I upload the dataset into the storage of google cloud ai. Next, I open the flow in dataprep and put there the dataset. When I made the first recipe (without any step already) the dataset has approximately half of its original rows, that is, 36 234 instead of 62 948.
I would like to know what could be causing this problem. Some missing configuration?
Thank you very much in advance
Here are a couple thoughts . . .
Data Sampling
Keep in mind that what's shown in the Dataprep editor is typically a sample of the data, not the full data (unless its very small). If the full file was small enough to load, you should see the "Full Data" label up where the sample is typically shown:
In other cases, what you're actually looking at is a sample, which will also be indicated:
It's very beneficial to have an idea of how Dataprep's sampling works if you haven't reviewed the documentation already:
https://cloud.google.com/dataprep/docs/html/Overview-of-Sampling_90112099
Compressed Sources:
Another issue I've noticed occasionally is when loading compresses CSVs. In this case, I've had the interface tell me that I'm looking at the "Full Data"—but the number of rows is incorrect. However, any time this has happened the job does actually process the full number of rows.
I read through a lot of comparisons between Azure Table/Blob/SQL storage and I think I have a good understanding of all of those ... but still, I'm unsure where to go for my specific needs. Maybe someone with experience in similar scenarios and is able to make a recommendation.
What I have
A SQL Azure DB that stores articles in raw HTML inside a varchar(max) column. Each row also has many metadata columns and many indexes for easy querying. The table contains many references to Users, Subscriptions, Tags and more - so a SQL DB will always be needed for my project.
What's the problem
I already have about 500,000 articles in this table and I expect it to grow by millions of articles per year. Each article's HTML content can be anywhere between a few KB and 1 MB or, in very few cases, larger than 1 MB.
Two problems arise: as Azure SQL storage is expensive, rather earlier than later I'll shoot myself in the head with the costs for storing this. Also, I will hit the 150 GB DB size limit also rather earlier than later. Those 500,000 articles already consume 1,6 GB DB space now.
What I want
It's clear those HTML content has to get out of the SQL DB. While the article table itself has to remain for joining it to users, subscriptions, tags and more for fast relational discovery of the needed articles, at least the colum that holds the HTML content could be outsourced to a cheaper storage.
At first sight, Azure Table storage seems like the perfect fit
Terabytes of data in one large table for very cheap prices and fast queries - sounds perfect to have a singe Table Storage table holding the article contents as an add-on to the SQL DB.
But reading through comparisons here shows it might not even be an option: 64 KB per column would be enough for 98 % of my articles, but there are those 2 % left where for some single articles even the whole 1 MB of the row limit might not be enough.
Blob storage sounds completely wrong, but ...
So there's just one option on Azure left: Blobs. Now, it might not be as wrong as it sounds. In most of the cases, I would need the content of only a single article at once. This should work fine and fast enough with Blob storage.
But I also have queries where I would need 50, 100 or even more rows at once INCLUDING even the content. So I would have to run the SQL query to fetch the needed articles and then fetch every single article out of the Blob storage. I have no experience with that but I can't believe I'd be able to remain in millisecond timespan for the queries when doing that. And queries that take multiple seconds are an absolute no-go for my project.
So it also does not seem to be to be an appropriate solution.
Do I look like a guy with a plan?
At least I have something like a plan. I thought about only "exporting" appropriate records into SQL Table Storage and/or Blob Storage.
Something like "as long as the content is < 64 KB export it to table storage, else keep it in the SQL table (or even export this single XL record into BLOB storage)"
That might work good enough. But it makes things complicated and maybe unnecessary error-prone.
Those other options
There are some other NoSQL DBs like MongoDB and CouchDB that seem to better fit my needs (at least from my naive point of view as someone who just read the specs on paper, I don't have experience with them). But they'd require self-hosting, some thing I'd like to get out of it's way if possible. I'm on Azure to do as little as needed in terms of self-hosting servers and services.
Did you really read until here?
Then thank you very much for your valuable time and thinking about my problems :)
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. As you see, I have my ideas and plans, but nothing beats experience from someone who walked down the road before :)
Thanks,
Bernhard
I signed up just solely to help with this question. In the past, I have found useful answers to my problems from Stackoverflow - thank you community - so I thought it would just be fair (perhaps fair is an understatement) to attempt to give something back with this question, as it falls on my alley.
In short, while considering all factors stated in the question, table storage may be the best option - iif you can properly estimate transactions per month: a nice article on this.
You can solve the two limitations that you mentioned, row and column limit, by splitting (plain text method or serializing it) the document/html/data. Speaking from experience with 40 GB+ data stored in Table Storage, where frequently our app retrieves more than 10 rows per each page visit in milliseconds - no argument here! If you need 50+ rows at times, you are looking at low single digits second(s), or you can do them in parallel (and further by splitting the data in different partitions), or in some async fashion. Or, read suggested multi level caching below.
