I’m developing a .NET application with an auto refresh feature. Every table in my database has a MODIFIED_DATE column that gets updated after each update or insert. At the moment the auto refresh feature will apply to only one table, however it may change in the future. I’m currently considering the following possible solutions:
Client application runs a query on a timer e.g. every 10 sec and brings back all rows that have MODIFIED_DATE greater than last modified date stored in my application.
Keep a dedicated, open connection on each client computer that listens to firebird events and then runs a query once an event has been fired. The event will obviously by fired by the database after each update/insert using POST_EVENT command.
Develop a service that will sit on the server listening to the firebird database events and then use .NET remoting to notify client applications.
Could anyone advise me which of the above solutions is better in terms of performance and scalability?
I want the solution to have the minimum impact possible on the database workload.
Actually one of the nice features of Firebird is the ability to write user defined functions (UDF's) you can call the UDF directly from a trigger and the UDF could in turn notify your app (using standard interprocess communication) that an update has occured, this then becomes a notification model rather than a polling model and much more scaleable.
Caveat: the UDF needs to be a native dll (I believe) C++ or Delphi, there would most likely be quite a bit of sample code out there in Delphi.
This solution is the worst in terms of scalability. Most of the time clients will query for changes and get nothing in return. Big waste. Not to mention the 10 second delay for the changes to appear in the clients.
I've done this in the past and had some scalability problems as well. The thing is, when and event is fired, every client will query the server at once. Not very good. You may want to create some scheme to prevent this.
Basically the same as 2, only with a lot more work involved. ;)
Just a slight modification to answer 2:
You can create a UDF in any language that can created a shared library (with the sole exception of Java)
If you're running Netware, you can't call a UDF from Firebird
Related
I am developing a program in WPF.Net, and I need to know when somebody makes a change over any table of the database.
The idea is receive a event from the database when it was changed. I was reading a lot of articles but I can't find a method to resolve my problem.
Kind Regards
The best solution is to use a message queue. After your app commits a change to the database, the app also publishes a message on the message queue. Other clients then just wait for notifications on that message queue.
There are a few other common solutions, but all of them have disadvantages.
Polling. If a client is interested in recent changes, they run a query searching for new data every N seconds.
The downside is you have to keep polling even during times when there are no changes. You might have to poll very frequently, depending on how promptly you need to notice the changes. This adds to database load just to support the polling queries.
Also it costs more if you have many clients all polling for queries. In one system I supported, the database was struggling to process 30,000 queries per second just for clients running polling.
Change Data Capture. Using the binary log as a de facto message queue, because it records all the changes. Use a client tool such as Debezium, or write your own binlog tail client (this is a lot of work).
The downside is the binlog records all changes, not just those you want to be notified about. You have to filter it somehow. Also you have to learn how to use Debezium or equivalent tool.
Triggers. Write a trigger on the table that invokes a UDF to post notification outside the database. This is a bad idea, because the trigger executes when your insert/update/delete executes, not when the transaction commits. Clients could be notified of changes before the changes are committed, so if they go query the database right after they get the notification, the change is not visible to them yet.
Also a disadvantage because it requires you install a UDF extension in MySQL Server. MySQL doesn't normally have any way of posting an external notification.
I'm not a C# developer so I can't suggest specific code. But the general methods above are similar regardless of which language the app is written in.
I don't think this is possible with MySQL, DBs like MondgoDB have this sort of feature.
You may like to use the method described in this answer.
Essentially have date/time fields on rows where you can pull data since a certain date time. Or you could use a CQRS/Event stratagem and maybe use a message queue.
I have this scenario, and I don't really know where to start. Suppose there's a Web service-like app (might be API tho) hosted on a server. That app receives a request to proccess some data (through some method we will call processData(data theData)).
On the other side, there's a robot (might be installed on the same server) that procceses the data. So, The web-service inserts the request on a common Database (both programms have access to it), and it's supposed to wait for that row to change and send the results back.
The robot periodically check the database for new rows, proccesses the data and set some sort of flag to that row, indicating that the data was processed.
So the main problem here is, what should the method proccessData(..) do to check for the changes of the data row?.
