I have a Redshift table lineitem with 303 million rows. The sortkey is on l_receiptdate.
l_receiptdate
l_shipmode
1992-01-03
TRUCK
1992-01-03
TRUCK
1992-03-03
SHIP
1993-02-03
AIR
1993-05-03
SHIP
1993-07-03
AIR
1993-09-05
AIR
Ultimate goal: find what shipmode was used the most for each year. Return year, shipmode, and count for that most popular ship mode.
Expected output:
receiptyear
shipmode
ship_mode_count
1992
TRUCK
2
1993
AIR
3
I'm new to Redshift and it's nuances. I know 303 million rows isn't considered big data but I'd like to start learning Redshift best query practices from the beginning. Below is what I have so far, not sure how to move forward:
select DATE_TRUNC('year', l_receiptdate) as receiptyear,
l_shipmode as shipmode,
count(*) as ship_mode_count
FROM lineitem
group by 1,2
Your query is fine, in a general sense. The missing piece of data is what is the distribution key of the table? You see Redshift is a clustered (distributed) database and this distribution is controlled by the DISTSTYLE and DISTKEY of the table.
Here's a simple way to think about the performance of a Redshift query. Given the nature of Redshift there are few aspects that tend to dominate poorly performing queries:
Too much network redistribution of data
Scanning too much data from disk
Spilling to disk, making more data than needed through cross or looped joins, and a whole bunch of other baddies.
Your query has no joins so #3 isn't an issue. Your query needs to scan the entire table from disk so there is nothing that can be better in #2. However, #1 is where your could get in trouble especially when your data grows.
Your query needs to group by the ship mode and the year. This means that all the data for each unique combination of these needs to be brought together. So if your table was distributed by ship mode (don't do this)
then all the data for each value would reside on a single "slice" of the database and no network data transmission would be needed to perform the count. However you don't to do this in this case since you are just dealing with a COUNT() function and Redshift is smart enough to count locally and then ship the partial results, which are much smaller than the original data, to one place for the final count.
If more complicated actions were being performed that can't be done in parts, then the distribution of the table could make a big difference to the query. Having the data all in one place when rows need to be combined (join, group by, partition, etc) can prevent a lot of data needed to be shipped around the cluster via the network.
Your query will work fine but hopefully walking through this mental exercise helps you understand Redshift better.
Related
We have a system where we do some aggregations in Redshift based on some conditions. We aggregate this data with complex joins which usually takes about 10-15 minutes to complete. We then show this aggregated data on Tableau to generate our reports.
Lately, we are getting many changes regarding adding a new dimension ( which usually requires join with a new table) or get data on some more specific filter. To entertain these requests we have to change our queries everytime for each of our subprocesses.
I went through OLAP a little bit. I just want to know if it would be better in our use case or is there any better way to design our system to entertain such adhoc requests which does not require developer to change things everytime.
Thanks for the suggestions in advance.
It would work, rather it should work. Efficiency is the key here. There are few things which you need to strictly monitor to make sure your system (Redshift + Tableau) remains up and running.
Prefer Extract over Live Connection (in Tableau)
Live connection would query the system everytime someone changes the filter or refreshes the report. Since you said the dataset is large and queries are complex, prefer creating an extract. This'll make sure data is available upfront whenever someone access your dashboard .Do not forget to schedule the extract refresh, other wise the data will be stale forever.
Write efficient queries
OLAP systems are expected to query a large dataset. Make sure you write efficient queries. It's always better to first get a small dataset and join them rather than bringing everything in the memory and then joining / using where clause to filter the result.
A query like (select foo from table1 where ... )a left join (select bar from table2 where) might be the key at times where you only take out small and relevant data and then join.
Do not query infinite data.
Since this is analytical and not transactional data, have an upper bound on the data that Tableau will refresh. Historical data has an importance, but not from the time of inception of your product. Analysing the data for the past 3, 6 or 9 months can be the key rather than querying the universal dataset.