A bit more detail. I tried with SQL Azure, Blob (both page and block), and Table Storage. I can not speak for Mongo DB since, partially for the reasons already mentioned here, I did not want to go that route.
Table Storage is fast; in the range of 20-50 milliseconds, or even faster sometimes (depends, for instance in the same data center i have seen it gone as low as 10 milliseconds), when querying with partition and row key. You may also further have several partitions, in some fashion based on your data and your knowledge about it.
It scales better, in terms of GB's but not transactions
Row and column limitations that you mentioned are a burden, agreed, but not a show stopper. I have written my own solution to split entities, you can too easily, or you can see this already-written-solution (does not solve the whole problem but it is a good start): https://code.google.com/p/lokad-cloud/wiki/FatEntities
Also need to keep in mind that uploading data to table storage is time consuming, even when batching entities due to other limitations (i.e., request size less than 4 MB, upload bandwidth, etc).
But using solely just TableStorage may not be the best solution (thinking about growth and economics). The best solution that we ended up implementing used multi-level caching/storage, starting from static classes, Azure Role Based Cache, Table Storage, and Block Blobs. Lets call this, for readability purposes, level 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 respectively. Using this approach, we are using a medium single instance (2 CPU Cores and 3.5 GB Ram - my laptop has better performance), and are able to process/query/rank 100GB+ of data in seconds (95% of cases in under 1 second). I believe this is fairly impressive given that we check all "articles" before displaying them (4+ million "articles").
First, this is tricky and may or may not be possible in your case. I do not have sufficient knowledge about the data and its query/processing usage, but if you can find a way to organize the data well this may be ideal. I will make an assumption: it sounds like you are trying to search through and find relevant articles given some information about a user and some tags (a variant of a news aggregator perhaps, just got a hunch for that). This assumption is made for the sake of illustrating the suggestion, so even if not correct, I hope it will help you or trigger new ideas on how this could be adopted.
Level 1A data.
Identify and add key entities or its properties in a static class (periodically, depending on how you foresee updates). Say we identify user preferences (e.g., demographics and interest, etc) and tags (tech, politics, sports, etc). This will be used to retrieve quickly who the user is, his/her preferences, and any tags. Think of these as key/value pair; for instance key being a tag, and its value being a list of article IDs, or a range of it. This solves a small piece of a problem, and that is: given a set of keys (user pref, tags, etc) what articles are we interested in! This data should be small in size, if organized properly (e.g., instead of storing article path, you can only store a number). *Note: the problem with data persistence in a static class is that application pool in Azure, by default, resets every 20 minutes or so of inactivity, thus your data in the static class is not persistent any longer - also sharing them across instances (if you have more than 1) can become a burden. Welcome level 1B to the rescue.
Leval 1B data
A solution we used, is to keep layer 1A data in a Azure Cache, for its sole purpose to re-populate the static entity when and if needed. Level 1B data solves this problem. Also, if you face issues with application pool reset timing, you can change that programmatically. So level 1A and 1B have the same data, but one is faster than the other (close enough analogy: CPU Cache and RAM).
Discussing level 1A and 1B a bit
One may point out that it is an overkill to use a static class and cache, since it uses more memory. But, the problem we found in practice, is that, first it is faster with static. Second, in cache there are some limitations (ie., 8 MB per object). With big data, that is a small limit. By keeping data in a static class one can have larger than 8 MB objects, and store them in cache by splitting them (i.e., currently we have over 40 splits). BTW please vote to increase this limit in the next release of azure, thank you! Here is the link: www.mygreatwindowsazureidea.com/forums/34192-windows-azure-feature-voting/suggestions/3223557-azure-preview-cache-increase-max-item-size
Level 2 data
Once we get the values from the key/value entity (level 1A), we use the value to retrieve the data in Table Storage. The value should tell you what partition and Row Key you need. Problem being solved here: you only query those rows relevant to the user/search context. As you can see now, having level 1A data is to minimize row querying from table storage.
Level 3 data
Table storage data can hold a summary of your articles, or the first paragraph, or something of that nature. When it is needed to show the whole article, you will get it from Blob. Table storage, should also have a column that uniquely identifies the full article in blob. In blob you may organize the data in the following manner:
Split each article in separate files.
Group n articles in one file.
Group all articles in one file (not recommended although not as bad as the first impression one may get).
For the 1st option you would store, in table storage, the path of the article, then just grab it directly from Blob. Because of the above levels, you should need to read only a few full articles here.
For the 2nd and 3rd option you would store, in table storage, the path of the file and the start and end position from where to read and where to stop reading, using seek.
