24 KiB
stage | group | info |
---|---|---|
Data Stores | Database | To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/technical-writing/#assignments |
Iterating tables in batches
Rails provides a method called in_batches
that can be used to iterate over
rows in batches. For example:
User.in_batches(of: 10) do |relation|
relation.update_all(updated_at: Time.now)
end
Unfortunately, this method is implemented in a way that is not very efficient, both query and memory usage wise.
To work around this you can include the EachBatch
module into your models,
then use the each_batch
class method. For example:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
include EachBatch
end
User.each_batch(of: 10) do |relation|
relation.update_all(updated_at: Time.now)
end
This produces queries such as:
User Load (0.7ms) SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" WHERE ("users"."id" >= 41654) ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1 OFFSET 1000
(0.7ms) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "users" WHERE ("users"."id" >= 41654) AND ("users"."id" < 42687)
The API of this method is similar to in_batches
, though it doesn't support
all of the arguments that in_batches
supports. You should always use
each_batch
unless you have a specific need for in_batches
.
Iterating over non-unique columns
You should not use the each_batch
method with a non-unique column (in the context of the relation) as it
may result in an infinite loop.
Additionally, the inconsistent batch sizes cause performance issues when you
iterate over non-unique columns. Even when you apply a max batch size
when iterating over an attribute, there's no guarantee that the resulting
batches don't surpass it. The following snippet demonstrates this situation
when you attempt to select
Ci::Build
entries for users with id
between 1
and 10,000
, the database returns
1 215 178
matching rows.
[ gstg ] production> Ci::Build.where(user_id: (1..10_000)).size
=> 1215178
This happens because the built relation is translated into the following query:
[ gstg ] production> puts Ci::Build.where(user_id: (1..10_000)).to_sql
SELECT "ci_builds".* FROM "ci_builds" WHERE "ci_builds"."type" = 'Ci::Build' AND "ci_builds"."user_id" BETWEEN 1 AND 10000
=> nil
And
queries which filter non-unique column by range WHERE "ci_builds"."user_id" BETWEEN ? AND ?
,
even though the range size is limited to a certain threshold (10,000
in the previous example) this
threshold does not translate to the size of the returned dataset. That happens because when taking
n
possible values of attributes, one can't tell for sure that the number of records that contains
them is less than n
.
Loose-index scan with distinct_each_batch
When iterating over a non-unique column is necessary, use the distinct_each_batch
helper
method. The helper uses the loose-index scan technique
(skip-index scan) to skip duplicated values within a database index.
Example: iterating over distinct author_id
in the Issue model
Issue.distinct_each_batch(column: :author_id, of: 1000) do |relation|
users = User.where(id: relation.select(:author_id)).to_a
end
The technique provides stable performance between the batches regardless of the data distribution.
The relation
object returns an ActiveRecord scope where only the given column
is available.
Other columns are not loaded.
The underlying database queries use recursive CTEs, which adds extra overhead. We therefore advise to use
smaller batch sizes than those used for a standard each_batch
iteration.
Column definition
EachBatch
uses the primary key of the model by default for the iteration. This works most of the
cases, however in some cases, you might want to use a different column for the iteration.
Project.distinct.each_batch(column: :creator_id, of: 10) do |relation|
puts User.where(id: relation.select(:creator_id)).map(&:id)
end
The query above iterates over the project creators and prints them out without duplications.
NOTE:
In case the column is not unique (no unique index definition), calling the distinct
method on
the relation is necessary. Using not unique column without distinct
may result in each_batch
falling into an endless loop as described in following
issue.
EachBatch
in data migrations
When dealing with data migrations the preferred way to iterate over a large volume of data is using
EachBatch
.
A special case of data migration is a batched background migration
where the actual data modification is executed in a background job. The migration code that
determines the data ranges (slices) and schedules the background jobs uses each_batch
.
Efficient usage of each_batch
EachBatch
helps to iterate over large tables. It's important to highlight that EachBatch
does not magically solve all iteration-related performance problems, and it might not help at
all in some scenarios. From the database point of view, correctly configured database indexes are
also necessary to make EachBatch
perform well.
Example 1: Simple iteration
Let's consider that we want to iterate over the users
table and print the User
records to the
standard output. The users
table contains millions of records, thus running one query to fetch
the users likely times out.
This is a simplified version of the users
table which contains several rows. We have a few
smaller gaps in the id
column to make the example a bit more realistic (a few records were
already deleted). Currently, we have one index on the id
field.
