I have a Apache Phoenix table with composite rowkey (key1,key2).
key1 = sequence number (unique)
key2 = date with time stamp.(none unique)
Now when I am searching with key1 alone results are coming very quick even with 10 million records.
But when I am only using key2 it is slowing down.
My question is how does composite row key works in Phoenix? And what is the correct way to scan/filter based on individual keys which are part of the composite rowkey.
Because I don't know the key1 as this is a sequence if I have to filter it only using key2 which is a timestamp what is the best way of doing it ?
Just in case other people come across this:
Phoenix is scanning HBase where keys are sorted in lexicographic order like in this simplified example:
100_2021:04:01
200_2021:03:01
300_2021:02:01
where the key starts with a 3 digit sequence number (100,200,300) and has a simplified date.
As you can see the initial portion, the sequence number is ascending even though the dates might be descending in this example. The order here is important. If you want to find all entries from '2021:02:01' phoenix still has to scan the entire cluster because the sequence number really could be anything. So you don't want to do a query that basically is a "*_date" query but instead always lead with data and maybe leave the something open at the end.
Depending on your case you probably want to put date first and then a sequence number at the end. Then you can look for all items a specific date. To avoid hot partitions you might want to have a salt or something else be the start of your key though.
Related
Context
I'm trying to find the best way to represent and aggregate a high-cardinality column in Redshift. The source is event-based and looks something like this:
user
timestamp
event_type
1
2021-01-01 12:00:00
foo
1
2021-01-01 15:00:00
bar
2
2021-01-01 16:00:00
foo
2
2021-01-01 19:00:00
foo
Where:
the number of users is very large
a single user can have very large numbers of events, but is unlikely to have many different event types
the number of different event_type values is very large, and constantly growing
I want to aggregate this data into a much smaller dataset with a single record (document) per user. These documents will then be exported. The aggregations of interest are things like:
Number of events
Most recent event time
But also:
Number of events for each event_type
It is this latter case that I am finding difficult.
Solutions I've considered
The simple "columnar-DB-friendy" approach to this problem would simply be to have an aggregate column for each event type:
user
nb_events
...
nb_foo
nb_bar
1
2
...
1
1
2
2
...
2
0
But I don't think this is an appropriate solution here, since the event_type field is dynamic and may have hundreds or thousands of values (and Redshift has a upper limit of 1600 columns). Moreover, there may be multiple types of aggregations on this event_type field (not just count).
A second approach would be to keep the data in its vertical form, where there is not one row per user but rather one row per (user, event_type). However, this really just postpones the issue - at some point the data still needs to be aggregated into a single record per user to achieve the target document structure, and the problem of column explosion still exists.
A much more natural (I think) representation of this data is as a sparse array/document/SUPER:
user
nb_events
...
count_by_event_type (SUPER)
1
2
...
{"foo": 1, "bar": 1}
2
2
...
{"foo": 2}
This also pretty much exactly matches the intended SUPER use case described by the AWS docs:
When you need to store a relatively small set of key-value pairs, you might save space by storing the data in JSON format. Because JSON strings can be stored in a single column, using JSON might be more efficient than storing your data in tabular format. For example, suppose you have a sparse table, where you need to have many columns to fully represent all possible attributes, but most of the column values are NULL for any given row or any given column. By using JSON for storage, you might be able to store the data for a row in key:value pairs in a single JSON string and eliminate the sparsely-populated table columns.
So this is the approach I've been trying to implement. But I haven't quite been able to achieve what I'm hoping to, mostly due to difficulties populating and aggregating the SUPER column. These are described below:
Questions
Q1:
How can I insert into this kind of SUPER column from another SELECT query? All Redshift docs only really discuss SUPER columns in the context of initial data load (e.g. by using json_parse), but never discuss the case where this data is generated from another Redshift query. I understand that this is because the preferred approach is to load SUPER data but convert it to columnar data as soon as possible.
