- Avoid iterating over non-unique columns
- Column definition
EachBatch
in data migrations-
Efficient usage of
each_batch
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 will end up producing 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
.
Avoid iterating over non-unique columns
One should proceed with extra caution, and possibly avoid iterating over a column that can contain duplicate values.
When you iterate over an attribute that is not unique, even with the applied max batch size, there is no guarantee that the resulting batches will not surpass it.
The following snippet demonstrates this situation, when one attempt to select Ci::Build
entries for users with id
between 1
and 10,s000
, database returns 1 215 178
matching rows
[ gstg ] production> Ci::Build.where(user_id: (1..10_000)).size
=> 1215178
This happens because built relation is translated into 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 filters non-unique column by range WHERE "ci_builds"."user_id" BETWEEN ? AND ?
, even though the range size is limited to certain threshold (10,000
in previous example) this threshold does not translates to the size of 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 will be less than n
.
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.
distinct
method on the relation is necessary. Using not unique column without distinct
may result in each_batch
falling into endless loop as described at following issue
EachBatch
in data migrations
When dealing with data migrations the preferred way to iterate over large volume of data is using EachBatch
.
A special case of data migration is a 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 iterating over large tables. It’s important to highlight that EachBatch
is not going to 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 will likely time 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 does each_batch
work?
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 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 will look 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 in order 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
will produce 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
is going to “force” 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.
- 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 is going to cause problems or not. In 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 anticipate small index size. Including only the id
in the index definition also helps keeping 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 more generalized configuration.
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 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 is not going to 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 are 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 depends on the data distribution in the
issues
table.
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 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
EachBatch
vs BatchCount
When adding new counters for usage 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.