Loading all users into memory (avoid):
users = User.all
users.each { |user| puts user.inspect }
Use each_batch
:
# Note: for this example I picked 5 as the batch size, the default is 1_000
User.each_batch(of: 5) do |relation|
relation.each { |user| puts user.inspect }
end
How each_batch
works
As the first step, it finds the lowest id
(start id
) in the table by executing the following
database query:
SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1
Notice that the query only reads data from the index (INDEX ONLY SCAN
), the table is not
accessed. Database indexes are sorted so taking out the first item is a very cheap operation.
The next step is to find the next id
(end id
) which should respect the batch size
configuration. In this example we used a batch size of 5. EachBatch
uses the OFFSET
clause
to get a "shifted" id
value.
SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" >= 1 ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1 OFFSET 5
Again, the query only looks into the index. The OFFSET 5
takes out the sixth id
value: this
query reads a maximum of six items from the index regardless of the table size or the iteration
count.
At this point, we know the id
range for the first batch. Now it's time to construct the query
for the relation
block.
SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" >= 1 AND "users"."id" < 302
Notice the <
sign. Previously six items were read from the index and in this query, the last
value is "excluded". The query looks at the index to get the location of the five user
rows on the disk and read the rows from the table. The returned array is processed in Ruby.
The first iteration is done. For the next iteration, the last id
value is reused from the
previous iteration to find out the next end id
value.
SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" >= 302 ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1 OFFSET 5
Now we can easily construct the users
query for the second iteration.
SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" >= 302 AND "users"."id" < 353
Example 2: Iteration with filters
Building on top of the previous example, we want to print users with zero sign-in count. We keep
track of the number of sign-ins in the sign_in_count
column so we write the following code:
users = User.where(sign_in_count: 0)
users.each_batch(of: 5) do |relation|
relation.each { |user| puts user.inspect }
end
each_batch
produces the following SQL query for the start id
value:
SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" WHERE "users"."sign_in_count" = 0 ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1
Selecting only the id
column and ordering by id
forces the database to use the
index on the id
(primary key index) column however, we also have an extra condition on the
sign_in_count
column. The column is not part of the index, so the database needs to look into
the actual table to find the first matching row.
NOTE: The number of scanned rows depends on the data distribution in the table.
- Best case scenario: the first user was never logged in. The database reads only one row.
- Worst case scenario: all users were logged in at least once. The database reads all rows.
In this particular example, the database had to read 10 rows (regardless of our batch size setting)
to determine the first id
value. In a "real-world" application it's hard to predict whether the
filtering causes problems or not. In the case of GitLab, verifying the data on a
production replica is a good start, but keep in mind that data distribution on GitLab.com can be
different from self-managed instances.
Improve filtering with each_batch
Specialized conditional index
CREATE INDEX index_on_users_never_logged_in ON users (id) WHERE sign_in_count = 0
This is how our table and the newly created index looks like:
This index definition covers the conditions on the id
and sign_in_count
columns thus makes the
each_batch
queries very effective (similar to the simple iteration example).
It's rare when a user was never signed in so we a anticipate small index size. Including only the
id
in the index definition also helps to keep the index size small.
Index on columns
Later on, we might want to iterate over the table filtering for different sign_in_count
values, in
those cases we cannot use the previously suggested conditional index because the WHERE
condition
does not match with our new filter (sign_in_count > 10
).
To address this problem, we have two options:
- Create another, conditional index to cover the new query.
- Replace the index with a more generalized configuration.
NOTE: Having multiple indexes on the same table and on the same columns could be a performance bottleneck when writing data.
Let's consider the following index (avoid):
CREATE INDEX index_on_users_never_logged_in ON users (id, sign_in_count)
The index definition starts with the id
column which makes the index very inefficient from data
selectivity point of view.
SELECT "users"."id" FROM "users" WHERE "users"."sign_in_count" = 0 ORDER BY "users"."id" ASC LIMIT 1
Executing the query above results in an INDEX ONLY SCAN
. However, the query still needs to
iterate over an unknown number of entries in the index, and then find the first item where the
sign_in_count
is 0
.
We can improve the query significantly by swapping the columns in the index definition (prefer).
CREATE INDEX index_on_users_never_logged_in ON users (sign_in_count, id)
The following index definition does not work well with each_batch
(avoid).
CREATE INDEX index_on_users_never_logged_in ON users (sign_in_count)
Since each_batch
builds range queries based on the id
column, this index cannot be used
efficiently. The DB reads the rows from the table or uses a bitmap search where the primary
key index is also read.
"Slow" iteration
Slow iteration means that we use a good index configuration to iterate over the table and apply filtering on the yielded relation.
