Patient: "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Then don't do that."
I got an email with hundreds of words of content. This part made sense: "...doing wild card searches using Oracle's database engine and are wondering why is it so slow and how do they make it go faster."
The rest made very little sense at all. The programmer in question immediately dove into nuances of indexing, Oracle pattern matching, Oracle Text Query and other technical questions. The entire focus was on the technical ins-and-outs.
Not a single word on why wildcards were even being used in the first place. Wildcards appear to solve a business problem; the business problem was never mentioned.
Use Case for Wildcards
After some back-and-forth, the use case emerged. We'll address it below. Essentially, the invoices have names (really) that have "rich semantic content". These invoice names have the form "{customer} {time period} {offering}".
Apparently, the use case is "slice-and-dice" queries. All invoices for a given customer; all invoices in a given time period; all invoices for a given offering; various combinations.
Really. Rather than provide discrete dimensions and use a star schema, they've (a) combined all attributes into a single free-text field and (b) used wild-card searches and now (c) want to complain about it.
We'll return to this use case below.
Basic Rules
Here's are the two rules.
Wild Cards Are The Last Resort For Human-Friendly Search.
Outside Human-Friendly Search, Wild Cards Are Useless.
Let's look at rule 1: Wild Cards Are The Last Resort For Human-Friendly Search.
When a person enters a search string on a web page, we have two choices.
- Trust them to enter the exact field as it appears in the database
- Presume that people are fallible and cannot be trusted to enter the exact field.
In case #1 (exact match) we might be using an account number, shipping number, an invoice number or some kind of surrogate key. In this case, we do simple equality checks. If the user can't get it right, bummer. In many cases, this is appropriate to prevent snooping.
In case #2 (partial match), we're forced to use a some kind of SQL LIKE clause for the human-friendly search. We have several implementation choices, some in the database, some out of the database. Some in-the-database solutions benefit from clever indexing. Many in-the-database solutions are pretty slow.
Yes, an out-of-the-database solution may actually be faster. Until we benchmark, we can't know. There's no trivial rule that says the database always does search faster. For real speed, we may have to resort to a hybrid solution.
Search Optimization
We might create a small RESTful server for our searchable text fields. This is a cache; the server should handle CRUD rules to assure cache coherence. This search server can uses a Regular Expression engine, or perhaps compute Levenshtein distances or whatever makes sense to optimize user-oriented search.
If we're searching in larger chunks of text, we might want to use a commercial full-text search.
What's essential about this plan is that we're looking at application-specific optimizations. People need flexibility for specific reasons. It's important to look at the actual use cases where a person cannot make an exact match lookup. What problems do they have?
An application may have to deal with customer names. These are often difficult to spell consistently. (Is it "AT&T" or "ATT"?) For this kind of thing Levenshtein Distance might make more sense than wild-card searches.
An application may have to deal with time periods. "2010", "2Q 2010", "July 2010", etc. This is best handled by decomposing time periods into discrete fields and doing appropriate exact match on the specific, relevant fields. The issue is that there are a lot of formulations and some text parsing can be better than a form with a million drop-downs.
An application may have to deal with oddly-named offerings. Marketing calls it one thing. Sales folks call it another. The customer's invoice may call it a third, and the help desk may not use any of those phrases. This may benefit from wild-cards.
Note that we're looking at the business issues. Not the technology issues.
Design Errors
The proper use for LIKE is only to optimize the human-friendly search. Nothing else. Which brings us to rule 2, Outside Human-Friendly Search, Wild Cards are Useless.
Outside human search, every wild-card in a SQL statement indicates a serious database design error. Serious? Error? Yes.
LIKE clauses outside human search indicate a failure to create a design in first normal form (1NF). A field which is used in a LIKE clause has multiple parts, and should have been decomposed into pieces.
Decomposing a multi-part attribute isn't always trivial. There are two cases.
- Simple, regular format or punctuation. For example, SSN, US Phones or ZIP codes: 123-45-6789 or (123)555-1234 or 12345-1234.
- Complex, irregular format or punctuation. In this case, we have disjoint subtypes in a single table. Most manufacturing part numbers suffer from this.
In case 1, we have two choices: fully decompose or denormalize. In case 2, we can only denormalize because the rules are irregular.
The decomposition solution does not have to lead to a hideous user interface. We can have a web page with a single text field for phone numbers. We can parse that string and decompose the phone number into area code, exchange and number for purposes of database storage. We don't have to thoughtlessly force the users to decompose a field that they don't see as being in three parts.
The denormalization solution means that we have to do some calculation when we accept the input value. We save the full field, plus we extract the various sub-fields based on whatever hellish, complex rules we're faced with.
Implementation Choices
Whenever we have a single text field with "rich semantic content" (i.e., combines multiple disjoint attributes like customer, time period and offering) what we're seeing is a clever way to push database design onto the users. The expectation is that IT will (1) understand the use cases, (2) provide a proper design and (3) optimize performance around that design.
A big text field and wild-card search (and the attendant email traffic) indicates an explicit unwillingness to discuss the real use cases, unwillingness to do design, and a lame hope that somehow wild-card searches can magically be made faster through magical indexing or other super-natural techniques.
The "rich semantic content" field can be decomposed one of two ways.
- In the GUI. Add drop-downs so users pick the customer, time period, and product offering information.
- In the Application. Parse the big text field into smaller text fields that don't require wild-card search.
There isn't any magic. If wild-card searches are too slow, they have to be replaced.
Benefits?
The benefit of decomposing (or denormalizing) a complex field is that we can eliminate LIKE processing and wild-cards. Instead of "LONG_TEXT_FIELD LIKE '%2Q 2010%'", we can do "DATE.QUARTER=2 AND DATE.YEAR=2010".
All the technical folderol related to indexing and full-text search and database regular expression engines goes right out the window.
The cost is that we have to "wrap" the INSERT and UPDATE processing in a class definition that does the denormalization. That's what a data model layer is for: these kinds of business rules. The insert/update cost, BTW, will be microscopic compared to the number of SELECTs. The extra time spent at INSERT will be handsomely amortized over all the simplified SELECT operations.
Check out the book
Search Patterns Design for Dis... -----------------------------------------------------
Robert Lucente<noreply@blogger.com>
2011-01-26 05:15:46.122000-05:00
Check out the book Search Patterns Design for Discovery By Peter Morville, Jeffery Callender http://oreilly.com/catalog/9781449380335 It is slightly off topic because talking about searching in general and not wild card searching in particular