When to 'IN' and when not to?

When to 'IN' and when not to? - java

Let's presume that you are writing an application for a retail store chain. So, you would design your object model such that you would define 'Store' as the core business object and lots of supporting objects. Let's say 'Store' looks like follows:
class Store implements Validatable{
int storeNo;
int storeName;
... etc....
}
So, your client tells you that you have to import store schedule from a excel sheet into the application and you would have to run a series of validations on 'em. For instance, 'StoreIsInSameCountry';'StoreIsValid'... etc. So, you would design a Rule interface for checking all business conditions. Something like this:
interface Rule T extends Validatable> {
public Error check(T value) throws Exception;
}
Now, here comes the question. I am uploading 2000 stores from this excel sheet. So, I would end up running each rule defined for a store that many times. If I were to have 4 rules = 8000 queries to the database, i.e, 16000 hits to the connection pool. For a simple check where I would just have to check whether the store exists or not, the query would be:
SELECT STORE_ATTRIB1, STORE_ATTRIB2... from STORE where STORE_ID = ?
That way I would obtain get my 'Store' object. When I don't get anything from the database, then that store doesn't exist. So, for such a simple check, I would have to hit the database 2000 times for 2000 stores.
Alternatively, I could just do:
SELECT STORE_ATTRIB1, STORE_ATTRIB2... from STORE where STORE_ID in (1,2,3..... )
This query would actually return much faster than doing the one above it 2000 times.
However, it doesn't go well with the design that a Rule can be run for a single store only.
I know using IN is not a suggested methodology. So, what do you think I should be doing? Should I go ahead and use IN here, coz it gives better performance in this scenario? Or should I change my design?
What would you do if you were in my shoes, and what is the best practice?

That way I would obtain get my 'Store' object from the database. When I don't get anything from the database, then that store doesn't exist. So, for such a simple check, I would have to hit the database 2000 times for 2000 stores.
This is what you should not do.
Create a temporary table, fill the table with your values and JOIN this table, like this:
SELECT STORE_ATTRIB1, STORE_ATTRIB2...
FROM temptable tt
JOIN STORE s
ON s.STORE_ID = t.id
or this:
SELECT STORE_ATTRIB1, STORE_ATTRIB2...
FROM STORE s
WHERE s.STORE_ID IN
(
SELECT id
FROM temptable tt
)
I know using IN is not a suggested methodology. So, what do you think I should be doing? Should I go ahead and use IN here, coz it gives better performance in this scenario? Or should I change my design?
IN filters duplicates out.
If you want each eligible row to be selected for each duplicate value in the list, use JOIN.
IN is in no way a "not suggested methology".
In fact, there was a time when some databases did not support IN queries effciently, that's why folk wisdom still advices against using it.
But if your store_id is indexed properly (and it most probably is, if it's a PRIMARY KEY which it looks like), then all modern versions of major databases (that is Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL and PostgreSQL) will use an efficient plan to perform this query.
See this article in my blog for performance details in SQL Server:
IN vs. JOIN vs. EXISTS
Note, that in a properly designed database, validation rules are also set-based.
I. e. you implement your validation rules as queries against the temptable.
However, to support legacy rules, you can select values from temptable row-by-agonizing-row, apply the rules, and delete values which did not pass validation.

SELECT store_id FROM store WHERE store_active = 1
or even
SELECT store_id FROM store
will tell you all the active stores in a single query. You can now conduct the other tests on stores you know to exist, and you've saved yourself 1,999 hits to the database.
If you've got relatively uncontested database access, and no time constraint on how long the whole thing is going to take then you've no real need to worry about hitting the connection pool over and over again. That's what it's designed for, after all!

I think it's more of a business question with parameter of how often does the client run the import, how long would it take for you to implement either of the solution, and how expensive is your time per hour.
If it's something that runs once in a while, a bit of bad performance is acceptable in my opinion, especially if you can get the job done quick using clean code.

...a Rule can be run for a single store only.
Managing business rules along with performance is a tricky task, so there is a library ("Persistence Layer") that does exactly that. You define rules, then execute a bulk of commands, then the library fetch from DB whatever the rules require in a single query (by using temp tables rather than 'IN') and then passes it to the rules.
There is an example of a validator in here.

Related

jdbc data retreiving using multi threading

I am using jdbc mysql. Let's assume there is a table in my db called Test. And there is a 700k rows. But fetching all rows are taking huge time. I am using preparedStatement. But I want to use multi threading in such a way that think there is 10 threads. for. eg 1st thread will fetch 70k rows then 2nd will fetch next 70k and so on. How to implement this?

Forgive me if this is too obvious and you tried it or it won't work in your situation, but caching might be very helpful here.
Regarding actually doing it with multi-threading, It might make sense to have some procedure you run (might need a new column in your table to do this) that would assign ids that you can query - something like " WHERE id BETWEEN value1 AND value2". Each Thread would query a different range. This would be faster than using order by, since this way avoids the need for the database to sort.
If you do want to go the order by route though, consider indexing your database so that that ordering doesn't take extra time.

