.
If you have some other column that you can key off of, for instance a date column with a known "quantity" per date, and it is indexed, then you may be able to avoid the "order by" by instead chunking by date, for example select * from table_name where date < XXX and date > YYY (also no limit clause, though you could have a thread use limit clauses to work through a particular unique date range, updating as it goes or sorting and chunking since it's a smaller range, less pain).
Third way: you execute a query to "reserve" rows from the table, like update table_name set lock_column = my_thread_unique_key where column is nil limit 10 followed by a query select * from table_name where lock_column = my_thread_unique_key. Disadvantage: are you sure your database executes this as one atomic operation? If not then it's possible two setter queries will collide or something like that, causing duplicates or partial batches. Be careful. Maybe synchronize your process around the "select and update" queries or lock the table and/or rows appropriately. Something like that to avoid possible collision (postgres for instance requires special SERIALIZABLE option).
Fourth way: (related to third) mostly useful if you have large gaps and want to avoid "useless" queries: create a new table that "numbers" your initial table, with an incrementing ID [basically a temp table]. Then you can divide that table up by chunks of contiguous ID's and use it to reference the rows in the first. Or if you have a column already in the table (or can add one) to use just for batching purposes, you may be able to assign batch ID's to rows, like update table_name set batch_number = rownum % 20000 then each row has a batch number assigned to itself, threads can be assigned batches (or assigned "every 9th batch" or what not). Or similarly update table_name set row_counter_column=rownum (Oracle examples, but you get the drift). Then you'd have a contiguous set of numbers to batch off of.
Fifth way: (not sure if I really recommend this, but) assign each row a "random" float at insert time. Then given you know the approximate size of the database, you can peel off a fraction of it like, if 100 and you want 100 batches "where x < 0.01 and X >= 0.02" or the like. (Idea inspired by how wikipedia is able to get a "random" page--assigns each row a random float at insert time).
The thing you really want to avoid is some kind of change in sort order half way through. For instance if you don't specify a sort order, and just query like this select * from table_name start by XXX limit 10 from multiple threads, it's conceivably possible that the database will [since there is no sort element specified] change the order it returns you rows half way through [for instance, if new data is added] meaning you may skip rows or what not.
Using Hibernate's ScrollableResults to slowly read 90 million records also has some related ideas (esp. for hibernate users).
Another option is if you know some column (like "id") is mostly contiguous, you can just iterate through that "by chunks" (get the max, then iterate numerically over chunks). Or some other column that is "chunkable" as it were.

I just felt compelled to answer on this old posting.
Note that this is a typical scenario for Big Data, not only to acquire the data in multiple threads, but also to further process that data in multiple threads. Such approaches do not always call for all data to be accumulated in memory, it can be processed in groups and/or sliding windows, and only need to either accumulate a result, or pass the data further on (other permanent storage).
To process the data in parallel, typically a partitioning scheme or a splitting scheme is applied to the source data. If the data is raw textual, this could be a random sizer cut somewhere in the middle. For databases, the partitioning scheme is nothing but an extra where condition applied on your query to allow paging. This could be something like:
Driver Program: Split my data in for parts, and start 4 workers
4 x (Worker Program): Give me part 1..4 of 4 of the data
This could translate into a (pseudo) sql like:
SELECT ...
FROM (... Subquery ...)
WHERE date = SYSDATE - days(:partition)
In the end it is all pretty conventional, nothing super advanced.

Is it faster to access a java list (arraylist) compared to accessing the same data in a mysql database?

I have the MYSQL database in the local machine where I'm running the java program from.
I plan create a array list of all the entries of a particular table. From this point on wards I will not access the database to get a particular entry in the table, instead I will use the array list created. Is this going to be faster or slower compared to accessing the database to grab a particular entry in the table?
Please note that the table I'm interested has about 2 million entries.
Thank you.
More info : I need only two fields. 1 of type Long and 1 of type String. The index of the table is Long , not int.

No, it's going to be much slower, because to find an element in an ArrayList, you've to scan sequentially the ArrayList until your element is found.
It can be faster, for a few hundreds entry, because you don't have the connection overhead, but with two millions entry, MySQL is going to win, provided that you create the correct indexes. Only retrieve the rows that you actually need each time.
Why are you thinking to do this? Are you experiencing slow queries?
To find out, in your my.cnf activate the slow query log, by uncommenting (or adding) the following lines.
# Here you can see queries with especially long duration
log_slow_queries = /var/log/mysql/mysql-slow.log
long_query_time = 1
Then see which queries take a long time, and run them with EXPLAIN in front, consider to add index where the explain command tells you that is not using indexes, or just post a new question with your CREATE TABLE statement and your example query to optimize.

This question is too vague, and can easily go either way depending on:
How many fields in each record, how big are the fields?
What kind of access are you going to perform? Text search? Sequential?
For example, if each records consists of a couple bytes of data it's much faster to store them all in-memory (not necessarily an ArrayList though). You may want to put them into a TreeSet for example.

It depends on what you will do with the data. If you just wanted a few rows, only those should be fetched from the DB. If you know that you need ALL the data, go ahead and load the whole table into java if it can fit in memory. What will you do with it after? Sequencial or random reading? Will data be changed? A Map or Set could be a faster alternative depending on how the collection will be used.

Whether it is faster or slower is measurable. Time it. It is definitely faster to work with structures stored in memory than it is to work with data tables located on the disk. That is if you have enough memory and if you do not have 20 users running the same process at the same time.
How do you access the data? Do you have an integer index?

First, accessing an array list is much much faster than accessing a data base. Accessing memory is much more faster than accessing a hard disk.
If the number of entries in the array is big and I guess it is, then you need to consider using a "direct access" data structure such as a HashMap which will act as a database table where you have values referenced by their keys