Q2:
How can I re-aggregate this kind of SUPER column, while retaining the SUPER structure? Until now, I've discussed a simplified example which only aggregates by user. In reality, there are other dimensions of aggregation, and some analyses of this table will need to re-aggregate the values shown in the table above. By analogy, the desired output might look something like (aggregating over all users):
nb_events
...
count_by_event_type (SUPER)
4
...
{"foo": 3, "bar": 1}
I can get close to achieving this re-aggregation with a query like (where the listagg of key-value string pairs is a stand-in for the SUPER type construction that I don't know how to do):
select
sum(nb_events) nb_events,
(
select listagg(s)
from (
select
k::text || ':' || sum(v)::text as s
from my_aggregated_table inner_query,
unpivot inner_query.count_by_event_type as v at k
group by k
) a
) count_by_event_type
from my_aggregated_table outer_query
But Redshift doesn't support this kind of correlated query:
[0A000] ERROR: This type of correlated subquery pattern is not supported yet
Q3:
Are there any alternative approaches to consider? Normally I'd handle this kind of problem with Spark, which I find much more flexible for these kinds of problems. But if possible it would be great to stick with Redshift, since that's where the source data is.
I am working on a database that (hopefully) will end up using a primary key with both numbers and letters in the values to track lots of agricultural product. Due to the way in which the weighing of product takes place at more than one facility, I have no other option but to maintain the same base number but use letters in addition to this base number to denote split portions of each lot of product. The problem is, after I create record number 99, the number 100 suddenly floats up and underneath 10. This makes it difficult to maintain consistency and forces me to replace this alphanumeric lot ID with a strictly numeric value in order to keep it sorted (which I use "autonumber" as the data type). Either way, I need the alphanumeric lot ID, and so having 2 ID's for the same lot can be confusing for anyone inputting values into the form. Is there a way around this that I am just not seeing?
If you're using query as a data source then you may try to sort it by string converted to number, something like
SELECT id, field1, field2, ..
ORDER BY CLng(YourAlphaNumericField)
Edit: you may also try Val function instead of CLng - it should not fail on non-numeric input
Why not properly format your key before saving ? e.g: "0000099". You will avoid a costly conversion later.
Alternatively, you could use 2 fields as the composite PK. One with the Number (as Long) and one with the Location (as String).
I need to store a list of user names in a Cassandra column family(wide row/dynamic columns).
The columnname/comparator type will be integer, so as to sort the users based on a score.
The score ranges from 0 to 100. The problem is, if two or more users have a same score, how can i store them on different columns?, as cassandra would not allow that...
Is there any way to convert integer to timeuuids? Or any other solution for this problem?
This is a problem I have seen quite often (not scores but preventing column name conflict). In general the solution is a form or another of concatenating a UUID to the column name (Since those are made to never conflict).
If you want to keep on sorting by score then I advice you to use a CompositeType column name.
More specifically:
CompositeType(score: Integer | time: TimeUUID)
The comparator in Cassandra will then first sort by score and then by time (putting the most recent last I believe).
TimeUUID should also take care of "simultaneous" score posting even thought the probabilities to have that with a Long timestamp would be ridiculously low.
You can use build-in list feature, see http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/cql3_collections
Just have column with a value and list of users for that value.
I am moving from mysql to hbase due to increasing data.
I am designing rowkey for efficient access pattern.
I want to achieve 3 goals.
Get all results of email address
Get all results of email address + item_type
Get all results of particular email address + item_id
I have 4 attributes to choose from
user email
reverse timestamp
item_type
item_id
What should my rowkey look like to get rows efficiently?
Thanks
Assuming your main access is by email you can have your main table key as
email + reverse time + item_id (assuming item_id gives you uniqueness)
You can have an additional "index" table with email+item_type+reverse time+item_id and email+item_id as keys that maps to the first table (so retrieving by these is a two step process)
Maybe you are already headed in the right direction as far as concatenated row keys: in any case following comes to mind from your post:
Partitioning key likely consists of your reverse timestamp plus the most frequently queried natural key - would that be the email? Let us suppose so: then choose to make the prefix based on which of the two (reverse timestamp vs email) provides most balanced / non-skewed distribution of your data. That makes your region servers happier.