Data structure/Java Technique for managing a list of sequential commands

I'm not sure if something special exists for this use case - but it felt like a case where someone was likely to have made some sort of useful structure/technique/design-pattern.
My Situation
I have a set of SQL commands executed from middle tier (Java) to insert/update/delete data to any of a set of very large tables via joins from a related staging table.
I have more SQL commands which update various derived tables based on the staging table/actual table contents. Different tables will interact with different derived tables via different queries (as usual). These commands may have to be interleaved with the first set depending on the use case - so, I can't necessarily execute set 1 then set 2 all at once.
My Question
So, I need to build a chain of commands that get executed sequentially, and I need to trigger a rollback if any of them fail. I'd like to do this in the most clear, documented way possible.
Does anyone know a standard way of coding this? I'm sure anyone migrating from stored procedure code to middle tier code has done this before and I don't want to reinvent the wheel if there are good options out there.
Additional Information
One of my main concerns is making everything clear. To elaborate, I'll have a set of queries specifically designed to:
Truncate staging table A' and populate it with primary keys targeting deletion records
Delete from actual table A based on join with A'
Truncate staging table A' and populate it with full data for upserts
Update/Insert records from A' to A based on joins
The same logic will apply to tables B, C, D, etc. Unfortunately, it can be the case where just A and C need an extra step, like syncing deletes to a certain derived table, to be done after the deletions but before the upserts.
I'd obviously like to group all the logic for updating a table, and I'd like to group all the logic for updating a derived table as well, but at execution time they have to be intelligently interleaved and this sounds messy to me.

Don't write such a thing yourself. This is what JTA was born for.
You can use either JPA or Spring to do it.
Annotate the unit of work as transactional and let the database and JDBC handle it.
If you must do it yourself, follow the aspect-oriented approach and make it a decorative "before & after" implementation.

Advanced database modification "script" - how to do it

I have to go through a database and modify it according to a logic. The problem looks something like this. I have a history table in my database and I have to modify.
Before modifying anything I have to look at whether an object (which has several rows in the history table) had a certain state, say 4 or 9. If it had state 4 or 9 then I have to check the rows between the currently found row and the next state 4 or 9 row. If such a row (between those states) has a specific value in a specific column then I do something in the next row. I hope this is simple enough to give you an idea. I have to do this check for all the objects. Keep in mind that any object can be modified anywhere in its life cycle (of course until it reaches a final state).
I am using a SQL Sever 2005 and Hibernate. AFAIK I can not do such a complicated check in Transact SQL! So what would you recommend for me to do? So far I have been thinking on doing it as JUnit test. This would have the advantage of having Hibernate to help me do the modifications and I would have Java for lists and other data structures I might need and don't exist in SQL. If I am doing it as a JUnit test I am not loosing my mapping files!
I am curious what approaches would you use?

I think you should be able to use cursors to manage the complicated checks in SQL Server. You didn't mention how frequently you need to do this, but if this is a one-time thing, you can either do it in Java or SQL Server, depending on your comfort level.
If this check needs to be applied on every CRUD operation, perhaps database trigger is the way to go. If the logic may change frequently over the time, I would much rather writing the checks in Hibernate assuming no one will hit the database directly.

Google app engine: Poor Performance with JDO + Datastore

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.

Java data structure to use with Hibernate to store unknown number of parameters?

Following problem: I want to render a news stream of short messages based on localized texts. In various places of these messages I have to insert parameters to "customize" them. I guess you know what I mean ;)
My question probably falls into the "Which is the best style to do it?" category: How would you store these parameters (they may be Strings and Numbers that need to be formatted according to Locale) in the database? I'm using Hibernate to do the ORM and I can think of the following solutions:
build a combined String and save it as such (ugly and hard to maintain I think)
do some kind of fancy normalization and and make every parameter a single row on the database (clean I guess, but a performance nightmare)
Put the params into an Array, Map or other Java data structure and save it in binary format (probably causes a lot of overhead size-wise)
I tend towards option #3 but I'm afraid that it might be to costly in terms of size in the database. What do you think?

If you can afford the performance hit of using the normalized approach of having a separate table I would go with this approach. We use the same approach as your first suggestion at work, and it gets messy, especially when you reach the column limit and key/values start getting truncated!

Do the normalization.
I would suggest something like:
Table Message
id
Table Params
message_id
key
value
Storing serialized Java objects in the database is quite a bad thing in most cases. As they are hard to maintain and you cannot access them with 'simple' SQL tools.
The performance impact is not as big, as you can fetch all together in a single select using a join.

It depends a bit. Is the number of parameters huge for each entity? If it is not probable second option is the best.
If you don't want to add extra queries caused by the lazy load you can always change fetch type for the variable number of parameters that would only add one join to a query you were always doing. In normal conditions it is not a big price to pay.
Also the third and the first one forbids forever any type of queries over the parameters. A huge technical debt for the future I would not be willing to pay.

directly put it as string and save it ..

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.