I know one way to do it: I can build an iteration block that checks for the row every x secs. But i don't want to do that. What I want to do is to build some sort of event listener, that triggers when the row changes. I know it might involve some asynchronous programming
I might be dreaming, but is that even possible in a web enviroment.?
I've been reading about a SqlDependency class, Async and AWait classes, etc..
Depending on how much control you have over design of this distributed system, it might be better for its architecture if you take a step back and try to think outside the domain of solutions you have narrowed the problem down to so far. You have identified the "main problem" to be finding a way for the distributed services to communicate with each other through the common database. Maybe that is a thought you should challenge.
There are many potential ways for these components to communicate and if your design goal is to reduce latency and thus avoid polling, it might in fact be the right way for the service that needs to be informed of completion of this work item to be informed of it right away. However, if in the future the throughput of this system has to increase, processing work items in bulk and instead poll for the information might become the only feasible option. This is also why I have chosen to word my answer a bit more generically and discuss the design of this distributed system more abstractly.
If after this consideration your answer remains the same and you do want immediate notification, consider having the component that processes a work item to notify the component(s) that need to be notified. As a general design principle for distributed systems, it is best to have the component that is most authoritative for a given set of data to also be the component to answer requests about that data. In this case, the data you have is the completion status of your work items, so the best component to act on this would be the component completing the work items. It might be better for that component to inform calling clients and components of that completion. Here it's also important to know if you only write this data to the database for the sake of communication between components or if those rows have any value beyond the completion of a given work item, such as for reporting purposes or performance indicators (KPIs).
I think there can be valid reasons, though, why you would not want to have such a call, such as reducing coupling between components or lack of access to communicate with the other component in a direct manner. There are many communication primitives that allow such notification, such as MSMQ under Windows, or Queues in Windows Azure. There are also reasons against it, such as dependency on a third component for communication within your system, which could reduce the availability of your system and lead to outages. The questions you might want to ask yourself here are: "How much work can my component do when everything around it goes down?" and "What are my design priorities for this system in terms of reliability and availability?"
So I think the main problem you might want to really try to solve fist is a bit more abstract: how should the interface through which components of this distributed system communicate look like?
If after all of this you remain set on having the interface of communication between those components be the SQL database, you could explore using INSERT and UPDATE triggers in SQL. You can easily look up the syntax of those commands and specify Stored Procedures that then get executed. In those stored procedures you would want to check the completion flag of any new rows and possibly restrain the number of rows you check by date or have an ID for the last processed work item. To then notify the other component, you could go as far as using the built-in stored procedure XP_cmdshell to execute command lines under Windows. The command you execute could be a simple tool that pings your service for completion of the task.
I'm sorry to have initially overlooked your suggestion to use SQL Query Notifications. That is also a feasible way and works through the Service Broker component. You would define a SqlCommand, as if normally querying your database, pass this to an instance of SqlDependency and then subscribe to the event called OnChange. Once you execute the SqlCommand, you should get calls to the event handler you added to OnChange.
I am not sure, however, how to get the exact changes to the database out of the SqlNotificationEventArgs object that will be passed to your event handler, so your query might need to be specific enough for the application to tell that the work item has completed whenever the query changes, or you might have to do another round-trip to the database from your application every time you are notified to be able to tell what exactly has changed.
Are you referring to a Message Queue? The .Net framework already provides this facility. I would say let the web service manage an application level queue. The robot will request the same web service for things to do. Assuming that the data needed for the jobs are small, you can keep the whole thing in memory. I would rather not involve a database, if you don't already have one.
I have a database which can be updated from several instances of a C# .NET program.
I wish to have each of those programs notified when rows in a table change.
An obvious (but possibly quite wrong) approach might be to register a callback function within the .NET program with the CLR Stored Trigger in the SQL Server, so that it gets called when the trigger fires.
Is this the correct/possible way, or is there a better alternative?
Thanks
You could use SqlDependency to get notifications.
I have SQL Server database with information for files - I'm talking about custom properties. These are categories and description for each file.
The Windows Forms application is for the user. But I will also make a Windows Service that will track any changes with the files. If a change happens(renamed,moved,deleted) the service has to update that same database accordingly. And I think it should do it right away, without any delay.
