Showing posts with label acts_as. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acts_as. Show all posts

Friday, May 25, 2007

Acts As Fast But Very Inaccurate Counter

Introduction

If you have chosen the InnoDB MySQL engine over MyISAM for its support of transactions, foreign keys and other niceties, you might be aware of its limitations, like much slower count(*). Our DBAs are in a constant lookout for slow queries in production and the ways to keep DBs happy so they recommended that we should try to fix count(). They suggested to check SHOW TABLE STATUS for an approximate count of rows in a table. This morning I wrote acts_as_fast_counter which proved that the speed is indeed improved but the accuracy might be not acceptable. The rest of the post just records details of the exercise.

The approach

I created a model per engine and seeded each with 100K records. Then I run count on each model for a thousand times and measured the results.

The code:

module ActiveRecord; module Acts; end; end 

module ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsAsFastCounter

def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end

module ClassMethods

def acts_as_fast_counter
self.extend(FastCounterOverrides)
end

module FastCounterOverrides

def count(*args)
if args.empty?
connection.select_one("SHOW TABLE STATUS LIKE '#{ table_name }'")['Rows'].to_i
else
super(*args)
end
end

end

end

end

ActiveRecord::Base.send(:include, ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsAsFastCounter)

# create_table :myisams, :options => 'engine=MyISAM'  do |t|
# t.column :name, :string
# end
# 100_000.times { Myisam.create(:name => Time.now.to_s) }
#
# create_table :innodbs, :options => 'engine=InnoDB' do |t|
# t.column :name, :string
# end
# 100_000.times { Innodb.create(:name => Time.now.to_s) }

class Bench

require 'benchmark'
require 'acts_as_fast_counter'

def self.run
measure
show_count
convert_to_fast_counter
show_count
add_records
show_count
destroy_records
show_count
measure
end

def self.measure
puts "* Benchhmarks:"
n = 1_000
Benchmark.bm(12) do |x|
x.report('MyISAM') { n.times { Myisam.count } }
x.report('InnoDB') { n.times { Innodb.count } }
end
end

def self.convert_to_fast_counter
Innodb.send(:acts_as_fast_counter)
puts "* Converted Innodb to fast counter"
end

def self.add_records
@myisam = Myisam.create(:name => 'One more')
@innodb = Innodb.create(:name => 'One more')
puts "* Added records"
end

def self.destroy_records
@myisam.destroy
@innodb.destroy
puts "* Destroyed records"
end

def self.show_count
puts "* Record count:"
puts " MyISAM: #{ Myisam.count }"
puts " InnoDB: #{ Innodb.count }"
end

end


The results:
* Benchhmarks:
user system total real
MyISAM 0.180000 0.040000 0.220000 ( 0.289983)
InnoDB 0.430000 0.070000 0.500000 ( 35.102496)
* Record count:
MyISAM: 100000
InnoDB: 100000
* Converted Innodb to fast counter
* Record count:
MyISAM: 100000
InnoDB: 100345
* Added records
* Record count:
MyISAM: 100001
InnoDB: 100345
* Destroyed records
* Record count:
MyISAM: 100000
InnoDB: 100345
* Benchhmarks:
user system total real
MyISAM 0.250000 0.030000 0.280000 ( 0.350673)
InnoDB 0.250000 0.040000 0.290000 ( 0.977711)


Final thoughts

The MySQL manual has a clear warning about inaccuracy of the amount of rows in the SHOW TABLE STATUS results:

Rows - The number of rows. Some storage engines, such as MyISAM, store the exact count. For other storage engines, such as InnoDB, this value is an approximation, and may vary from the actual value by as much as 40 to 50%. In such cases, use SELECT COUNT(*) to obtain an accurate count.


The test confirms it by showing 345 more records then expected thus making it not very useful but for some edge cases. If you know a way to improve the speed of count() on InnoDB with some other approach beyond using a counter table, please share.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Moving models to a different database

There many reasons to use multiple databases (DBs) and when this is done, there is often a case when a model needs to be moved from one DB to another. The impetus could be that part of the data is referential and this is being reflected by moving it to a read-only DB. Another possibility is that we want to protect some data with an additional layer of security, so we extract it to a secure DB. In all cases, the challenge is to migrate the existing data. When the amount of data is considerably large, there is no choice but to do it via SQL data loaders or similar techniques. On the other hand, if it is acceptable to leverage rails db migrations and you prefer to do any data manipulation through them, there are some challenges to face.

Often, you need to have an access to old and new models during data migration. One solution is to move or copy an existing model to a separate namespace and put the new model instead at the old namespace. Let's look at a couple of examples:


Extracting referential data

I have a model Fruit in our main DB which gets its data from an external source, so we only access it read-only. We want to enforce it by moving the data to a DB which we access with a read-only account. First, I create a referential_db entry in database.yml:

dbs:
database: main

referential_db:
database: referential

Then, I copy the original model, Fruit, to a dedicated namespace, so the model becomes RetiredModels::Fruit. I add establish_connection to the original namespace model:
# create_table :fruits do |t|
# t.column :name, :string
# end
class Fruit < ActiveRecord::Base
establish_connection configurations[RAILS_ENV]['referential_db']
end

Everything is set for migration. Since it is a referential data, the migration needs to preserve data integrity so the models belonging to Fruit can still reference it by an old id:
def self.up
RetiredModels::Fruit.find(:all).each do |old_record|
Fruit.new(old_record.attributes) { |new_record| new_record.id = old_record.id }.save!
end
end

After the successful migration run, all data is replicated to a new DB. The retired model can be removed during next deployment, and the original table dropped.

