I have to implement a requirement for a Java CRUD application where users want to keep their search results intact even if they do actions which affects the criteria by which the returned rows are matched.
Confused? Ok. Let me give you a familiar example. In Gmail if you do an advanced search on unread emails, you are presented with a list of matching results. Click on an entry and then go back to the search list. What happens is that you have just read that entry but it hasn't disappeard from the original result set. Only that line has changed from bold to normal.
I need to implement the exact same behaviour but the application is designed in such a way that any transaction is persisted first and then the UI requeries the db to keep in sync. The complexity of the application and the size of the database prevents me from doing just a simple in memory caching of the matching rows and making the changes both in db and in memory.
I'm thinking of solving the problem on the database level by creating an intermediate table in the Oracle database holding pointers to matching records and requerying only those records to keep the UI in sync with data. Any Ideas?
In Oracle, if you open a cursor, the results of that cursor are static, regardless if another transaction inserts a row that would appear in your cursor, or updates or deletes a row that does exist in your cursor.
The challenge then is to not close the cursor if you want results consistent from when the cursor was opened.
If the UI maintains a single session on the database, one solution is to use Global Temporary Tables in Oracle. When you execute a search, insert the unique IDs into the GTT, then the UI just queries the GTT.
If the UI doesn't keep the session open, you could do the same thing but with an ordinary table. Then, of course, you'd just have to add some cleanup code to remove old search results from the table.
You can use a flashback query to read data from the past. For example, select * from employee as of timestamp to_timestap('01-MAY-2011 070000', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH24MISS');
Oracle only stores this historical information for a limited period of time. You'll need to look into your retention settings; the UNDO_RETENTION parameter, UNDO tablespace retention gaurantee and proper sizing, and also LOBs have their own retention setting.
Create two connections to the database.
Set the first one to READ ONLY (using SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY) do your searching from that connection but make sure you never end that transaction by issuing a commit or rollback.
As a read only transaction only sees the data as it was at the time the transaction started, the first connection will never see any changes to the database - not even committed ones.
Then you can do your updates in the second connection without affecting the results in the first connection.
If you cannot use two connections, you could implement the updates through stored procedures that use autonomous transactions, then you can keep the read only transaction open in the single connection you have.
Related
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).
I have struggled with architectural problem.
I have table in DB2 v.9.7 database in which I need to insert ~250000 rows, with 13 columns each, in a single transaction. I especially need that this data would inserted as one unit of work.
Simple insert into and executeBatch give me:
The transaction log for the database is full. SQL Code: -964, SQL State: 57011
I don't have rights to change the size of transaction log. So I need to resolve this problem on the developer's side.
My second thought was to use savepoint before all inserts then I found out that works only with current transaction so it doesn't help me.
Any ideas?
You want to perform a large insert as a single transaction, but don't have enough log space for such transaction and no permissions to increase it.
This means you need to break up your insert into multiple database transactions and manage higher level commit or rollback on the application side. There is not anything in the driver, either JDBC or CLI, to help with that, so you will have to write custom code to record all committed rows and manually delete them if you need to roll back.
Another alternative might be to use the LOAD command by means of the ADMIN_CMD() system stored procedure. LOAD requires less log space. However, for this to work you will need to write rows that you want to insert into a file on the database server or to a shared filesystem or drive accessible from the server.
Hi you can use export/load commands to export/import large tables, this should be very fast.The LOAD command should not be using the transaction log.You may have problem if your user have no privilege to write file on server filesystem.
call SYSPROC.ADMIN_CMD('EXPORT TO /export/location/file.txt OF DEL MODIFIED BY COLDEL0x09 DECPT, select * from some_table ' )
call SYSPROC.ADMIN_CMD('LOAD FROM /export/location/file.txt OF DEL MODIFIED BY COLDEL0x09 DECPT, KEEPBLANKS INSERT INTO other_table COPY NO');
There are a lot of different tutorials across the internet about pagination with JDBC/iterating over huge result set.
So, basically there are a number of approaches I've found so far:
Vendor specific sql
Scrollable result set (?)