Here is a sample code in C#:
YourBlobClientWithReferenceToTheFile.Seek(TableStorageData.start, SeekOrigin.Begin);
int numBytesToRead = (int)TableStorageData.end - (int)TableStorageData.start;
int numBytesRead = 0;
while (numBytesToRead > 0)
{
int n = YourBlobClientWithReferenceToTheFile.Read(bytes,numBytesRead,numBytesToRead);
if (n == 0)
break;
numBytesRead += n;
numBytesToRead -= n;
}
I hope this didn't turn into a book, and hope it was helpful. Feel free to contact me if you have follow up questions or comments.
Thanks!
The proper storage for a file is a blob. But if your query needs to return dozens of blobs at the same time, it will be too slow as you are pointing out. So you could use a hybrid approach: use Azure Tables for 98% of your data, and if it's too large, use a Blob instead and store the Blob URI in your table.
Also, are you compressing your content at all? I sure would.
My thoughts on this: Going the MongoDB (or CouchDB) route is going to end up costing you extra Compute, as you'll need to run a few servers (for high availability). And depending on performance needed, you may end up running 2- or 4-core boxes. Three 4-core boxes is going to run more than your SQL DB costs (plus then there's the cost of storage, and MongoDB etc. will back their data in an Azure blob for duable storage).
Now, as for storing your html in blobs: this is a very common pattern, to offload large objects to blob storage. The GETs should be doable in a single call to blob storage (single transaction) especially with the file size range you mentioned. And you don't have to retrieve each blob serially; you can take advantage of TPL to download several blobs to your role instance in parallel.
One more thing: How are you using the content? If you're streaming it from your role instances, then what I said about TPL should work nicely. If, on the other hand, you're injecting href's into your output page, you can just put the blob url directly into your html page. And if you're concerned about privacy, make the blobs private and generate a short-TTL "shared access signature" granting access for a small time window (this only applies if inserting blob url's into some other html page; it doesn't apply if you're downloading to the role instance and then doing something with it there).
You could use MongoDB's GridFS feature: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/gridfs/
It splits the data into 256k chunks by default (configurable up to 16mb) and lets you use the sharded database as a filesystem which you can use to store and retrieve files. If the file is larger than the chunk size, the mongo db drivers handle splitting up / re-assembling the data when the file needs to be retrieved. To add additional disk space, simply add additional shards.
You should be aware, however that only some mongodb drivers support this and it is a driver convention and not a server feature that allows for this behavior.
A few comments:
What you could do is ALWAYS store HTML content in blob storage and store the blob's URL in table storage. I personally don't like the idea of storing data conditionally i.e. if content of HTML file is more than 64 KB only then store it in blob storage otherwise use table storage. Other advantage you get out of this approach is that you can still query the data. If you store everything in blob storage, you would lose querying capability.
As far as using other NoSQL stores are concerned, only problem I see with them is that they are not natively supported on Windows Azure thus you would be responsible for managing them as well.
Another option would be to store your files as a VHD image in blob storage. Your roles can mount the VHD to their filesystem, and read the data from there.
The complication seems to be that only one VM can have read/write access to the VHD. The others can create a snapshot and read from that, but they won't see updates. Depending on how frequently your data is updated that could work. eg, if you update data at well-known times you could have all the clients unmount, take a new snapshot, and remount to get the new data.
You can also share out a VHD using SMB sharing as described in this MSDN blog post. This would allow full read/write access, but might be a little less reliable and a bit more complex.
you don't say, but if you are not compressing your articles that probably solves your issue then just use table storage.
Otherwise just use table storage and use a unique partition key for each article. If an article's too big put it in 2 rows, as long as you query by partition key you'll get both rows, then use the row key as the index indicating how the articles fit back together
One idea that i have would be to use CDN to store your article content, and link them directly from the client side, instead of any multi phase, operation of getting data from sql then going to some storage.
It would be something like
http://<cdnurl>/<container>/<articleId>.html
Infact same thing can be done with Blob storage too.
The advantage here is that this becomes insanely fast.
Disadvantage here is that security aspect is lost.
Something like Shared Access Signature can be explored for security, but I am not sure how helpful would it be for client side links.
We're in the process of building an internal, Java-based RESTful web services application that exposes domain-specific data in XML format. We want to supplement the architecture and improve performance by leveraging a cache store. We expect to host the cache on separate but collocated servers, and since the web services are Java/Grails, a Java or HTTP API to the cache would be ideal.
As requests come in, unique URI's and their responses would be cached using a simple key/value convention, for example...
KEY VALUE
http://prod1/financials/reports/JAN/2007 --> XML response of 50Mb
http://prod1/legal/sow/9004 --> XML response of 250Kb
Response values for a single request can be quite large, perhaps up to 200Mb, but could be as small as 1Kb. And the number of requests per day is small; not more than 1000, but averaging 250; we don't have a large number of consumers; again, it's an internal app.
