Divide & Conquer
Many of our recent projects involve the storage and use of flow and pressure data recorded on the water network. As our projects have grown, so have our database storage needs. We noticed we were experiencing a steady but consistent decline in query performance, particularly when accessing data for analysis from our time series repositories.
Flow and pressure data is usually recorded at 15-minute intervals on a water network. Our flagship Dynamic Pressure Modelling project in Severn Trent Water involved the deployment and maintenance of over 6000 pressure loggers in over 500 DMAs. Add in the existing flow and pressure data for these DMAs, including customer logging, and this adds up to almost 10,000 sites in total. With 10,000 sites recording 96 times a day, we are close to a million new rows of data per day.
Furthermore, as we have started to roll out our new Component Demand Analysis Model (CDAM), which involves in-depth time series analysis of historical DMA net flow data, we have been experiencing data sets of hundreds of millions and even billions of rows for our biggest clients.
Looking at both these scenarios, it was becoming increasingly apparent that we needed to improve and optimise our data storage methods.
Usually, when we are looking to improve query performance on large database tables, we tend to employ the use of indexes. Indexes are data structures used to help retrieve data quicker and are extremely effective. Think how useful the index at the end of a 1000 paged textbook is when looking for a particular topic, as opposed to turning every page one by one looking for that topic. However, when storing time series data for flow and pressure, the table structure for this data tends to be relatively simple and generally only consists of three core fields; a location reference, a timestamp, and the reading at that timestamp. We had initially started by creating indexes on the location and timestamp fields. Whilst this was extremely effective to begin with, we have since seen a steady rate of decline as the database tables have increased in size. Enter partitioning.
Partitioning refers to splitting what is one large table into many smaller physical ones. Indexes and partitions are not mutually exclusive and we believed that implementing a blend of partitions and indexes would provide us with the best solution for our use case.
As well as improved performance, partitioning also provides the following benefits:
Security – sensitive and insensitive data can be separated into different partitions with their own security rules.
Scalability – partitions can be split onto different servers removing any limitations by keeping a single database system on just one server.
Management & Maintenance – partitions can be fine tuned and managed to maximise operational efficiency and minimise cost.
Availability – separating data across multiple servers avoids a single point of failure.
Partitioning on a large database table can either be vertical or horizontal. Vertical partitioning involves splitting rows from one large parent table into many ‘child’ tables. Horizontal partitioning involves splitting the columns in a large table and storing them in multiple tables.
Figure 1: Vertical & Horizontal Partitioning
Partitioning in PostgreSQL
We have been using PostgreSQL for a number of our project databases due to its advanced spatial capabilities. PostgreSQL supports basic table partitioning and individual partitions are linked to their parent table utilising PostgreSQL’s inheritance rules behind-the-scenes. The following are some of the things we learned when looking into partitioning in PostgreSQL:
Range – the table is partitioned into ‘ranges’ defined by a key column(s), with no overlap between the ranges of values assigned to different partitions.
List – the table is partitioned by explicitly listing which key values appear in each partition.
Figure 2: Partition Types in PostgreSQL
It is not possible to turn a regular table into a partitioned table or vice versa.
You cannot create keys/indexes, constraints for all tables automatically.
You cannot enforce uniqueness across all partitions.
It is not possible to make an update which moves one row from one partition to another.
Implementation & Maintenance
Considering the above criteria and limitations within PostgreSQL, we have been able to adopt the implementation of partitioning to our existing project databases with relatively little fuss. We have predominantly applied ‘range’ partitioning by timestamp, rather than partitioning by ‘list’ which in this case would involve defining and grouping location references and therefore require extra initial effort to define logical groupings. The main change to our traditional approach of first, ‘initialise a project database’ and then second, ‘use the project database’, is that now an extra level of database management and maintenance is required throughout the lifecycle of a project database.
This level of maintenance particularly applies to databases which are updated on a daily basis, such as our DPM offering. Rather than keeping the set of partitions as static and predefined, we have started to partition these data sets into ‘active’ and ‘dormant’ partitions (for data older than three months) so that we can have the option of detaching this data. This gives us the flexibility of either archiving and storing this data set in a cheaper storage option (so it can still be accessed) or to seamlessly bulk delete unwanted data.
As for projects such as our CDAM platform, which requires the bulk insert of millions of records as one initial task, pre-defined partitioning has provided us with an invaluable, but very simple, method to create large tables that can be accessed and queried very efficiently for data mining and gaining invaluable insight into water consumption patterns.
Partitioning has proven to be an extremely effective technique to efficiently store large quantities of data without suffering the expected performance blight that comes with such scaling. The ‘out of the box’ capabilities that PostgreSQL provides have proven to be relatively straightforward to implement. We have learned that effective database design, which involves understanding when best to use indexing, partitioning or likely a blend of both, is key.