Thread: Optimizations
We run a student scoring system with PostgreSQL as a backend. After the results for each student are inputted into the
system,we display many reports for them. We haven't had a problem with efficiency or speed, but it has come up that
perhapsstoring the rolled up scores of each student may be better than calculating their score on the fly. I have
alwayscoded the SQL to calculate on the fly and do not see any benefit from calculating on the fly. For a test with
over100 questions and with 950 students having taken it, it calculates all their relevant score information in less
thanhalf a second. Would there be any obvious benefit to caching the results?
I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this.
Here is the structure:
A database to store and calculate student results.
Information about the student and which test they took:
\d test_registration;
Table "public.test_registration"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------
id | uuid | not null
sid | character varying(36) | not null
created_date | timestamp without time zone | not null default now()
modified_date | timestamp without time zone | not null
test_administration | uuid | not null
The actual results (what the student marked):
\d test_registration_result (linked to test_registration.id above)
Table "public.test_registration_result"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-------------------+-----------------------+-----------
test_registration | uuid | not null
question | uuid | not null
answer | character varying(15) |
\d question (information on each question)
Table "public.question"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-------------------+------------------------+---------------
id | uuid | not null
test | uuid | not null
question | integer | not null
weight | double precision |
\d question_answer (the answers for the question)
Table "public.question_answer"
Column | Type | Modifiers
----------+-----------------------+-----------
question | uuid | not null
answer | character varying(15) | not null
With a SQL query:
SELECT sid, raw_score, weighted_score, number_questions, total_weights,
( weighted_score / total_weights ) * 100.00 as mp_percentage,
total_weights
FROM
(
SELECT
tr.sid as sid,
sum (
(
SELECT (case when a.answer = r.answer then 1 else 0 end )
)
) as raw_score,
sum (
(
SELECT (case when a.answer = r.answer THEN q.weight end )
)
) as weighted_score,
.....
For 953 students on a test with 145 questions, this takes less than half a second to calculate. Is is worth storing the
score?
\d score_set
Table "public.score_set"
Column | Type | Modifiers
------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------
id | uuid | not null
sid | uuid | not null
test_registration_id | uuid | not null
test_administration_id | uuid | not null
score | double precision | not null
Will it be much faster? I know more storage will be needed.
Thank you
Ogden
Ogden wrote: > We run a student scoring system with PostgreSQL as a backend. After the results for each student are inputted into thesystem, we display many reports for them. We haven't had a problem with efficiency or speed, but it has come up that perhapsstoring the rolled up scores of each student may be better than calculating their score on the fly. I have alwayscoded the SQL to calculate on the fly and do not see any benefit from calculating on the fly. For a test with over100 questions and with 950 students having taken it, it calculates all their relevant score information in less thanhalf a second. Would there be any obvious benefit to caching the results? Caching the results would mean storing the same information in two places (individual scores, and aggregates calculated from them). That's room for error if they're permitted to get out of sync in any way for any reason. For that reason, and because it's complexity you don't need, I'd avoid it unless I had a reason not to. On the other hand if you expect the number of students you have to report on to grow vastly then it's worth considering. If you do go ahead with it, first restructure all queries that use that information so they go view a view that calculates that data on the fly. Then look at replacing that view with a table that's automatically updated by triggers when the data source is updated (say, a student has a new score recorded). -- Craig Ringer
On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:26 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Ogden wrote: >> We run a student scoring system with PostgreSQL as a backend. After the results for each student are inputted into thesystem, we display many reports for them. We haven't had a problem with efficiency or speed, but it has come up that perhapsstoring the rolled up scores of each student may be better than calculating their score on the fly. I have alwayscoded the SQL to calculate on the fly and do not see any benefit from calculating on the fly. For a test with over100 questions and with 950 students having taken it, it calculates all their relevant score information in less thanhalf a second. Would there be any obvious benefit to caching the results? > > Caching the results would mean storing the same information in two > places (individual scores, and aggregates calculated from them). That's > room for error if they're permitted to get out of sync in any way for > any reason. For that reason, and because it's complexity you don't need, > I'd avoid it unless I had a reason not to. > > On the other hand if you expect the number of students you have to > report on to grow vastly then it's worth considering. > > If you do go ahead with it, first restructure all queries that use that > information so they go view a view that calculates that data on the fly. > > Then look at replacing that view with a table that's automatically > updated by triggers when the data source is updated (say, a student has > a new score recorded). Craig, Thank you for the response and insight. While it sounds good in practice, I know storing the results will vastly increase the size (the table holding the resultsis over 5Gb in one case) and calculating results from it takes not more than a second for a huge data set. Would searching a huge table be as fast as calculating or about the same? I'll have to run some tests on my end but I amvery impressed by the speed of which PostgreSQL executes aggregate functions. Do you suggest looking at this option when we see the reporting to slow down? At that point do you suggest we go back tothe drawing board? Thank you Ogden
On 5/03/2010 10:09 PM, Ogden wrote: > Would searching a huge table be as fast as calculating or about the same? I'll have to run some tests on my end but I amvery impressed by the speed of which PostgreSQL executes aggregate functions. I'm not sure what you're asking. > Do you suggest looking at this option when we see the reporting to slow down? At that point do you suggest we go back tothe drawing board? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, it's a good idea to make it easy to fix later - for example, wrap your score calculations up into a view (see CREATE VIEW) so that you can replace it with a materialized view later if you start seeing performance issues. -- Craig Ringer