I am trying to reduce the datastore cost by using Projection. I have read that a Projection Query costs only 1 Read Operation but in my case the Projection cost goes more than 1. Here is the code:
Query<Finders> q = ofy().load().type(Finders.class).project("Password","Country");
for(Finders finder:q)
{
resp.getWriter().println(finder.getCountry()+" "+finder.getPassword());
}
On executing this, the q object contains 6 items and to retrieve these 6 items it takes 6 Read operations as shown in Appstats.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong over here ?
To read all items (with a single read operation if they will all fit) call .list() on the query, to get a List<Finders>. You chose to iterate on the query instead, and that's quite likely to not rely on a single, possibly huge read from the datastore, but parcel things out more.
Where projections enter the picture is quite different: if you have entities with many fields, or some fields that are very large, and in a certain case you know you need only a certain subset of fields (esp. if it's one not requiring "some fields that are very large"), then a projection is a very wise idea because it avoids reading stuff you don't need.
That makes it more likely that a certain fetch of (e.g) 10 entities will take a single datastore read -- there are byte limits on how much can come from a single datastore read, so, if by carefully picking and choosing the fields you actually require, you're reading only (say) 10k per entity, rather than (say) 500k per entity, then clearly you may well need fewer reads from the datastore.
But if you don't do one big massive read with .list(), but an entity-by-entity read by iteration, then most likely you'll still get multiple reads -- essentially, by iterating, you've said you want that!-)
Related
I am hitting a REST API to get data from a service. I transform this data and store it in a database. I will have to do this on some interval, 15 minutes, and then make sure this database has latest information.
I am doing this in a Java program. I am wondering if it would be better, after I have queried all data, to do
1. SELECT statements and compare vs transformed data and do UPDATEs (DELETE all associated records to what was changed and INSERT new)
OR
DELETE ALL and INSERT ALL every time.
Option 1 has potential to be a lot less transactions, guaranteed SELECT on all records because we are comparing, but potentially not a lot of UPDATEs since I don't expect data to be changing much. But it has downside of doing comparisons on all records to detect a change
I am planning on doing this using Spring Boot, JPA layer and possibly postgres
The short answer is "It depends. Test and see for your usecase."
The longer answer: this feels like preoptimization. And the general response for preoptimization is "don't." Especially in DB realms like this, what would be best in one situation can be awful in another. There are a number of factors, including (and not exclusive to) schema, indexes, HDD backing speed, concurrency, amount of data, network speed, latency, and so on:
First, get it working
Identify what's wrong → get a metric
Measure against that metric
Make any obvious or necessary changes
Repeat 1 through 4 as appropriate
The first question I would ask of you is "What does better mean?" Once you define that, the path forward will likely become clearer.
In my Google App Engine app I need to fetch and return a potentially large number of entities from a datastore query in response to a service call GET request. This call may return potentially thousands of entities and MBs of serialized data.
The first portion of the response packet communicates how many entities are in the serialized results, followed by all of the serialized entities. Currently I am iterating through all the entities in the query with a QueryResultIterator up to a maximum page size limit, after which I return a cursor from which can be used to continue fetching where the previous call left off (if the maximum was reached and there are still results in the query). As I iterate through the results, I save them in a list. Once I've either exhausted the query results or reached the maximum page size, I can then get the number of entities from the size of this list. But then I have to iterate through this list again to serialize each of the entities and write the results to the response output stream.
I don't know that this is the most efficient method to perform this operation. Is there a way I can get the number of entities in a query's results before actually iterating through them all or fetching them directly into a list? (The list method doesn't work anyway because I'm using cursors, which requires the use of QueryResultIterator).
QueryResultIterator has a method getIndexList(). Would this be a less costly way to get the number of entities in the query's results? I'm assuming this list would contain exactly one index object for each entity in the query's results. Also, I'd need this list to only contain the indexes for the entities after the current cursor position for the interator. Is my understanding correct or would this method not do what I think it would?
A list of just indexes would require much less memory than loading a list of whole entities. Although, I don't know if this list would be limited at all by the query's prefetch or chunk sizes, or if I'd want to use the query's limit parameter at all because I would only be interested in knowing how many entities were in the results up to the maximum page size plus one (to know there are still more results and provide a cursor to continue).
Currently I'm setting the prefetch and chunk size (to the size of my page limit), but I'm not using the limit or offset parameters since I'm using cursors instead. From what I understand cursors are preferable to offset/limit. Would setting the limit parameter affect continuing a query with a cursor?