Create aggregates and let Tableau query that table, not the raw tables
Suppose you're analysing user traits. Rather than querying a raw table that captures 100 records per user per day, design a table which has just one (or two) entries per user per day and introduce a column - count which'll tell you the number of times the event has been triggered. By doing this, you'll be querying sufficiently smaller dataset but will be logically equivalent to what you were doing earlier.
As mentioned by Mr Prashant Momaya,
"While dealing with extracts,your storage requires (size)^2 of space if your dashboard refers to a data of size - **size**"
Be very cautious with whatever design you implement and do not forget to consider the most important factor - scalability
This is a typical problem and we tackled it by writing SQL generators in Python. If the definition of the metric is the same (like count(*)) but you have varying dimensions and filters you can declare it as JSON and write a generator that will produce the SQL. Example with pageviews:
{
metric: "unique pageviews"
,definition: "count(distinct cookie_id)"
,source: "public.pageviews"
,tscol: "timestamp"
,dimensions: [
['day']
,['day','country']
}
can be relatively easy translated to 2 scripts - this:
drop table metrics_daily.pageviews;
create table metrics_daily.pageviews as
select
date_trunc('day',"timestamp") as date
,count(distinct cookie_id) as "unique_pageviews"
from public.pageviews
group by 1;
and this:
drop table metrics_daily.pageviews_by_country;
create table metrics_daily.pageviews_by_country as
select
date_trunc('day',"timestamp") as date
,country
,count(distinct cookie_id) as "unique_pageviews"
from public.pageviews
group by 1,2;
the amount of complexity of a generator required to produce such sql from such config is quite low but in increases exponentially as you need to add new joins etc. It's much better to keep your dimensions in the encoded form and just use a single wide table as aggregation source, or produce views for every join you might need and use them as sources.
I've created the following table on GreenPlum:
CREATE TABLE data."CDR"
(
mcc text,
mnc text,
lac text,
cell text,
from_number text,
to_number text,
cdr_time timestamp without time zone
)
WITH (
OIDS = FALSE,appendonly=true, orientation=column,compresstype=quicklz, compresslevel=1
)
DISTRIBUTED BY (from_number);
I've loaded one billion rows to this table but every query works very slow.
I need to do queries on all fields (not only one),
What can I do to speed up my queries?
Using PARTITION? using indexes?
maybe using a different DB like Cassandra or Hadoop?
This highly depends on the actual queries you are doing and what your hardware setup looks like.
Since you are querying all the fields the selectivity gained by going columnar orientation is probably hurting you more than helping, as you needs to scan all the data anyway. I would remove columnar orientation.
Generally speaking indexes don't help in a Greenplum system. Usually the amount of hardware that is involved tends to make scanning the data directory faster than doing index lookups.
Partitioning could be a great help but there would need to be a better understanding of the data. You are probably accessing specific time intervals so creating a partitioning scheme around cdr_time could eliminate the scan of data not needed for the result. The last thing I would worry about is indexes.
Your distribution by from_number could have an impact on query speed. The system will hash the data based on from_number so if you are querying selectively on the from_number the data will only be returned by the node that has it and you won't be leveraging the parallel nature of the system and spreading the request across all of the nodes. Unless you are joining to other tables on from_number, which allows the joins to be collocated and performed within the node, I would change that to be distributed RANDOMLY.
On top of all of that there is the question of what the hardware is and if you have a proper amount of segments setup and resources to feed them. Essentially every segment is a database. Good hardware can handle multiple segments per node, but if you are doing this on a light hardware you need to find the sweet spot where number of segments matches what the underlying system can provide.
#Dor,
I have same type of data where CDR info is stored for a telecom company, and daily 10-12 millions rows inserted and also heavy queries running on those CDRs related tables, I was also facing the same issue last year, and i have created partitions on those tables on the CDR timings column.
