I want to transfer data from oracle to MongoDB using apache nifi. Oracle has a total of 9 million records.
I have created nifi flow using QueryDatabaseTable and PutMongoRecord processors. This flow is working fine but has some performance issues.
After starting the nifi flow, records in the queue for SplitJson -> PutMongoRecord are increasing.
Is there any way to slow down records putting into the queue by SplitJson processor?
OR
Increase the rate of insertion in PutMongoRecord?
Right now, in 30 minutes 100k records are inserted, how to speed up this process?
#Vishal. The solution you are looking for is to increase the concurrency of PutMongoRecord:
You can also experiment with the the BATCH size in the configuration tab:
You can also reduce the execution time splitJson. However you should remember this process is going to take 1 flowfile and make ALOT of flowfiles regardless of the timing.
How much you can increase concurrency is going to depend on how many nifi nodes you have, and how many CPU Cores each node has. Be experimental and methodical here. Move up in single increments (1-2-3-etc) and test your file in each increment. If you only have 1 node, you may not be able to tune the flow to your performance expectations. Tune the flow instead for stability and as fast as you can get it. Then consider scaling.
How much you can increase concurrency and batch is also going to depend on the MongoDB Data Source and the total number of connections you can get fro NiFi to Mongo.
In addition to Steven's answer, there are two properties on QueryDatabaseTable that you should experiment with:
Max Results Per Flowfile
Use Avro logical types
With the latter, you might be able to do a direct shift from Oracle to MongoDB because it'll convert Oracle date types into Avro ones and those should in turn by converted directly into proper Mongo date types. Max results per flowfile should also allow you to specify appropriate batching without having to use the extra processors.
Related
Goal is to process raw readings (15min and 1h interval) from external remote meters (assets) in real time.
Process is defined using simple Apache Kafka producer/consumer and multiple Spring Boot microservices to deduplicate messages, transform (map) readings to our system (instead external codes insert internal IDS and similar stuff) and insert in TimescaleDB (extension of PostgreSql).
Everything seems fine, but there is requirement to perform real time prediction/estimation of missing intervals.
Simple example for one meter and 15 minute readings:
On day 1 we got all readings. We process them and have them ingested in our DB.
On day 2 we are missing all readings - so process is not even
started for this meter.
On day 3 we again got all readings - but only for day 3. Now we need
to predict that whole day 2 is missing and create empty readings and
then estimate them by some algorithm (that is not that important
now).
My question here, is there any way or idea how to do this without querying existing database in one of the microservices and checking if something is missing?
Is it possible to check previous messages in Kafka topics and based on that do the prediction/estimation (kafka streams? - I don't get them at all) and is that even smart to do, or there is any other way/idea to do it?
Personal opinion disclaimer
It is not reasonably possible to check previous messages in Kafka Streams. If you are hellbent on doing it, you could probably try to seek messages and re-consume them but Kafka will fight you every step on the way. The mental model is, that you are transforming or aggregating data that comes in in real time. If you need to query something about previous data, you ought to have collected that information when that data was coming through.
What could work (rather well even) is to separate the prediction of missing data from the transformation.
Create two consumers for the stream.
Have one topology (or whatever it is that does your transformations already) transform the data and load it back into Kafka and from there to timescaledb.
Have one topology (or another microservice) that does what is needed to predict missing data. Your usecase of backfilling a missing day could be handled by something like a count based on daily windows
Make that trigger your backfilling either as part of that topology or as a subsequent microservice and load that data to timescaledb as well.
Are you already using Kafka Streams for the transformations? This would be a classical usecase.
The recognition of missing data not so much
As far as I understand it does not require high throughput. More the opposite. You want to know if there is no data.
As far as I understand it latency is not a (main) concern.
Kafka Streams could be useful if you need to take automated action within seconds after data stops coming in. But even then, you could just write throughput metrics and trigger alerts in this case.
Pther than that, it is a very stateful problem and stream processing is at its best if you can treat every message separately reduce them in a "standard" manner like sums or counts.
I got the impression, that a delay of a few hours / a day is not that tragic and currently the backfilling might be done manually. In this case the cot of Kafka Streams would outweigh the benefits.
We are trying to load data to postgres from oracle using nifi.
we are using PutDatabaseRecord to load data (which is in avro format).
we are using ExecuteSQL to extract data which is very fast but we can see that,
even though we are using 150+ threads for PutDatabaseRecord, it is maintaining an average of 1GB data writes for 5mins .
If suppose we are having 3 PutDatabaseRecord processors (i.e., let suppose for each table one processor) and each processor is of 50 threads, still it is maintaining an average of 1Gb for 5 mins (i.e., 250mb for 1 processor, 350 for 2nd processor and 400 for 3 processor. Or some other combinations but it is still 1Gb overall).
We are really, not sure if it is from postgres database end which is limiting write size or it's from nifi end.
Need help if we need to change NiFi properties or to change some settings in postgres, which will help the data loading performance.