Clearly I have quite a few questions as to how GAE datastore queries work and how they're affected by changing parameters. So any insights are appreciated. The documentation for App Engine APIs is often sparse, as in one sentence descriptions of methods stating pretty much what can be deduced from the method signature. They don't generally go into much detail otherwise. Maybe the way I'm doing it currently is just fine after all. It works as is, but I'm trying to optimize the service call to get the best response time possible for my client application.
UPDATE: By the way, I am using Objectify v3 in my app and to perform this query. There are several places I am required to use the low-level datastore API, including to do geo-location queries (with geomodel) and projection queries (which aren't support in Objectify v3). So if there is a good way to do this using Objectify, that would be ideal. Otherwise I can use the low-level API, but it's always messier this way.
Both the low-level api and Objectify have a count() method (look at the javadocs for details). However, counting can be a very expensive and lengthy operation - it costs 1 small op for every number returned. For example, count() returning 5000 costs 5000 small ops (plus 1 read for the query), and takes as long as it would take to do a keys-only scan of all 5000 (which is what GAE actually does).
If you absolutely must have an exact count, you probably need to aggregate this value yourself by incrementing/decrementing a (possibly sharded) counter. This gets very tricky when you are dealing with filtered queries.
There is no one right solution here. Google searches give you totals like "About 119,000,000 results" which are deliberately inexact and almost certainly precalculated. For smaller result sets, using count() can be acceptable - but you might want to apply a limit() so that you never break the bank. You can always say "More than 500 results..."
if you want to fetch no of record than you can use following code
com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Query qry = new com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Query("EntityName");
com.google.appengine.api.datastore.DatastoreService datastoreService = DatastoreServiceFactory.getDatastoreService();
int totalCount = datastoreService.prepare(qry).countEntities(FetchOptions.Builder.withDefaults());
anf if you want filter than you can used
qry.addFilter("firstName", FilterOperator.EQUAL, firstName);
i hope it will help you
We have some part of our application that need to load a large set of data (>2000 entities) and perform computation on this set. The size of each entity is approximately 5 KB.
On our initial, naïve, implementation, the bottleneck seems to be the time required to load all the entities (~40 seconds for 2000 entities), while the time required to perform the computation itself is very small (<1 second).
We had tried several strategies to speed up the entities retrieval:
Splitting the retrieval request into several parallel instances and then merging the result: ~20 seconds for 2000 entities.
Storing the entities at an in-memory cache placed on a resident backend: ~5 seconds for 2000 entities.
The computation needs to be dynamically computed, so doing a precomputation at write time and storing the result does not work in our case.
We are hoping to be able to retrieve ~2000 entities in just under one second. Is this within the capability of GAE/J? Any other strategies that we might be able to implement for this kind of retrieval?
UPDATE: Supplying additional information about our use case and parallelization result:
We have more than 200.000 entities of the same kind in the datastore and the operation is retrieval-only.
We experimented with 10 parallel worker instances, and a typical result that we obtained could be seen in this pastebin. It seems that the serialization and deserialization required when transferring the entities back to the master instance hampers the performance.
UPDATE 2: Giving an example of what we are trying to do:
Let's say that we have a StockDerivative entity that need to be analyzed to know whether it's a good investment or not.
The analysis performed requires complex computations based on many factors both external (e.g. user's preference, market condition) and internal (i.e. from the entity's properties), and would output a single "investment score" value.
The user could request the derivatives to be sorted based on its investment score and ask to be presented with N-number of highest-scored derivatives.
200.000 by 5kb is 1GB. You could keep all this in memory on the largest backend instance or have multiple instances. This would be the fastest solution - nothing beats memory.
Do you need the whole 5kb of each entity for computation?
Do you need all 200k entities when querying before computation? Do queries touch all entities?
Also, check out BigQuery. It might suit your needs.
Use Memcache. I cannot guarantee that it will be sufficient, but if it isn't you probably have to move to another platform.
This is very interesting, but yes, its possible & Iv seen some mind boggling results.
I would have done the same; map-reduce concept
It would be great if you would provide us more metrics on how many parallel instances do you use & what are the results of each instance?
Also, our process includes retrieval alone or retrieval & storing ?
How many elements do you have in your data store? 4000? 10000? Reason is because you could cache it up from the previous request.
regards
In the end, it does not appear that we could retrieve >2000 entities from a single instance in under one second, so we are forced to use in-memory caching placed on our backend instance, as described in the original question. If someone comes up with a better answer, or if we found a better strategy/implementation for this problem, I would change or update the accepted answer.
Our solution involves periodically reading entities in a background task and storing the result in a json blob. That way we can quickly return more than 100k rows. All filtering and sorting is done in javascript using SlickGrid's DataView model.
As someone has already commented, MapReduce is the way to go on GAE. Unfortunately the Java library for MapReduce is broken for me so we're using non optimal task to do all the reading but we're planning to get MapReduce going in the near future (and/or the Pipeline API).