Holding plain result set in a memory and map the rows only when necessary (using fetchSize)
The result set fetch size, either set explicitly, or by default equal
to the statement fetch size that was passed to it, determines the
number of rows that are retrieved in any subsequent trips to the
database for that result set. This includes any trips that are still
required to complete the original query, as well as any refetching of
data into the result set. Data can be refetched, either explicitly or
implicitly, to update a scroll-sensitive or
scroll-insensitive/updatable result set.
Cursor (?)
Custom seek method paging implemented by jooq
Sorry for messing all these but I need someone to clear that out for me.
I have a simple task where service consumer asks for results with a pageNumber and pageSize. Looks like I have two options:
Use vendor specific sql
Hold the connection/statement/result set in the memory and rely on jdbc fetchSize
In the latter case I use rxJava-jdbc and if you look at producer implementation it holds the result set, then all you do is calling request(long n) and another n rows are processed. Of course everything is hidden under Observable suggar of rxJava. What I don't like about this approach is that you have to hold the resultSet between different service calls and have to clear that resultSet if client forgets to exhaust or close it. (Note: resultSet here is java ResultSet class, not the actual data)
So, what is recommended way of doing pagination? Is vendor specific sql considered slow compared to holding the connection?
I am using oracle, ScrollableResultSet is not recommended to be used with huge result sets as it caches the whole result set data on the client side. proof
Keeping resources open for an indefinite time is a bad thing in general. The database will, for example, create a cursor for you to obtain the fetched rows. That cursor and other resources will be kept open until you close the result set. The more queries you do in parallel the more resources will be occupied and at some point the database will reject further requests due to an exhausted resource pool (e.g. there is a limited number of cursors, that can be opened at a time).
Hibernate, for example, uses vendor specific SQL to fetch a "page" and I would do it just like that.
There are many approaches because there are many different use cases.
Do you actually expect users to fetch every page of the result set? Or are they more likely to fetch the first page or two and try something else if the data they're interested in isn't there. If you are Google, for example, you can be pretty confident that people will look at results from the first page, a small number will look at results from the second page, and a tiny fraction of results will come from the third page. It makes perfect sense in that case to use vendor-specific code to request a page of data and only run that for the next page when the user asks for it. If you expect the user to fetch the last page of the result, on the other hand, running a separate query for each page is going to be more expensive than running a single query and doing multiple fetches.
How long do users need to keep the queries open? How many concurrent users? If you're building an internal application that dozens of users will have access to and you expect users to keep cursors open for a few minutes, that might be reasonable. If you are trying to build an application that will have thousands of users that will be paging through a result over a span of hours, keeping resources allocated is a bad idea. If your users are really machines that are going to fetch data and process it in a loop as quickly as possible, a single ResultSet with multiple fetches makes far more sense.
How important is it that no row is missed/ every row is seen exactly once/ the results across pages are consistent? Multiple fetches from a single cursor guarantees that every row in the result is seen exactly once. Separate paginated queries might not-- new data could have been added or removed between queries being executed, your sort might not be fully deterministic, etc.
ScrollableResultSet caches result on client side - this requires memory resources. But for example PostgreSQL does it by default and nobody complains. Some databases simply use client's memory to hold the whole resultset. In most cases the database has to process much more data to re-evaluate the query.
Also you usually have much more clients, than database instances.
Also note that query re-execution - using rownum - as implemented by Hibernate does not guarantee correct(consistent) results. If data are modified between executions and default isolation level is used.
It really depends on use case. Changing Oracle's init parameter for max. connections and also for open cursors requires database restart.
So ScrollableResultSet and cursors can be used only when you can predict amount of (concurrent) users.
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.
How to Implement Transactions in a Non-Transactional Database.
1) Please explain in How you can do this on java side.
Note: I will share the efforts I put in finding the answer.
Suppose you have two inserts and two updates in a single transaction. So you will have four threads executing each instruction, One thread will monitor them all. If there is any failure in one of the thread so the monitoring thread will cancel out everything.
Each thread that participates in the transaction is given a transaction id. You need to create a structure that they can write to that keeps track of the data (or keys) in order to back out changes.
Like a real database, when you do an update, the before changed data needs to be stored and the after changed data needs to be recorded as well. You need this, because you may need it to find the record.
Inserts are a little easier, just delete the record.
Deletes need to store the before deleted data as well.
So any structure you create, needs a transaction ID, a table name and say a list of column data (which can be a map of String, object to store the column name, column data).
That should be a pretty good start...