There is one caveat for development and test modes. If you don't want to bother with multiple databases in those modes, you need to take care of having no table name clashing. So, the new model would have to use different table names via set_table_name.


Securing sensitive data

One of the models belonging to Fruit is SecretFruit. It contains a secret name for every fruit out there. Our legal department asked the development team to protect that data in case our DB is stolen. We decided to migrate the existing SecretFruit data to a protected DB and keep sensitive data encrypted with help from Acts As Secure. First, I create a secure_db entry in database.yml:
dbs:
database: main

secure_db:
database: secure
host: protected_host

Then, I copy the original model, SecretFruit, to a dedicated namespace, so the model becomes RetiredModels::SecretFruit. I modify the model in the original namespace to reflect the new requirements:
# create_table :secret_fruits do |t|
# t.column :name, :binary
# t.column :fruit_id, :integer
# end
class SecretFruit < ActiveRecord::Base
establish_connection configurations[RAILS_ENV]['secure_db']
acts_as_secure :crypto_provider => MasterKeyProvider
belongs_to :fruit
end

Since data encryption is done on-the-fly and there are no data integrity requirements, the migration is straightforward:
def self.up
RetiredModels::SecretFruit.find(:all).each { |old| SecretFruit.create!(old.attributes) }
end

I can now safely delete RetiredModels::SecretFruit and associated data.

Monday, May 07, 2007

DRYing Models via Acts As

ActsAs is an idiom familiar to every Rails developer, which makes it a good candidate for a shared functionality between models. Using it as early in the game as possible allows one to work on its functionality without a need to touch the code in multiple models. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Acts As Unique

I have some models that I want to have uniqueness across my application. I use some UUID mechanism (initially, a db call) to set a field (:token) after creation. Since I have multiple models, I decide to extract it the code for uniqueness setting to acts_as_unique. After refactoring, my model Fruit looks like:

# create_table :fruits do |t|
# t.column :name, :string
# t.column :token, :string
# end
class Fruit < ActiveRecord::Base
acts_as_unique
end

My acts_as_unique might look like:
module ActiveRecord; module Acts; end; end
module ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsAsUnique

def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end

module ClassMethods
def acts_as_unique(field = :token)
validates_uniqueness_of field
before_validation_on_create do |o|
o.send("#{ field }=", connection.select_one('SELECT UUID() AS UUID', "#{name} UUID generated")['UUID'])
end
end
end
end

ActiveRecord::Base.send(:include, ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsAsUnique)

Let's try it:
>> f = Fruit.create(:name => 'apple')
>> p f.token
"0a4d7c46-4df0-102a-a4b9-59b995bffdb7"

Now I can work on acts_as_unique to replace the DB call with a UUID gem or some other implementation without affecting the rest of the code.


Acts As Trackable

I have some models for which I want to keep track of when instances are created or updated. I have a polymorphic Event model for storage of such events. Since there are multiple models I want to track, I extract the functionality to acts_as_trackable. After refactoring, my models look like:
# create_table :fruits do |t|
# t.column :name, :string
# end
class Fruit < ActiveRecord::Base
acts_as_trackable
end

# create_table :events do |t|
# t.column "action", :string
# t.column "created_at", :datetime, :null => false
# t.column "trackable_type", :string
# t.column "trackable_id", :integer
# end
class Event < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :trackable, :polymorphic => true
end

module ActiveRecord; module Acts; end; end 
module ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsTrackable

def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end

module ClassMethods
def acts_as_trackable
has_many :events, :as => :trackable, :dependent => :destroy
after_update { |o| o.events.create(:action => 'updated') }
after_create { |o| o.events.create(:action => 'created') }
end
end

end

ActiveRecord::Base.send(:include, ActiveRecord::Acts::ActsTrackable)

Let's see what we got:
>> f = Fruit.create(:name => 'apple')
>> p f.events.collect(&:action)
["created"]
>> f.name = 'passionfruit'
>> f.save!
>> p f.events.collect(&:action)
["created", "updated"]

The Event model is likely to evolve but it would be easier to support it since the only place where I need to reflect the changes is acts_as_trackable. The goal is achieved.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

ActsAsWithReadonly to support read-only DB slave databases

Update: Released as ActsAsReadonlyable

In his latest post, DHH comments on scaling issues Twitter's team had with their rails application. One of the frequent mentioned problems with ActiveRecord is a weak support of multiple read-only slave databases. We were told by our DBAs some time ago that we needed to think how our rails application would utilize slaves DBs after the official release of our portal . Back then our teammate, Jeffrey Damick, came up with an idea of having an 'acts_as' plugin to support that. We have not yet started using slave DBs but some code has been written. We are releasing it on Rubyforge as soon as the project is approved.

The basic idea behind the plugin is that when an ActiveRecord model is marked with acts_as_with_readonly, most of AR finders are overloaded to run against a slave DB. It allows to do all reads from a read-only farm while saving updates to the read-write DB.

An example of usage:

*** database.yml


production:

database: master_db
host: master-host

read_only:
database: slave_db
host: slave-host


*** Sample Model

class ReadWriteModel < ActiveRecord::Base
acts_as_with_readonly :read_only
end


*** Code

record = ReadWriteModel.find(:first) # against slave_db
record.field = 'new value'
record.save! # against master_db