Mind that, last time I checked, the Blobstore wasn't returning gzipped entities > 1MB so at the moment we're loading the content from a compressed entity and expanding it into memory, that way the final payload gets gzipped. I don't like that, it introduces latency, I hope they fix issues with GZIP soon!
I have a table called Token in my database that represents texts tokenized.
Each row haves attributes like textblock, sentence and position(for identifying the text that the token is from) and logical fields like text, category, chartype, etc.
What I want to know is iterate over all tokens to find patterns and do some operations. For example, merging two adjacent tokens that have the category as Name into one (and after this, reset the positions). I think that I will need some kind of list
What is the best way to do this? With SQL queries to find the patterns or iterating over all tokens in the table. I think the queries will be complex a lot and maybe, iterating as a list will be more simple, but I don't know which is the way (as example, retrieving to a Java list or using a language that I can iterate and do changes right on database).
To this question not be closed, what I want to know is what the most recommended way to do this? I'm using Java, but if other language is better, no problem, I think I will need use R to do some statistic calculus.
Edit: The table is large, millions rows, load entire in memory is not possible.
If you are working with a small table, or proving out a merge strategy, then just setup a query that finds all of the candidate duplicate lines and dump the relevant columns out to a table. Then view that table in a text editor or spreadsheet to see if your hypothesis about the duplication is correct.
Keep in mind that any time you try to merge two rows into one, you will be deleting data. Worst case is that you might merge ALL of your rows into one. Proceed with caution!
This is an engineering decision to be made, based mostly on the size of the corpus you want to maintain, and the kind of operations you want to perform on them.
If the size gets bigger than "what fits in the editor", you'll need some kind of database. That may or may not be an SQL database. But there is also the code part: if you want perform non-trivial operations on the data, you might need a real programming language (could be anything: C, Java, Python. anything goes). In that case, the communication with the database will become a bottleneck: you need to generate queries that produce results that fit in the application programme's memory. SQL is powerful enough to represent and store N-grams and do some calculations on them, but that is about as far as you are going to get. In any case the database has to be fully normalised, and that will cause it to be more difficult to understand for non-DBAs.
My own toy project, http://sourceforge.net/projects/wakkerbot/ used a hybrid approach:
the data was obtained by a python crawler
the corpus was stored as-is in the database
the actual (modified MegaHal) Markov code stores it's own version of the corpus in a (binary) flatfile, containing the dictionary, N-grams, and the associated coefficients.
the training and text generation is done by a highly optimised C program
the output was picked up by another python script, and submitted to the target.
[in another life, I would probably have done some more normalisation, and stored N-grams or trees in the database. That would possibly cause the performance to drop to only a few generated sentences per second. It now is about 4000/sec]
My gut feeling is that what you want is more like a "linguistic workbench" than a program that does exactly one task efficiently (like wakkerbot). In any case you'll need to normalise a bit more: store the tokens as {tokennumber,tokentext} and refer to them only by number. Basically, a text is just a table (or array) containing a bunch of token numbers. An N-gram is just a couple of tokennumbers+the corresponding coefficients.
This is not the most optimized method but it's a design that allows you to write the code easily.
write an entity class that represent a row in your table.
write a factory method that allows you to get the entity object of a given row id, i.e. a method that create an object of entity class witht the values from the specified row.
write methods that remove and insert a given row object into table.
write a row counting method.
now, you can try to iterate your table using your java code. remember that if you merge between two row, you need to correctly adjust the next index.
This method allows you use small memory but you will be using a lot of query to create the row.
The concept is very similar or identical to ORM (Object Relational Mapping). If you know how tho use hibernate or other ORM then try those libraries.
IMO it'd be easier, and likely faster overall, to load everything into Java and do your operations there to avoid continually re-querying the DB.
There are some pretty strong numerical libs for Java and statistics, too; I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand until you're sure what you need isn't available (or is too slow).
This sounds like you're designing a text search engine. You should first see if pgsql's full text search engine is right for you.
If you do it without full text search, loading pl into pgsql and learning to drive it is likely to be the fastest and most efficient solution. It'll allow you to put all this work into a few well thought out lines of R, and do it all in the db where access to the data is closest. the only time to avoid such a plan is when it would make the database server work VERY hard, like holding the dataset in memory and cranking a single cpu core across it. Then it's ok to do it app side.
Whether you use pl/R or not, access large data sets in a cursor, it's by far the most efficient way to get either single or smaller subsets of rows. If you do it with a select with a where clause for each thing you want to process then you don't have to hold all those rows in memory at once. You can grab and discard parts of result sets while doing things like running averages etc.