As per My understanding GP creates physical tables for each partition whereas logical tables created in other RDBMS. After this I got better performance with all SELECTs on these tables. Also I think you should convert text datatype to Character Varying for all columns (if text is really not required) I felt DB operations on Text field is very slow(specially order by, group by)
index will help you depends on your queries in my case i have huge inserts so i didnt try yet
If you are selecting all the columns in select so no need of Column Oriented table
Regards
I'm currently storing rankings in MongoDB (+ nodejs as API) . It's now at 10 million records, so it's okay for now but the dataset will be growing drastically in the near future.
At this point I see two options:
MongoDB Sharding
Change Database
The queries performed on the database will not be text searches, but for example:
domain, keyword, language, start date, end date
keyword, language, start date, end date
A rank contains a:
1. domain
2. url
3. keyword
4. keyword language
5. position
6. date (unix)
Requirement is to be able to query and analyze the data without caching. For example get all data for domain x, between dates y, z and analyze the data.
I'm noticing a perfomance decrease lately and I'm looking into other databases. The one that seems to fit the job best is Cassandra, I did some testing and it looked promising, performance is good. Using Amazon EC2 + Cassandra seems a good solution, since it's easilly scalable.
Since I'm no expert on Cassandra I would like to know if Cassandra is the way to go. Secondly, what would be the best practice / database model.
Make a collection for (simplified):
domains (domain_id, name)
keywords (keyword_id, name, language)
rank (domain_id, keyword_id, position, url, unix)
Or put all in one row:
domain, keyword, language, position, url, unix
Any tips, insights would be greatly appreciated.
Cassandra relies heavily on query driven modelling. It's very restrictive in how you can query, but it is possible to fit an awful lot of requirements within those capabilities. For any large scale database, knowing your queries is important, but in terms of cassandra, it's almost vital.
Cassandra has the notion of primary keys. Each primary key consists of one or more keys (read columns). The first column (which may be a composite) is referred to as the partition key. Cassandra keeps all "rows" for a partition in the same place (on disk, in mem, etc.), and a partition is the unit of replication, etc.
Additional keys in the primary key are called clustering keys. Data within a partition are ordered according to successive clustering keys. For instance, if your primary key is (a, b, c, d) then data will be partitioned by hashing a, and within a partition, data will be ordered by b, c and d.
For efficient querying, you must hit one (or very few) partitions. So your query must have a partition key. This MUST be exact equality (no starts with, contains, etc.). Then you need to filter down to your targets. This can get interesting too:
Your query can specify exact equality conditions for successive clustering keys, and a range (or equality) for the last key in your query. So, in the previous example, this is allowed:
select * from tbl where a=a1 and b=b1 and c > c1;
This is not:
select * from tbl where a=a1 and b>20 and c=c1;
[You can use allow filtering for this]
or
select * from tbl where a=a1 and c > 20;
Once you understand the data storage model, this makes sense. One of the reason cassandra is so fast for queries is that it pin points data in a range and splats it out. If it needed to do pick and choose, it'd be slower. You can always grab data and filter client side.
You can also have secondary indexes on columns. These would allow you to filter on exact equality on non-key columns. Be warned, never use a query with a secondary index without specifying a partition key. You'll be doing a cluster query which will time out in real usage. (The exception is if you're using Spark and locality is being honoured, but that's a different thing altogether).
In general, it's good to limit partition sizes to less than a 100mb or at most a few hundred meg. Any larger, you'll have problems. Usually, a need for larger partitions suggests a bad data model.
Quite often, you'll need to denormalise data into multiple tables to satisfy all your queries in a fast manner. If your model allows you to query for all your needs with the fewest possible tables, that's a really good model. Often that might not be possible though, and denormalisation will be necessary. For your question, the answer to whether or not all of it goes in one row depends on whether you can still query it and keep partition sizes less than 100 meg or not if everything is in one row.
