Скачать или смотреть Is It Good or Bad Practice to Use update with each in KDB+ /Q?

Explore the pros and cons of using the `update` statement with `each` in KDB+ /Q, and understand its memory implications for performance optimization.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/64412570/ asked by the user 'egor7' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/689990/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/64414296/ provided by the user 'jasonfealy' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/13661830/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: Select a table from the inside of external select

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Is It Good or Bad Practice to Use update with each in KDB+ /Q?

In the world of KDB+ /Q programming, efficient data handling is crucial when dealing with large datasets. A common question that often arises among developers is the viability of using update with the each function. Specifically, can you leverage each to add new columns or modify existing data in a way that doesn't negatively impact performance? In this blog, we’ll explore this question and examine whether this technique is a good or bad practice.

The Problem with Using update and each

The technique in question allows you to conduct updates on tables by executing:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

While it seems efficient, there is a potential concern about memory consumption. The original query drew attention to how doing so with other tables might lead to excessive memory usage. To further understand the ramifications, let's break down the examples provided.

Memory Consumption Observations

Setup of the Tables:

The first experiment involved two tables (t1 and t2):

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

And the update operation:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

The example suggested possible memory overuse due to using different tables.

Performance with Large Datasets:

A larger dataset scenario was tested involving one million rows.

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Different update methods were tried, yielding similar memory consumption:

update s:{(xa)+ xb} each t from t;

update s:{(xa)+ xb} each ([]a;b) from t;

update s:{x+ y}'[a;b] from t;

Despite using different approaches, the memory footprint remained consistently high across methods.

The Solution: Why the Memory Consumption is Comparable

The explanation for the apparent memory equivalence in the tests lies in how the updates are processed. When using each, you are iterating over each row individually, which triggers multiple memory allocations. This incremental memory building can consume larger amounts of memory, especially with numerous aggregate operations.

Recommendations for Better Memory Management

Instead of relying on the each operation, it's often advisable to use vector operations whenever possible to enhance performance and minimize memory usage. Here's a breakdown of how vector operations can yield better efficiency:

Instead of:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Consider using:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Benefits of vector operations:

Reduced Memory Calls: Fewer memory blocks are allocated.

Higher Performance: Faster execution due to optimized data handling.

Benchmarking

The performance and memory testing results depicted the stark difference in efficiency when using vector operations:

Time with each:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Time with Vector Operation:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Conclusion

Using update with each in KDB+ /Q can lead to comparable memory usage across various implementations. However, it is generally considered a bad practice because it results in inefficient memory allocation patterns. Instead, adopting vector operations will help optimize performance and reduce memory consumption significantly.

In summary, always strive for better practices in your KDB+ /Q implementations by favoring vectorized operations, which promise not just superior performance but also a better resource footprint.