Now this is going to be my first time making WS plus the first time I will have to handle concurrency (theoretically I know about threads and so on).
So:
First of all, is it OK if one process is updating a database another process may be using at the same time? Do you need to handle that situation on the first place? (Probably, fx in our daily "user lives" we can't modify a file when it's being used by another process)
Is the idea these two to share one data source good ?
If it is, then how to handle the concurrency ? I can use WCF for the messages between the two, but then does the solution have something to do with WCF ? Because I'm going to use this for the first time as well :D.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance for the time !
Since MS SQL is transactional there will be no big deal. You just have to watch out for data wich might be read and updated by one process - there it can be neccessary to use a Transaction scope (that's a .NET Class ;)).
From the Software architectural Point of view you should conside using a three-tier and not a two-tier application:
Two Tier:
Essentially your System with the persistance-layer (DB) communicating with the Clients directly
Three Tier:
Persistance-Layer <--> Logic-Layer (e.g. a WCF-Service handling the app logic) <--> Clients (Service and Forms - triggering app logic and showing results)
When it comes to concurrency it's going to be really straight forward. The MSSQL database engine handles just about all of it (e.g. locking and sharing). Further, if you leverage the SqlCommandBuilder to build your statements, the statements will automatically use optimistic concurrency.
As for the Windows service and how it gets notified, use a FileSystemWatcher, it going to be more efficient and you won't be published some service port on the local box.
I'd normally give you some good code examples but I'm answering this from my phone.
I have a table with a heavy load(many inserts/updates/deletes) in a SQL2005 database. I'd like to do some post processing for all these changes in as close to real time as possible(asynchronously so as not to lock the table in any way). I've looked a number of possible solutions but just can't seem to find that one neat solution that feels right.
The kind of post processing is fairly heavy as well, so much so that the windows listener service is actually going to pass the processing over to a number of machines. However this part of the application is already up and running, completetly asynchronous, and not what I need help with - I just wanted to mention this simply because it affects the design decision in that we couldn't just load up some CLR object in the DB to complete the processing.
So, The simple problem remains: data changes in a table, I want to do some processing in c# code on a remote server.
At present we've come up with using a sql trigger, which executes "xp_cmdshell" to lauch an exe which raises an event which the windows service is listening for. This just feels bad.
However, other solutions I've looked at online feel rather convoluted too. For instance setting up SQLCacheDependancy also involves having to setup Service broker. Another possible solution is to use a CLR trigger, which can call a webservice, but this has so many warnings online about it being a bad way to go about it, especially when performance is critical.
Idealy we wouldn't depnd on the table changes but would rather intercept the call inside our application and notify the service from there, unfortunately though we have some legacy applications making changes to the data too, and monitoring the table is the only centralised place at the moment.
Any help would be most appreciated.
Summary:
Need to respond to table data changes in real time
Performance is critical
High volume of traffic is expected
Polling and scheduled tasks are not an option(or real time)
Implementing service broker too big (but might be only solution?)
CLR code is not yet ruled out, but needs to be perfomant if suggested
Listener / monitor may be remote machine(likely to be same phyisical network)
You really don't have that many ways to detect changes in SQL 2005. You already listed most of them.
Query Notifications. This is the technology that powers SqlDependency and its derivatives, you can read more details on The Mysterious Notification. But QN is designed to invalidate results, not to pro-actively notify change content. You will only know that the table has changes, without knowing what changed. On a busy system this will not work, as the notifications will come pretty much continously.
Log reading. This is what transactional replication uses and is the least intrusive way to detect changes. Unfortunately is only available to internal components. Even if you manage to understand the log format, the problem is that you need support from the engine to mark the log as 'in use' until you read it, or it may be overwritten. Only transactional replication can do this sort of special marking.
Data compare. Rely on timestamp columns to detect changes. Is also pull based, quite intrussive and has problems detecting deletes.
Application Layer. This is the best option in theory, unless there are changes occuring to the data outside the scope of the application, in which case it crumbles. In practice there are always changes occuring outside the scope of the application.
Triggers. Ultimately, this is the only viable option. All change mechanisms based on triggers work the same way, they queue up the change notification to a component that monitors the queue.