For OLTP, cassandra will be awesome IF you can build the data model that works the way Cassandra does. Quite often OLAP requirements won't be satisfied by this. The current tool of choice for OLAP with Cassandra data is the DataStax Spark connector + Apache Spark. It's quite simple to use, and is really powerful.
That's quite a brain dump. But it should give you some idea of the things you might need to learn if you intend to use Cassandra for a real world project. I'm not trying to put you off Cassandra or anything. It's an awesome data store. But you have to learn what it's doing to harness its power. It works very different to Mongo, and you should expect a mindshift when switching. It's most definitely NOT like switching from mysql to sql server.
What i have:
Simple server with one xeon with 8 logic cores, 16 gb ram, mdadm raid1 of 2x 7200rpm drives.
PostgreSql
A lot of data to work with. Up to 30 millions of rows are being imported per day.
Time - complex queries can be executed up to an hour
Simplified schema of table, that will be very big:
id| integer | not null default nextval('table_id_seq'::regclass)
url_id | integer | not null
domain_id | integer | not null
position | integer | not null
The problem with the schema above is that I don't have the exact answer on how to partition it.
Data for all periods is going to be used (NO queries will have date filters).
I thought about partitioning on "domain_id" field, but the problem is that it is hard to predict how many rows each partition will have.
My main question is:
Does is make sense to partition data if i don't use partition pruning and i am not going to delete old data?
What will be pros/cons of that ?
How will degrade my import speed, if i won't do partitioning?
Another question related to normalization:
Should url be exported to another table?
Pros of normalization
Table is going to have rows with average size of 20-30 bytes.
Joins on "url_id" are supposed to be much faster than on "url" field
Pros of denormalization
Data can be imported much, much faster, as i don't have to make lookup into "url" table before each insert.
Can anybody give me any advice? Thanks!
Partitioning is most useful if you are going to either have selection criteria in most queries which allow the planner to skip access to most of the partitions most of the time, or if you want to periodically purge all rows that are assigned to a partition, or both. (Dropping a table is a very fast way to delete a large number of rows!) I have heard of people hitting a threshold where partitioning helped keep indexes shallower, and therefore boost performance; but really that gets back to the first point, because you effectively move the first level of the index tree to another place -- it still has to happen.
On the face of it, it doesn't sound like partitioning will help.
Normalization, on the other hand, may improve performance more than you expect; by keeping all those rows narrower, you can get more of them into each page, reducing overall disk access. I would do proper 3rd normal form normalization, and only deviate from that based on evidence that it would help. If you see a performance problem while you still have disk space for a second copy of the data, try creating a denormalized table and seeing how performance is compared to the normalized version.
I think it makes sense, depending on your use cases. I don't know how far back in time your 30B row history goes, but it makes sense to partition if your transactional database doesn't need more than a few of the partitions you decide on.
For example, partitioning by month makes perfect sense if you only query for two months' worth of data at a time. The other ten months of the year can be moved into a reporting warehouse, keeping the transactional store smaller.
There are restrictions on the fields you can use in the partition. You'll have to be careful with those.
Get a performance baseline, do your partition, and remeasure to check for performance impacts.
With the given amount of data in mind, you'll be waiting on IO mostly. If possible, perform some tests with different HW configurations trying to get best IO figures for your scenarios. IMHO, 2 disks will not be enough after a while, unless there's something else behind the scenes.
Your table will be growing daily with a known ratio. And most likely it will be queried daily. As you haven't mentioned data being purged out (if it will be, then do partition it), this means that queries will run slower each day. At some point in time you'll start looking at how to optimize your queries. One of the possibilities is to parallelize query on the application level. But here some conditions should be met:
your table should be partitioned in order to parallelize queries;
HW should be capable of delivering the requested amount of IO in N parallel streams.
All answers should be given by the performance tests of different setups.
And as others mentioned, there're more benefits for DBA in partitioned tables, so I, personally, would go for partitioning any table that is expected to receive more then 5M rows per interval, be it day, week or month.