We started looking at MongoDB as a potential cache store, but given that MongoDB has a max document size of 8 or 16Mb, we did not feel it was the best fit.
Based on the limited details I provided, any suggestions on other types of stores that could be suitable in this situation?
The way I understand your question, you basically want to cache the files, i.e. you don't need to understand the files' contents, right?
In that case, you can use MongoDB's GridFS to cache the xml as a file. This way, you can smoothly stream the file in and out of the database. You could use the URI as a 'file name' and, well, that should do the job.
There are no (reasonable) file size limits and it is supported by most, if not all, of the drivers.
Twitter's engineering team just blogged about their SpiderDuck project that does something like what you're describing. They use Cassandra and Scribe+HDFS for their backends.
http://engineering.twitter.com/2011/11/spiderduck-twitters-real-time-url.html
The simplest solution here is just caching these pieces of data in a file system. You can use tmpfs to ensure everything is in the main memory or any normal file system if you want the size of your cache be larger than the memory you have. Don't worry, even in the latter case the OS kernel will efficiently cache everything that is used frequently in the main memory. Still you have to delete the old files via cron if you're using Linux.
It seems to be like an old school solution, but it could be simpler to implement and less error prone than many others.
I will have xml file on server. It will store information of about 600 stores. information includes name, address, opening time , coordinates. So is it ok to parse whole file into iphone then select nearest stores according to coordinates?
I am thinking about processing time and memory use
Please suggest
The way I would do this is write a web service and pass it the coordinates and download only those within a certain radius. Always try to download as little data as possible to the iPhone (especially xml data)
I just put this here
http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/93651539/aqxmlparser-big-memory-win
A simple solution would be to group them into clusters that are somehow related, probably by location. You already have an XML on a server, so simply split them up into 3 groups of related stores of around 200, or preferably even smaller. I'm not entirely sure on why you would want to store 600 data points of that nature. I feel that if you filter/shrink on the server side you could be saving a lot of time/memory.
I have seen people storing 300-400 data points, though it is so dependent on how large your defined objects in your Core Database are, that it is probably best for you to just run some tests.
A project I'm working on requires detection of duplicate files. Under normal circumstances I would simply compare the file bytes in blocks or hash value of the entire file contents. However, the system does not have access to the entire file - only the first 50KB or so. It also knows the total file size of the original file.
I was thinking of implementing the following: each time a file is added, I would look for possible duplicates using both the total file size and a hash calculation of (file-size)+(first-20KB-of-file). The hash algorithm itself is not the issue at this stage, but will likely be MurmurHash2.
Another option is to also store, say, bytes 9000 through 9020 and use that as a third condition when looking up a duplicate copy or alternatively to compare byte-to-byte when the aforementioned lookup method returns possible duplicates in a last attempt to discard false positives.
How naive is my proposed implementation? Is there a reliable way to predict the amount of false positives? What other considerations should I be aware of?
Edit: I forgot to mention that the files are generally going to be compressed archives (ZIP,RAR) and on occasion JPG images.
You can use file size, hashes and partial-contents to quickly detect when two files are different, but you can only determine if they are exactly the same by comparing their contents in full.
It's up to you to decide whether the failure rate of your partial-file-check will be low enough to be acceptable in your specific circumstances. Bearing in mind that even an "exceedingly unlikely" event will happen frequently if you have enough volume. But if you know the type of data that the files will contain, you can judge the chances of two near-identical files (idenitcal in the first 50kB) cropping up.
I would think that if a partial-file-match is acceptable to you, then a hash of those partial file contents is probably going to be pretty acceptable too.
If you have access to 50kB then I'd use all 50kB rather than only the first 20kB in my hash.
Picking an arbitrary 20 bytes probably won't help much (your file contents will either be very different in which case hash+size clashes will be unlikely, or they will be very similar in which case the chances of a randomly chosen 20 bytes being different will be quite low)
In your circumstances I would check the size, then a hash of the available daa (50kB), then if this suggests a file match, a brute-force comparison of the available data just to minimise the risks, if you don't expect to be adding so many duplicates that this would bog the system down.
It depends on the file types, but in most cases false positives will be pretty rare.
You probably won't have any in Office and graphical files. And executables are supposed have a checksum in the header.
I'd say that the most likely false positive you may encounter is in source code files. They change often and it may happen that a programmer replaces a few symbols something after the first 20K.
Other than that I'd say they are pretty unlikely.
Why don't use a hash of the first 50 KB, and then store the size on the side? That would give you the most security with what you have to work with (with that said, there could be totally different content in the files after the first 50 KB without you knowing, so it's not a really secure system).
I find it difficult. It's likely that you would catch most duplicates with this method, but the possibility of false positives is huge. What about two versions of a 5MB XML document whose last chapter is modified?