in reply to Re^3: Working with large amount of data
in thread Working with large amount of data

That is true, but you will have to (re)load each hash over and over again when you need access to one of the 99 hashes which happen not to be in memory at the moment you need it.

I'd rather trust the designers of the database to have managed this in a somewhat optimized way, rather than rolling my own cacheing system.

I think 1 billion records with over 1 TB of data anyhow just cries for a professional database.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

  • Comment on Re^4: Working with large amount of data

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Working with large amount of data
by tilly (Archbishop) on Sep 21, 2009 at 16:06 UTC
    No, you just have to make one pass through the data to split it into 100 pieces according to which hash is needed, then make one pass through each piece.

    As for professional databases, databases are not magic. If you understand what they are doing then it is possible to outperform them. Usually you don't want to go there, but when you need to it can be done. I have personally done it several times.

[reply]
      Interesting. Suppose the data is randomly distributed over the 100 "buckets", you will have to save the data in 100 separate files (because you cannot keep all the data in memory) and then read each of these files and store the data in a hash, which you will have to save to disk again. Would that (once reading the big file, saving to 100 smaller files, reading each of these smaller files and saving to another 100 "hash"-files) be faster than going once through the big file and store the data in a database?

      Would selecting and retrieving data not be slower if you have to deal with 100 smaller files?

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

[reply]
        Whenever you're considering a design remember the following. Seeks to disk cost 0.01 seconds each, but it is reasonable to stream data back and forth at 50 MB/s. Therefore it is worth doing a lot of extra work to be able to stream data rather than seeking to disk.

        If you've done things right, for large data sets your time is entirely dominated by the time to stream through data. So 1 file vs 100 files is irrelevant. But splitting directly into 100 files may be a horrible idea for the simple reason that disk drives are typically able to stream data at high rates to a fixed number of locations. Like 4 or 16. So you'd probably want to split the data in multiple passes if you went with this design. (That is not to say that this is the right design. Personally I head in the merge sort direction rather than using hashing.)

        As for going to a database, my experience is that when your data sets are near the capacity of the machine, databases often will run into resource constraints and not figure a way out. It isn't that the query runs painfully slowly, it is that it grinds away for several hours then the query crashes. That is one of the prime reasons that I have needed to do end runs around the database when working with large data sets.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom