About once a week a question shows up on
that involves loading a database with truly epic volumes of data. For example "billions of rows in a single table for a month".
Billions of rows per month is a minimum insert rate of 385 row
Also, this quote is killer. "data for the past 5 years". That's a minimum of 60 billion rows.
This is a really, really poor use of an RDBMS. This requires some kind of well-planned hierarchy of storage and analytic solutions. Load and Query can't work.
The question is "What's the Goal"? Some of the Stack Overflow questions lack essential use cases, making it impossible to determine what these folks are trying to do.
What's certain, however, is that no human being is going to do an ad-hoc SQL query on 60 billion rows of anything. Analysis of data volumes like that will involve fairly narrow and specific queries.
Analysis of a subset may involve ad-hoc SQL queries. But the whole data set isn't really useful -- as a whole. It's useful when sliced and diced.
At this point, many DBA's pronounce me Heretic and Apostate. Anyone who suggests that a SQL database is (a) slow, and (b) biased toward ad-hoc queries must have fallen from the true path.
First, SQL is slow. A flat file is always faster. Try it. For reasonably well-structured data -- arriving at a sustained rate of 385 rows per second -- only a concurrent pipeline of flat-file processing can keep up. The dimensional conformance and fact table preparation has to be done in flat files. With no database loads involved at all.
Second, SQL is for ad-hoc processing. Most applications that have embedded SQL don't involve queries that the user types at the command line. However, most applications use SQL specifically to divorce the application from the physical data model. The idea is that SQL offers an ad-hoc scale of flexibility in exchange for glacial processing speed.
The first step is to acquire the data in some storage that will handle 60 billion rows of data. Even if the rows are small, this is a big pile of disk. Super-large files are a mistake, so it means a complex directory tree of several smaller files.
Ideally, some "sharding" algorithm is used so that perhaps a dozen files are in use concurrently, each getting 30 or so rows per second. This is a more sensible processing pace, achievable by heavily loaded devices.
Data acquisition is -- itself -- a highly parallelized operation. The rows must be immediately separated into pipelines. Each pipeline must be a multi-processing sequence of dimension conformance operations. At the end of each pipeline, a standardized row with all of the dimension FK's emerges and is appended to a file. Some flushing and periodic close-reopen operations will probably be reliable enough.
The dimension values can be built into a database. The facts, however, have to reside in flat files.
In the unlikely case that someone thinks they want to analyze all 60 billion rows, there are two things to be done. First, talk them out of it. Second, write special-purpose flat-file analyzers which do concurrent map-reduce operations on all of the various source files.
In the more likely use cases, folks want a subset of the data. In this case, there's a three-part process.
- Grab the relevant dimensions. They're in a master-dimension database, being constantly updated by the ongoing loads.
- Filter the facts. This is a massively parallel map-reduce process that extracts the relevant rows from the fact files and creates a "data mart" fact file.
- Load a datamart. This has dimensions and facts. The facts may have to be summarized to create appropriate sums and counts.
This subset datamart can be turned over to people for further slicing and dicing or whatever it is that they do with 60 billion rows of data.