I am using GeoIP2 mmdb file to find the location of the user in real time. However, I wish to load the file into memory and then query on the hashmap instead of querying on the database every time.
Is it possible to do that.? If yes, How so.?
Also, will loading the whole file into a hashmap increase the performance of my queries.?
I don't think it is possible. The IP address and location is not in a 1-1 reference as in hash. The database is in a range of IP address and you need to query two columns to find the exact location. Hashmap is not a suitable structure.
Related
I would like to get the value of a key, however the Map is large so I don't want it to be completely loaded into memory. So if I do something like:
hazelcast.getReplicatedMap(name).get(key)
will it load the whole map into memory then get the value?
If yes, is there a way to get the value of a key without loading everything into memory?
With the replicated map the whole map is replicated to all members in the cluster. So it will always be fully in memory on those members.
On the client side, only the value is pulled into memory when you call replicatedMap.get(key)
EDIT: Please see #pveentjer's answer since I supposed the question was asked for client topology and answered accordingly.
It does not load the whole map but returns an instance of it. So when you call hazelcast.getReplicatedMap(name).get(key) only one entry - if exists, will be fetched from distributed map.
I have a collection called data which is the destination of all the documents sent from many devices each n seconds.
What is the best practice to keep the collection alive in production without documents overflow?
How could I "clean" the collection and save the content in another one? Is it the correct way?
Thank you in advance.
You cannot overflow, if you use sharding you have almost unlimited space.
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/limits/#Sharding-Existing-Collection-Data-Size
Those are limits for single shard, and you have to start sharding before reaching them.
It depends on your architecture, however limit (in worst case) of 8.19200 exabytes (or 8,192,000 terabytes) is unreachable for most of even big data apps, if you multiply number of shard possible in replica set by max collection size in one of them.
See also:
What is the max size of collection in mongodb
Mongodb is a best database for storing large collection. You can do below steps for better performance.
Replication
Replication means copying your data several times on a single server or multiple server.
It provides a backup of your data every time when you insert data in your db.
Embedded document
Try to make your collection with refreences. It means that try to make refrences in your db.
Posting here as I could not find any forums for lmdb key-value store.
Is there a limit for sub-databases? What is a reasonable number of sub-databases concurrently open?
I would like to have ~200 databases which seems like a lot and clearly indicates my model is wrong.
I suppose could remodel and embed id of each db in key itself and keep one db only but then I have longer keys and also I cannot drop database if needed.
I'm interested though if LMDB uses some sort of internal prefixes for keys already.
Any suggestions how to address that problem appreciated.
Instead of calling mdb_dbi_open each time, keep your own map with database names to database handles returned from mdb_dbi_open. Reuse these handles for the lifetime of your program. This will allow you to have multiple databases within an environment and prevent the overhead with mdb_dbi_open.
If you read the documentation for mdb_env_set_maxdbs.
Currently a moderate number of slots are cheap but a huge number gets expensive: 7-120 words per transaction, and every mdb_dbi_open() does a linear search of the opened slots.
http://www.lmdb.tech/doc/group__mdb.html#gaa2fc2f1f37cb1115e733b62cab2fcdbc
The best way to know is to test the function call mdb_dbi_open performance to see if it is acceptable.
For a project I am creating a queuing library and basically store URLs in a Set (it's actually an object, where I set keys to true, but one can see it as an array), so the queue only takes every url once. This works really well, however I am facing the problem that there are many URLs and so the RAM usage becomes really high.
Therefor I want to use an on-disk key-value store (actually only keys are required, no idea whether there is some different approach) with the following requirements:
No need to load the whole data set into RAM
Speedy lookups
Node.js bindings
It doesn't have to be too safe (losing data once in a while isn't a huge problem, low RAM requirements are more important) and even though I use Node.JS in this scenario this lookup doesn't necessarily need to run async.
Actually a side question would be whether there is some better way than a on-disk key-value approach. A term would be nice. Lookuptables somehow always lets me find data sets (IPs, ZIP codes, etc.)
I'd use a sql table with a single column (to store the url). Better control on memory usage than redis (which pretty much stores all in memory).
easy to check if there is already the same value
easy to insert
easy to remove one element
If it really "doesn't have to be too safe", another design would be to keep storing everything in memory but limit the number of URLs you store, for example by using an LRU cache.
You could either use a cache in node.js (easy to find via Google) or use a separate memcached server, possibly on the same machine.
I have been working with databases recently and before that I was developing standalone components that do not use databases.
With all the DB work I have a few questions that sprang up.
Why is a database query faster than a programming language data retrieval from a file.
To elaborate my question further -
Assume I have a table called Employee, with fields Name, ID, DOB, Email and Sex. For reasons of simplicity we will also assume they are all strings of fixed length and they do not have any indexes or primary keys or any other constraints.
Imagine we have 1 million rows of data in the table. At the end of the day this table is going to be stored somewhere on the disk. When I write a query Select Name,ID from Employee where DOB="12/12/1985", the DBMS picks up the data from the file, processes it, filters it and gives me a result which is a subset of the 1 million rows of data.
Now, assume I store the same 1 million rows in a flat file, each field similarly being fixed length string for simplicity. The data is available on a file in the disk.
When I write a program in C++ or C or C# or Java and do the same task of finding the Name and ID where DOB="12/12/1985", I will read the file record by record and check for each row of data if the DOB="12/12/1985", if it matches then I store present the row to the user.
This way of doing it by a program is too slow when compared to the speed at which a SQL query returns the results.
I assume the DBMS is also written in some programming language and there is also an additional overhead of parsing the query and what not.
So what happens in a DBMS that makes it faster to retrieve data than through a programming language?
If this question is inappropriate on this forum, please delete but do provide me some pointers where I may find an answer.
I use SQL Server if that is of any help.
Why is a database query faster than a programming language data retrieval from a file
That depends on many things - network latency and disk seek speeds being two of the important ones. Sometimes it is faster to read from a file.
In your description of finding a row within a million rows, a database will normally be faster than seeking in a file because it employs indexing on the data.
If you pre-process you data file and provided index files for the different fields, you could speedup data lookup from the filesystem as well.
Note: databases are normally used not for this feature, but because they are ACID compliant and therefore are suitable for working in environments where you have multiple processes (normally many clients on many computers) querying the database at the time.
There are lots of techniques to speed up various kinds of access. As #Oded says, indexing is the big solution to your specific example: if the database has been set up to maintain an index by date, it can go directly to the entries for that date, instead of reading through the entire file. (Note that maintaining an index does take up space and time, though -- it's not free!)
On the other hand, if such an index has not been set up, and the database has not been stored in date order, then a query by date will need to go through the entire database, just like your flat-file program.
Of course, you can write your own programs to maintain and use a date index for your file, which will speed up date queries just like a database. And, you might find that you want to add other indices, to speed up other kinds of queries -- or remove an index that turns out to use more resources than it is worth.
Eventually, managing all the features you've added to your file manager may become a complex task; you may want to store this kind of configuration in its own file, rather than hard-coding it into your program. At the minimum, you'll need features to make sure that changing your configuration will not corrupt your file...
In other words, you will have written your own database.
...an old one, I know... just for if somebody finds this: The question contained "assume ... do not have any indexes"
...so the question was about the sequential dataread fight between the database and a flat file WITHOUT indexes, which the database wins...
And the answer is: if you read record by record from disk you do lots of disk seeking, which is expensive performance wise. A database always loads pages by concept - so a couple of records all at once. Less disk seeking is definitely faster. If you would do a mem buffered read from a flat file you could achieve the same or better read values.