I have a solution that can be parallelized, but I don't (yet) have experience with hadoop/nosql, and I'm not sure which solution is best for my needs. In theory, if I had unlimited CPUs, my results should return back instantaneously. So, any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Here's what I have:
1000s of datasets
dataset keys:
all datasets have the same keys
1 million keys (this may later be 10 or 20 million)
dataset columns:
each dataset has the same columns
10 to 20 columns
most columns are numerical values for which we need to aggregate on (avg, stddev, and use R to calculate statistics)
a few columns are "type_id" columns, since in a particular query we may
want to only include certain type_ids
web application
user can choose which datasets they are interested in (anywhere from 15 to 1000)
application needs to present: key, and aggregated results (avg, stddev) of each column
updates of data:
an entire dataset can be added, dropped, or replaced/updated
would be cool to be able to add columns. But, if required, can just replace the entire dataset.
never add rows/keys to a dataset - so don't need a system with lots of fast writes
infrastructure:
currently two machines with 24 cores each
eventually, want ability to also run this on amazon
I can't precompute my aggregated values, but since each key is independent, this should be easily scalable. Currently, I have this data in a postgres database, where each dataset is in its own partition.
partitions are nice, since can easily add/drop/replace partitions
database is nice for filtering based on type_id
databases aren't easy for writing parallel queries
databases are good for structured data, and my data is not structured
As a proof of concept I tried out hadoop:
created a tab separated file per dataset for a particular type_id
uploaded to hdfs
map: retrieved a value/column for each key
reduce: computed average and standard deviation
From my crude proof-of-concept, I can see this will scale nicely, but I can see hadoop/hdfs has latency I've read that that it's generally not used for real time querying (even though I'm ok with returning results back to users in 5 seconds).
Any suggestion on how I should approach this? I was thinking of trying HBase next to get a feel for that. Should I instead look at Hive? Cassandra? Voldemort?
thanks!
Hive or Pig don't seem like they would help you. Essentially each of them compiles down to one or more map/reduce jobs, so the response cannot be within 5 seconds
HBase may work, although your infrastructure is a bit small for optimal performance. I don't understand why you can't pre-compute summary statistics for each column. You should look up computing running averages so that you don't have to do heavy weight reduces.
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
stddev(X) = sqrt(E[X^2]- (E[X])^2)
this implies that you can get the stddev of AB by doing
sqrt(E[AB^2]-(E[AB])^2). E[AB^2] is (sum(A^2) + sum(B^2))/(|A|+|B|)
Since your data seems to be pretty much homogeneous, I would definitely take a look at Google BigQuery - You can ingest and analyze the data without a MapReduce step (on your part), and the RESTful API will help you create a web application based on your queries. In fact, depending on how you want to design your application, you could create a fairly 'real time' application.
It is serious problem without immidiate good solution in the open source space. In commercial space MPP databases like greenplum/netezza should do.
Ideally you would need google's Dremel (engine behind BigQuery). We are developing open source clone, but it will take some time...
Regardless of the engine used I think solution should include holding the whole dataset in memory - it should give an idea what size of cluster you need.
If I understand you correctly and you only need to aggregate on single columns at a time
You can store your data differently for better results
in HBase that would look something like
table per data column in today's setup and another single table for the filtering fields (type_ids)
row for each key in today's setup - you may want to think how to incorporate your filter fields into the key for efficient filtering - otherwise you'd have to do a two phase read (
column for each table in today's setup (i.e. few thousands of columns)
HBase doesn't mind if you add new columns and is sparse in the sense that it doesn't store data for columns that don't exist.
When you read a row you'd get all the relevant value which you can do avg. etc. quite easily
You might want to use a plain old database for this. It doesn't sound like you have a transactional system. As a result you can probably use just one or two large tables. SQL has problems when you need to join over large data. But since your data set doesn't sound like you need to join, you should be fine. You can have the indexes setup to find the data set and the either do in SQL or in app math.