|
Primary Key GUID!! What an awesome idea. Wouldnt that result with forced full table scan on all type of queries?
|
|
|
|
|
I've concluded that most blanket statements are offered by those without any real knowledge. The true answer is, it depends. Tech changes, things get optimized, and so on and so forth. Even outside of that, anyone who knows anything about SQL knows two things: it depends on the data and the amount of joins in the query and it also depends on the indexes.
In my experience a join can very very expensive, but it also can be quick. They're usually the most expensive on a database that's designed like garbage.
Also, forgetting all other factors and just focusing on speed alone, sometimes it requires less bandwidth to send along the pipe one demoralized table to a client rather than several normalized ones. Not to mention the fact, dealing with drilling down on the B table for instance would require two queries at the very least avoid sending along two entire tables to the client so it can be processed that way.
The truth is simple, if the app runs like crap, and you identified the bottleneck being either the DB or the processing of what comes out of it, then he doesn't know much. The proof is in the pudding my friend. The CPU cycles don't lie.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: to send along the pipe one demoralized table
Now I'm denormalized. 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The true answer is, it depends.
Very true. It's just that he and I start with different baselines. I start with "let's assume the DB can optimize this right, given good table design, indices, etc." and if there's an issue, I look at how to optimize the query, and if that means a demoralized table  then ok, but I had better have a good reason.
The CTO starts with a different baseline, on the assumption that joins are always costly. The result is pushing processing onto the script language, of all things. Not much optimization can occur there, though frankly, the code is so krufty, I imagine there actually is a ton of optimization that could happen there, even without getting into the bowels of Django.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: on the assumption that joins are always costly
I've 20 bucks that says your CTO cut his database teeth on MS Access 
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Now I'm denormalized.
You're welcome. 
Marc Clifton wrote: The result is pushing processing onto the script language
I've seen this argument too, and there can be some merit to it. But, this side is almost always played by someone who simply just sucks at database administration.
All other things being equal about the only reasonable argument I can buy in regards to do some stuff in script on a client is distributing the workload rather than the server handle it all. But I seriously doubt anyone saying a blanket "joins suck" has any idea about mitigating a workload like that over a distributed process.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 9-Sep-16 13:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: distributing the workload rather than the server handle it all
I have been wanting to learn how to build CLR SQL function DLLs to perform the kind of work that would be a candidate for distributed processing because the SQL statement would be 20K+ lines long but I just haven't found the time yet. It has the potential liberate DBAs everywhere from developers that don't know/refuse to use the more complicated T SQL bits.
CLR in SQL tutorial
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Your argument reminds me of a time I worked for an organization that used a dBase-equivalent as their database engine. It did what it needed to do so there weren't many complaints, except when it came to certain reports. One in particular took nearly an hour to run, so it was only requested as needed. I didn't have much going on one day and I decided to poke around in the code that was in charge of that report. I looked it over and felt confident that I knew what it was doing, something the equivalent of "SELECT * FROM <table>" and then the result set was further processed (e.g., filtering, sorting) by the desktop code. I commented out a few lines of code and changed the query so that the database engine was doing all of the work rather than the desktop code. When I went to test that report, it came back almost instantly, so much so that I just assumed it failed. I did this several times and each time the report was instant and complete. I left it in place so that my supervisor could try it out when he returned. He was obviously skeptical at first, but when he saw it go, it was convincing enough that he told several users out in the business office to try it out too. Much praise was thrown our way.
Moral of the story: design the tables correctly, and let the database engine handle the workload.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
I once had a DBA tell me that views were a bad idea because they had to be rebuilt every day.
How did the guy get the job as CTO, I would presume there had to some experience with code, development or architecture. It sounds like this guy the epitomy of a manager, almost no knowledge of the subject matter and hoping to "manage" the department using his underlings knowledge, and you are not on site so the children have the most influence.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I had a similiar discussion once with our Oracle DBA. I was asked to run queries on a views he had over tables rather then the table directly as the view will not impact on the tables performance...
|
|
|
|
|
If the view was a Materialized View, then your Oracle DBA was correct.
|
|
|
|
|
If it was MS SQL Server, it wouldn't surprise me if his views all had the WITH (NOLOCK) hint on every table.
But AFAIK, Oracle rather sensibly doesn't have that option.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I once had a DBA tell me that views were a bad idea because they had to be rebuilt every day.
Materialized Views (an Oracle thing) do have to be rebuilt at some defined interval (not necessarily every day - the timing just depends on the nature of your data). That's not to say they are a bad idea because of that. Just have to be aware of it when you design your data arch.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people read blogs offering advice and put the conclusions into their "internal rules list" instead of understanding the reasoning behind that advice. Normally those people are more likely to make it into management (and thus become CTOs) because they're able to make decisions faster & don't act "wishy washy"; i.e. because they just jump straight to an existing conclusion without taking time to assess the context and apply any thought.
In some cases avoiding joins is better; though only if done in a sensible way (e.g. just moving joins into Python probably won't help). A good example is a BI solution where you're pulling data from a (normalised database) transactional system, and de-normalise it in your ETL phase, moving the grunt work to the out of hours batch instead of running it each time a user runs a report.
Simple answer is to try to present a reasoned argument and (better / if time) build out both solutions to prove your point with real data.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Love your sig! 