One observation is that, data extraction from Oracle is very fast and we are able to see the Nifi queues are filling very quickly and waiting to be processed by PutDatabaseRecord process.
If you have a single NiFi instance, there will be limit on how much data you can push through regardless of the number of threads (once the number of threads reaches the number of cores on your machine). To increase throughput, you could set up a 3-5 node NiFi cluster and run the PutDatabaseRecord processors in parallel, then you should see 3-5 GB throughput to Postgres (as long as PG can handle that)
What are the performance trade-offs that I must consider when using post-aggregations as opposed to defining metrics in the ingestion spec when rollup is enabled?
I guess it all depends on the result set.
When you do this at ingestion time, it will only take some time when the data is pushed into your druid cluster. Selecting data is just a matter of retrieving the data from the segments.
An post-aggregation will run through the result of your query and then "re-process" the result. So this will have some overhead. How much is hard to tell though.
When you need more speed, or want to reduce CPU, I would recommend doing the changes at ingestion time. However, the downside is that this takes extra disk space, as you store the result of your calculation as a new column.
If disk space is a problem, I guess you could better use post-aggregations.
I am running a ksqlDB streaming application that consists of a large number of queries (>60 queries), including many joins and aggregations. My data comes from various sources, and requires plenty of manipulation to produce the desired processed data, hence the large number of queries. I've run this set of queries on a single machine, using interactive mode, and it produces the right results. But I observe an increasing consumer lag when I increase the amount of data fed into the application.
I read on ksqlDB's Capacity Planning page that I can scale by adding more servers, which is what I plan to do.
Under Important Sizing Factors, it's also stated that "You should avoid running a large number of queries on one ksqlDB cluster. Instead, use interactive mode to play with your data and develop sets of queries that function together. Then, run these in their own headless cluster." However, I am unsure how to do this- my queries are all dependent on each other.
Does anyone have any general recommendations on how to deploy a large number of interdependent ksql queries? As an added requirement, the data is refreshed each day and is independent for the each new day, so I need to do some sort of refresh of the queries each day.
I think that's just a recommendation if you can group queries that depend each other, and then split those groups into headless mode servers.
Another way, if you use interactive mode, is to partitioned your topics and add more ksql servers to your cluster. This will allow ksql to split the workload across the cluster, each server consuming and processing one partition. Say you have 4 partitions per topic and 2 servers, then you'll have 1 server processing 2 partitions and another server other 2 partitions. This should decrease the workload on each server.
Another improvement is to reduce the number of streams threads. Each query you create runs with 4 kafka streams threads by default. The more number of threads, the more parallel work is done in the server. With a large number of queries, performance decreases and lag is incremented. Try with 1 thread and see if that works. Set ksql.streams.num.stream.threads=1 in the ksql-server.properties to configure it.
I'm contemplating on whether to use MongoDB or Kafka for a time series dataset.
At first sight obviously it makes sense to use Kafka since that's what it's built for. But I would also like some flexibility in querying, etc.
Which brought me to question: "Why not just use MongoDB to store the timestamped data and index them by timestamp?"
Naively thinking, this feels like it has the similar benefit of Kafka (in that it's indexed by time offset) but has more flexibility. But then again, I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why people use Kafka instead of MongoDB for this type of use case.
Could someone explain some of the reasons why one may want to use Kafka instead of MongoDB in this case?
I'll try to take this question as that you're trying to collect metrics over time
Yes, Kafka topics have configurable time retentions, and I doubt you're using topic compaction because your messages would likely be in the form of (time, value), so the time could not be repeated anyway.
Kafka also provides stream processing libraries so that you can find out averages, min/max, outliers&anamolies, top K, etc. values over windows of time.
However, while processing all that data is great and useful, your consumers would be stuck doing linear scans of this data, not easily able to query slices of it for any given time range. And that's where time indexes (not just a start index, but also an end) would help.
So, sure you can use Kafka to create a backlog of queued metrics and process/filter them over time, but I would suggest consuming that data into a proper database because I assume you'll want to be able to query it easier and potentially create some visualizations over that data.
With that architecture, you could have your highly available Kafka cluster holding onto data for some amount of time, while your downstream systems don't necessarily have to be online all the time in order to receive events. But once they are, they'd consume from the last available offset and pickup where they were before
Like the answers in the comments above - neither Kafka nor MongoDB are well suited as a time-series DB with flexible query capabilities, for the reasons that #Alex Blex explained well.
Depending on the requirements for processing speed vs. query flexibility vs. data size, I would do the following choices:
Cassandra [best processing speed, best/good data size limits, worst query flexibility]
TimescaleDB on top of PostgresDB [good processing speed, good/OK data size limits, good query flexibility]
ElasticSearch [good processing speed, worst data size limits, best query flexibility + visualization]
P.S. by "processing" here I mean both ingestion, partitioning and roll-ups where needed
P.P.S. I picked those options that are most widely used now, in my opinion, but there are dozens and dozens of other options and combinations, and many more selection criteria to use - would be interested to hear about other engineers' experiences!