Choose based on better balanced distribution of records:
reverse timestamp plus most frequently queried natural key
e.g. reversetimestamp-email
or email-reversetimestamp
In that manner you will avoid hot spotting on your region servers.
.
To obtain good performance on the additional (secondary ) indexes, that is not "baked into" hbase yet: they have a design doc for it (look under SecondaryIndexing in the wiki).
But you can build your own a couple of ways:
a) use coprocessor to write the item_type as rowkey to separate tabole with a column containing the original (user_email-reverse timestamp (or vice-versa) fact table rowke
b) if disk space not issue and/or the rows are small, just go ahead and duplicate the entire row in the second (and third for the item-id case) tables.
I have a Cassandra ColumnFamily (0.6.4) that will have new entries from users. I'd like to query Cassandra for those new entries so that I can process that data in another system.
My sense was that I could use a TimeUUIDType as the key for my entry, and then query on a KeyRange that starts either with "" as the startKey, or whatever the lastStartKey was. Is this the correct method?
How does get_range_slice actually create a range? Doesn't it have to know the data type of the key? There's no declaration of the data type of the key anywhere. In the storage_conf.xml file, you declare the type of the columns, but not of the keys. Is the key assumed to be of the same type as the columns? Or does it do some magic sniffing to guess?
I've also seen reference implementations where people store TimeUUIDType in columns. However, this seems to have scale issues as this particular key would then become "hot" since every change would have to update it.
Any pointers in this case would be appreciated.
When sorting data only the column-keys are important. The data stored is of no consequence neither is the auto-generated timestamp. The CompareWith attribute is important here. If you set CompareWith as UTF8Type then the keys will be interpreted as UTF8Types. If you set the CompareWith as TimeUUIDType then the keys are automatically interpreted as timestamps. You do not have to specify the data type. Look at the SlicePredicate and SliceRange definitions on this page http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/API This is a good place to start. Also, you might find this article useful http://www.sodeso.nl/?p=80 In the third part or so he talks about slice ranging his queries and so on.
Doug,
Writing to a single column family can sometimes create a hot spot if you are using an Order-Preserving Partitioner, but not if you are using the default Random Partitioner (unless a subset of users create vastly more data than all other users!).
If you sorted your rows by time (using an Order-Preserving Partitioner) then you are probably even more likely to create hotspots, since you will be adding rows sequentially and a single node will be responsible for each range of the keyspace.
Columns and Keys can be of any type, since the row key is just the first column.
Virtually, the cluster is a circular hash key ring, and keys get hashed by the partitioner to get distributed around the cluster.
Beware of using dates as row keys however, since even the randomization of the default randompartitioner is limited and you could end up cluttering your data.
What's more, if that date is changing, you would have to delete the previous row since you can only do inserts in C*.
Here is what we know :
A slice range is a range of columns in a row with a start value and an end value, this is used mostly for wide rows as columns are ordered. Known column names defined in the CF are indexed however so they can be retrieved specifying names.
A key slice, is a key associated with the sliced column range as returned by Cassandra
The equivalent of a where clause uses secondary indexes, you may use inequality operators there, however there must be at least ONE equals clause in your statement (also see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1599).
Using a key range is ineffective with a Random Partitionner as the MD5 hash of your key doesn't keep lexical ordering.
What you want to use is a Column Family based index using a Wide Row :
CompositeType(TimeUUID | UserID)
In order for this not to become hot, add a first meaningful key ("shard key") that would split the data accross nodes such as the user type or the region.
Having more data than necessary in Cassandra is not a problem, it's how it is designed, so what you must ask yourself is "what do I need to query" and then design a Column Family for it rather than trying to fit everything in one CF like you'd do in an RDBMS.