User.each_batch(of: 5) do |relation|
relation.where(sign_in_count: 0).each { |user| puts user inspect }
end
The iteration uses the primary key index (on the id
column) which makes it safe from statement
timeouts. The filter (sign_in_count: 0
) is applied on the relation
where the id
is already
constrained (range). The number of rows is limited.
Slow iteration generally takes more time to finish. The iteration count is higher and one iteration could yield fewer records than the batch size. Iterations may even yield 0 records. This is not an optimal solution; however, in some cases (especially when dealing with large tables) this is the only viable option.
Using Subqueries
Using subqueries in your each_batch
query does not work well in most cases. Consider the following example:
projects = Project.where(creator_id: Issue.where(confidential: true).select(:author_id))
projects.each_batch do |relation|
# do something
end
The iteration uses the id
column of the projects
table. The batching does not affect the
subquery. This means for each iteration, the subquery is executed by the database. This adds a
constant "load" on the query which often ends up in statement timeouts. We have an unknown number
of confidential issues, the execution time
and the accessed database rows depend on the data distribution in the issues
table.
NOTE: Using subqueries works only when the subquery returns a small number of rows.
Improving Subqueries
When dealing with subqueries, a slow iteration approach could work: the filter on creator_id
can be part of the generated relation
object.
projects = Project.all
projects.each_batch do |relation|
relation.where(creator_id: Issue.where(confidential: true).select(:author_id))
end
If the query on the issues
table itself is not performant enough, a nested loop could be
constructed. Try to avoid it when possible.
projects = Project.all
projects.each_batch do |relation|
issues = Issue.where(confidential: true)
issues.each_batch do |issues_relation|
relation.where(creator_id: issues_relation.select(:author_id))
end
end
If we know that the issues
table has many more rows than projects
, it would make sense to flip
the queries, where the issues
table is batched first.
Using JOIN
and EXISTS
When to use JOINS
:
- When there's a 1:1 or 1:N relationship between the tables where we know that the joined record
(almost) always exists. This works well for "extension-like" tables:
projects
-project_settings
users
-user_details
users
-user_statuses
LEFT JOIN
works well in this case. Conditions on the joined table need to go to the yielded relation so the iteration is not affected by the data distribution in the joined table.
Example:
users = User.joins("LEFT JOIN personal_access_tokens on personal_access_tokens.user_id = users.id")
users.each_batch do |relation|
relation.where("personal_access_tokens.name = 'name'")
end
EXISTS
queries should be added only to the inner relation
of the each_batch
query:
User.each_batch do |relation|
relation.where("EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM ...")
end
Complex queries on the relation object
When the relation
object has several extra conditions, the execution plans might become
"unstable".
Example:
Issue.each_batch do |relation|
relation
.joins(:metrics)
.joins(:merge_requests_closing_issues)
.where("id IN (SELECT ...)")
.where(confidential: true)
end
Here, we expect that the relation
query reads the BATCH_SIZE
of user records and then
filters down the results according to the provided queries. The planner might decide that
using a bitmap index lookup with the index on the confidential
column is a better way to
execute the query. This can cause an unexpectedly high amount of rows to be read and the
query could time out.
Problem: we know for sure that the relation is returning maximum BATCH_SIZE
of records
however, the planner does not know this.
Common table expression (CTE) trick to force the range query to execute first:
Issue.each_batch(of: 1000) do |relation|
cte = Gitlab::SQL::CTE.new(:batched_relation, relation.limit(1000))
scope = cte
.apply_to(Issue.all)
.joins(:metrics)
.joins(:merge_requests_closing_issues)
.where("id IN (SELECT ...)")
.where(confidential: true)
puts scope.to_a
end
Counting records
For tables with a large amount of data, counting records through queries can result
in timeouts. The EachBatch
module provides an alternative way to iteratively count
records. The downside of using each_batch
is the extra count query which is executed
on the yielded relation object.
The each_batch_count
method is a more efficient approach that eliminates the need
for the extra count query. By invoking this method, the iteration process can be
paused and resumed as needed. This feature is particularly useful in situations
where error budget violations are triggered after five minutes, such as when performing
counting operations within Sidekiq workers.