There are always suggestions to do a tightly coupled, synchronous notification (via xp_cmdshell, xp_olecreate, CLR, notify with WCF, you name it), but all these schemes fail in practice because they are fundamentally flawed:
- they do not account for transaction consistency and rollbacks
- they introduce availability dependencies (the OLTP system cannot proceed unless the notified component is online)
- they perform horribly as each DML operation has to wait for an RPC call of some form to complete
If the triggers do not actually actively notify the listeners, but only queue up the notifications, there is a problem in monitoring the notifications queue (when I say 'queue', I mean any table that acts as a queue). Monitoring implies pulling for new entries in the queue, which means balancing the frequency of checks correctly with the load of changes, and reacting to load spikes. This is not trivial at all, actually is very difficult. However, there is one statement in SQL server that has the semantics to block, without pulling, until changes become available: WAITFOR(RECEIVE). That means Service Broker. You mentioned SSB several times in your post, but you are, rightfuly so, scared of deploying it because of the big unknown. But the reality is that it is, by far, the best fit for the task you described.
You do not have to deploy a full SSB architecture, where the notificaition is delivered all the way to the remote service (that would require a remote SQL instance anyway, even an Express one). All you need to accomplice is to decouple the moment when the change is detected (the DML trigger) from the moment when the notification is delivered (after the change is commited). For this all you need is a local SSB queue and service. In the trigger you SEND a change notification to the local service. After the original DML transaction commits, the service procedure activates and delivers the notification, using CLR for instance. You can see an example of something similar to this at Asynchronous T-SQL.
If you go down that path there are some tricks you'll need to learn to achieve high troughput and you must understant the concept of ordered delivery of messages in SSB. I reommend you read these links:
Reusing Conversations
Writing Service Broker Procedures
SQL Connections 2007 Demo
About the means to detect changes, SQL 2008 apparently adds new options: Change Data Capture and Change Tracking. I emphasizes 'apparently', since they are not really new technologies. CDC uses log reader and is based on the existing Transactional replication mechanisms. CT uses triggers and is very similar to existing Merge replication mechanisms. They are both intended for occasionally connected systems that need to sync up and hence not appropiate for real-time change notification. They can populate the change tables, but you are left with the task to monitor these tables for changes, which is exactly from where you started.
This could be done in many ways. below method is simple since you dont want to use CLR triggers and sqlcmd options.
Instead of using CLR triggers you can create the normal insert trigger which updates the dedicated tracking table on each insert.
And develop dedicated window service which actively polls on the tracking table and update the remote service if there is any change in the data and set the status in tracking table to done (so it wont be picked again)..
EDIT:
I think Microsoft sync services for ADO.Net can work for you. Check out the below links. It may help you
How to: Use SQL Server Change Tracking - sql server 2008
Use a Custom Change Tracking System - below sql server 2008
In similar circumstances we are using CLR trigger that is writing messages to the queue (MSMQ). Service written in C# is monitoring the queue and doing post-processing.
In our case it is all done on the same server, but you can send those messages directly to the remote queue, on a different machine, totally bypassing "local listener".
The code called from trigger looks like this:
public static void SendMsmqMessage(string queueName, string data)
{
//Define the queue path based on the input parameter.
string QueuePath = String.Format(".\\private$\\{0}", queueName);
try
{
if (!MessageQueue.Exists(QueuePath))
MessageQueue.Create(QueuePath);
//Open the queue with the Send access mode
MessageQueue MSMQueue = new MessageQueue(QueuePath, QueueAccessMode.Send);
//Define the queue message formatting and create message
BinaryMessageFormatter MessageFormatter = new BinaryMessageFormatter();
Message MSMQMessage = new Message(data, MessageFormatter);
MSMQueue.Send(MSMQMessage);
}
catch (Exception x)
{
// async logging: gotta return from the trigger ASAP
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(LogException), x);
}
}
Since you said there're many inserts running on that table, a batch processing could fit better.
Why did just create a scheduled job, which handle new data identified by a flag column, and process data in large chunks?
Use the typical trigger to fire a CLR on the database. This CLR will only start a program remotely using the Win32_Process Class:
http://motevich.blogspot.com/2007/11/execute-program-on-remote-computer.html