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. - Liber AL vel Legis 1:40, Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: table joins are "hugely expensive", particularly for reporting
Since I've been working for ten years doing exactly reporting, from databases, I call that bullshit.
Marc Clifton wrote: a well designed database will not have this issue.
That's a must, but not all that matters. The key to performance at every stage, is to keep the amount of data down.
What you always have to keep in mind is the order of logical execution.
First the joins are done, then the filtering(WHERE), aggregation (GROUP BY), Filtering on aggregates (HAVING) and so on.
Note that the optimizer can decide to change the physical execution order if it believes it performs better.
And the most important trick I've learned is to change the order of execution using CTE's. If you filter before you join, you handle less data.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take that $20 and raise it. My guess is that the CTO had "a bad experience" early in his career with databases and joins, so much so that his view is prejudiced with obsolete knowledge.
Run into it time and again with other technical items.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Don't argue about it - measure it!
Measure the performance of his solution, loading the data from all tables into memory and then manipulating it with imperative code.
And then measure the performance of a query that joins the tables in the database.
If his version is faster, then there's something seriously wrong with the query, or with the database.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
This was my thought too. Seems like a no-brainer. However if there are ugly politics at play or people's egos getting bruised one must weight his own's benefit it interfering. It sounds like Marc may be doing this by choosing to let this guy wallow in his own sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, of course joining two tables will take some time. It doesn't matter where you join them -- in the DB or in the Python code --- it's going to take some time.
However, it is always better to let the DB do what it is good it --- working with data.
I'm always amazed the number of developers who don't recognize that simple divide:
- EVERYTHING related to data (querying, filtering, selecting) should be done in the Database.
- NOTHING else should be.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you have a combination of emotional maturity and political savvy.
I mean, you could wrote a few queries that prove him wrong. And given 10 minutes, you could explain the data structures underlying a relational database in sufficient detail to show when joins will be expensive, and when they won't.
Often enough, though, being right (and proving it) hurts you. Definitely better to know when to drop it and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
Column counts are a huge issue. I can't stand "Select *" for anything more than debugging!
I was called in to help fix an Oracle Speed Issue. The result was a query that brought back 10,000 times less data! They were doing "Select *" on a 200 column table, joined with 2 other tables. Where they needed 12 columns. And they were looking at the "full table scans".
(imagine 12 columns that fit on a 80 character wide screen. Imagine retrieving at least 4 varchar(4000) fields with each row. Fields that NOBODY wanted, NOBODY needed. But it was easier to write * instead of determine the 12 fields up front. OMG.)
Of course you are going to do full table scans. You ASKED for every column of a LOT of rows. In fact, forcing an index scan, caused the query to run slower, as I showed them.
But reducing the column count of the data coming back, and measuring the data size that came back to the program, they SAW the bottleneck.
I am not all BCNF or 3NF. Denormalization makes sense at times.
The "It Depends" answer is simply this: You should create the DB and the queries you are going to use to get to ALL of the data and reports before you build the system. If the queries you run 100,000 times a day require 15 joins, and the queries that you run once a month are trivial, you may have optimized the wrong end of the equation.
Finally, creating materialized views, or reporting snapshots are QUITE reasonable things to do.
The correct format for data while processing MAY NOT be the correct format for data while reporting.
In an OLTP type system, constantly joining across many tables that are constantly being updated will produce HORRIBLE performance if writes block reads, or UNDO/REDO contention exists.
Thanks for that link. A great article. I saved it!
|
|
|
|
|
My fearless leader was/is a DBA. We were talking about indices and I got some interesting lessons I'd never have picked up on my own. When a compound index makes sense, how you write your select statement can use or waste all the value-added speed of the index.
It's his job to know the nuances of that; it's my job to create the connections and interfaces for the users in whatever language or language mix makes sense. As I noted in posts at other times, we'd hash and thrash trough possible solutions, give the whys and wherefores, and then pick the best solution we can come up with, sans egoism. When possible, with the long view. Golden days.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I run into that kind of nonsense quite more often than I'd like. My answer is now "Show me the query plan or no deal". 99.9% of the time an index is missing somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
I had to deal with this same problem until I was asked to rewrite an application in which all of the joins were done in Visual Basic code, rather than in the database. I think the problem was that my boss didn't understand SQL that well and did not know how to write the queries with joins. So, I used JOINs in views and greatly simplified the VB code, even though I had to explain the SQL many times. I had one problem in that our views were in a local database and the tables were in a remote database, requiring that full tables had to be moved across the wire to be joined in the local database. My boss for a long time insisted that I should join the data in the VB code and that somehow that would be faster. I fixed that by joining sub-queries that used column specifications and WHERE clauses to greatly reduce that amount of data that needed to be transferred across the wire before the joins were made. The difference in speed was huge. Of course, that made the SQL more complex, but my boss has finally accepted it after realizing that the VB code would be much more complex and time consuming both to write and execute.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on your 'relationship' with the data. If you are creating reports for mostly non-changing data, denormalized tables makes sense to you. If you are a developer charged with maintaining data integrity, flexibility, and performance (in that order) then you would certainly favor normalized structures. At any rate, given the speed of things nowadays, the difference between join and no-join would be practically imperceptible...at least on a small scale.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