To illustrate, counting records using EachBatch
involves invoking an additional
count query as follows:
count = 0
Issue.each_batch do |relation|
count += relation.count
end
puts count
On the other hand, the each_batch_count
method enables the counting process to be
performed more efficiently (counting is part of the iteration query) without invoking
an extra count query:
count, _last_value = Issue.each_batch_count # last value can be ignored here
Furthermore, the each_batch_count
method allows the counting process to be paused
and resumed at any point. This capability is demonstrated in the following code snippet:
stop_at = Time.current + 3.minutes
count, last_value = Issue.each_batch_count do
Time.current > stop_at # condition for stopping the counting
end
# Continue the counting later
stop_at = Time.current + 3.minutes
count, last_value = Issue.each_batch_count(last_count: count, last_value: last_value) do
Time.current > stop_at
end
EachBatch
vs BatchCount
When adding new counters for Service Ping, the preferred way to count records is using the
Gitlab::Database::BatchCount
class. The iteration logic implemented in BatchCount
has similar performance characteristics like EachBatch
. Most of the tips and suggestions
for improving BatchCount
mentioned above applies to BatchCount
as well.
Iterate with keyset pagination
There are a few special cases where iterating with EachBatch
does not work. EachBatch
requires one distinct column (usually the primary key), which makes the iteration impossible
for timestamp columns and tables with composite primary keys.
Where EachBatch
does not work, you can use
keyset pagination to iterate over the
table or a range of rows. The scaling and performance characteristics are very similar to
EachBatch
.
Examples:
- Iterate over the table in a specific order (timestamp columns) in combination with a tie-breaker if column user to sort by does not contain unique values.
- Iterate over the table with composite primary keys.
Iterate over the issues in a project by creation date
You can use keyset pagination to iterate over any database column in a specific order (for example,
created_at DESC
). To ensure consistent order of the returned records with the same values for
created_at
, use a tie-breaker column with unique values (for example, id
).
Assume you have the following index in the issues
table:
idx_issues_on_project_id_and_created_at_and_id" btree (project_id, created_at, id)
Fetching records for further processing
The following snippet iterates over issue records within the project using the specified order
(created_at, id
).
scope = Issue.where(project_id: 278964).order(:created_at, :id) # id is the tie-breaker
iterator = Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Iterator.new(scope: scope)
iterator.each_batch(of: 100) do |records|
puts records.map(&:id)
end
You can add extra filters to the query. This example only lists the issue IDs created in the last 30 days:
scope = Issue.where(project_id: 278964).where('created_at > ?', 30.days.ago).order(:created_at, :id) # id is the tie-breaker
iterator = Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Iterator.new(scope: scope)
iterator.each_batch(of: 100) do |records|
puts records.map(&:id)
end
Updating records in the batch
For complex ActiveRecord
queries, the .update_all
method does not work well, because it
generates an incorrect UPDATE
statement.
You can use raw SQL for updating records in batches:
scope = Issue.where(project_id: 278964).order(:created_at, :id) # id is the tie-breaker
iterator = Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Iterator.new(scope: scope)
iterator.each_batch(of: 100) do |records|
ApplicationRecord.connection.execute("UPDATE issues SET updated_at=NOW() WHERE issues.id in (#{records.dup.reselect(:id).to_sql})")
end
NOTE:
To keep the iteration stable and predictable, avoid updating the columns in the ORDER BY
clause.
Iterate over the merge_request_diff_commits
table
The merge_request_diff_commits
table uses a composite primary key (merge_request_diff_id, relative_order
), which makes EachBatch
impossible to use efficiently.
To paginate over the merge_request_diff_commits
table, you can use the following snippet:
# Custom order object configuration:
order = Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Order.build([
Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::ColumnOrderDefinition.new(
attribute_name: 'merge_request_diff_id',
order_expression: MergeRequestDiffCommit.arel_table[:merge_request_diff_id].asc,
nullable: :not_nullable,
distinct: false,
),
Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::ColumnOrderDefinition.new(
attribute_name: 'relative_order',
order_expression: MergeRequestDiffCommit.arel_table[:relative_order].asc,
nullable: :not_nullable,
distinct: false,
)
])
MergeRequestDiffCommit.include(FromUnion) # keyset pagination generates UNION queries
scope = MergeRequestDiffCommit.order(order)
iterator = Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Iterator.new(scope: scope)
iterator.each_batch(of: 100) do |records|
puts records.map { |record| [record.merge_request_diff_id, record.relative_order] }.inspect
end
Order object configuration
Keyset pagination works well with simple ActiveRecord
order
scopes
(first example.
However, in special cases, you need to describe the columns in the ORDER BY
clause (second example)
for the underlying keyset pagination library. When the ORDER BY
configuration cannot be
automatically determined by the keyset pagination library, an error is raised.
The code comments of the
Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::Order
and Gitlab::Pagination::Keyset::ColumnOrderDefinition
classes give an overview of the possible options for configuring the ORDER BY
clause. You can
also find a few code examples in the
keyset pagination documentation.