Think about scale here. If you had a 5 TB database, how would you access it to do this the fastest? A poor scaling solution will come back to bite you even if it's only accessing 1% of the data set. And if you're already starting on a pretty big dataset today, it'll just get worse with time.
pl/R http://www.joeconway.com/plr/
I have a simple data model that includes
USERS: store basic information (key, name, phone # etc)
RELATIONS: describe, e.g. a friendship between two users (supplying a relationship_type + two user keys)
COMMENTS: posted by users (key, comment text, user_id)
I'm getting very poor performance, for instance, if I try to print the first names of all of a user's friends. Say the user has 500 friends: I can fetch the list of friend user_ids very easily in a single query. But then, to pull out first names, I have to do 500 back-and-forth trips to the Datastore, each of which seems to take on the order of 30 ms. If this were SQL, I'd just do a JOIN and get the answer out fast.
I understand there are rudimentary facilities for performing two-way joins across un-owned relations in a relaxed implementation of JDO (as described at http://gae-java-persistence.blogspot.com) but they sound experimental and non-standard (e.g. my code won't work in any other JDO implementation).
Worse yet, what if I want to pull out all the comments posted by a user's friends. Then I need to get from User --> Relation --> Comments, i.e. a three-way join, which isn't even supported experimentally. The overhead of 500 back-and-forths to get a friend list + another 500 trips to see if there are any comments from a user's friends is already enough to push runtime >30 seconds.
How do people deal with these problems in real-world datastore-backed JDO applications? (Or do they?)
Has anyone managed to extract satisfactory performance from JDO/Datastore in this kind of (very common) situation?
-Bosh
First of all, for objects that are frequently accessed (like users), I rely on the memcache. This should speedup your application quite a bit.
If you have to go to the datastore, the right way to do this should be through getObjectsById(). Unfortunately, it looks like GAE doesn't optimize this call. However, a contains() query on keys is optimized to fetch all the objects in one trip to the datastore, so that's what you should use:
List myFriendKeys = fetchFriendKeys();
Query query = pm.newQuery(User.class, ":p.contains(key)");
query.execute(myFriendKeys);
You could also rely on the low-level API get() that accept multiple keys, or do like me and use objectify.
A totally different approach would be to use an equality filter on a list property. This will match if any item in the list matches. So if you have a friendOf list property in your user entity, you can issue a single Query friendOf == theUser. You might want to check this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16952419/Building-scalable-complex-apps-on-App-Engine
You have to minimize DB reads. That must be a huge focus for any GAE project - anything else will cost you. To do that, pre-calculate as much as you can, especially oft-read information. To solve the issue of reading 500 friends' names, consider that you'll likely be changing the friend list far less than reading it, so on each change, store all names in a structure you can read with one get.
If you absolutely cannot then you have to tweak each case by hand, e.g. use the low-level API to do a batch get.
Also, rather optimize for speed and not data size. Use extra structures as indexes, save objects in multiple ways so you can read it as quickly as possible. Data is cheap, CPU time is not.
Unfortunately Phillipe's suggestion
Query query = pm.newQuery(User.class, ":p.contains(key)");
is only optimized to make a single query when searching by primary key. Passing in a list of ten non-primary-key values, for instance, gives the following trace
alt text http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7227/slowquery.png
I'd like to be able to bulk-fetch comments, for example, from all a user's friends. If I do store a List on each user, this list can't be longer than 1000 elements long (if it's an indexed property of the user) as described at: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/overview.html .
Seems increasingly like I'm using the wrong toolset here.
-B
Facebook has 28 Terabytes of memory cache... However, making 500 trips to memcached isn't very cheap either. It can't be used to store a gazillion pieces of small items. "Denomalization" is the key. Such applications do not need to support ad-hoc queries. Compute and store the results directly for the few supported queries.
in your case, you probably have just 1 type of query - return data of this, that and the others that should be displayed on a user page. You can precompute this big ball of mess, so later one query based on userId can fetch it all.
when userA makes a comment to userB, you retrieve userB's big ball of mess, insert userA's comment in it, and save it.
Of course, there are a lot of problems with this approach. For giant internet companies, they probably don't have a choice, generic query engines just don't cut it. But for others? Wouldn't you be happier if you can just use the good old RDBMS?
If it is a frequently used query, you can consider preparing indexes for the same.
http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/index_building.html
The indexed property limit is now raised to 5000.
However you can go even higher than that by using the method described in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16952419/Building-scalable-complex-apps-on-App-Engine
Basically just have a bunch of child entities for the User called UserFriends, thus splitting the big list and raising the limit to n*5000, where n is the number of UserFriends entities.