I am looking a best way to analyse 4B records (1TB data) stored in Vertica using Tableau. I tried using extract of 1M records which works perfectly. but dont know how to manage 4B records, because its taking too long to query on 4B records.
I have following dataset :
timestamp id url domain keyword nor_word cat_1 cat_2 cat_3
So here I need to create descending list of Top 10 ID's, Top 10 url, Top 10 domain, Top 10 keyword, Top 10 nor_word, Top 10 cat_1, Top 10 cat_2, Top 10 cat_3 depending count of each field value in separate worksheet and combine all worksheet in one dashboard.
There is no primary key. This dataset of 1 month so I want to make global filter start date and end date to reduce the query size. But don't know how to create global date filter and display on dashboard ?
You have two questions, one about Vertica and one about Tableau. You should split these up.
Regarding Vertica, you need to know that Vertica stores data in ascending sort order in physical storage. This means that an additional step will always be required anytime you want to get a descending sort order.
I would suggest creating a partition on the date, and subsequently running Database Designer (DBD) in incremental mode and using your queries as samples. By partitioning the data, Vertica can eliminate the partitions during optimization.
Running the DBD will generate some better optimized projections. You should consider the trade-off between how often you will need this data and whether it's worth creating these additional projections as it will impact your load performance.
Related
I have data that can be aggregated by the company that produced the data item. There are around 96 such companies. As such I don't want to use 96 queries, as this seems inefficient.
How can I get grafana to do this with time series data please so I can get all the lines on the same graph?
CAVEAT: I get that 96 data streams is a lot on one graph. However I'm interested in boundary breaches and outliers which don't occur very often per supplier.
Grafana creates multiple lines if you have 3 variables called time, metric and value. Metric has to be a string and in this case I suppose it is the company id. If it is an integer id then you need to cast it to string. Also the query type needs to be time series.
For me, this works:
SELECT
date AS 'time',
cast(runDate AS char) as 'metric',
value/1000 as 'value'
FROM forecast
WHERE $__timeFilter(runDate)
ORDER BY date
I'm using Dataprep on GCP to wrangle a large file with a billion rows. I would like to limit the number of rows in the output of the flow, as I am prototyping a Machine Learning model.
Let's say I would like to keep one million rows out of the original billion. Is this possible to do this with Dataprep? I have reviewed the documentation of sampling, but that only applies to the input of the Transformer tool and not the outcome of the process.
You can do this, but it does take a bit of extra work in your Recipe--set up a formula in a new column using something like RANDBETWEEN to give you a random integer output between 1 and 1,000 (in this million-to-billion case). From there, you can filter rows based on whatever random integer between 1 and 1,000 as what you'll keep, and then your output will only have your randomized subset. Just have your last part of the recipe remove this temporary column.
So indeed there are 2 approaches to this.
As Courtney Grimes said, you can use one of the 2 functions that create random-number out of a range.
randbetween :
rand :
These methods can be used to slice an "even" portion of your data. As suggested, a randbetween(1,1000) , then pick 1<x<1000 to filter, because it's 1\1000 of data (million out of a billion).
Alternatively, if you just want to have million records in your output, but either
Don't want to rely on the knowledge of the size of the entire table
just want the first million rows, agnostic to how many rows there are -
You can just use 2 of these 3 row filtering methods: (top rows\ range)
P.S
By understanding the $sourcerownumber metadata parameter (can read in-product documentation), you can filter\keep a portion of the data (as per the first scenario) in 1 step (AKA without creating an additional column.
BTW, an easy way of "discovery" of how-to's in Trifacta would be to just type what you're looking for in the "search-transtormation" pane (accessed via ctrl-k). By searching "filter", you'll get most of the relevant options for your problem.
Cheers!
I will try to explain the problem on an abstract level first:
I have X amount of data as input, which is always going to have a field DATE. Before, the dates that came as input (after some process) where put in a table as output. Now, I am asked to put both the input dates and any date between the minimun date received and one year from that moment. If there was originally no input for some day between this two dates, all fields must come with 0, or equivalent.
Example. I have two inputs. One with '18/03/2017' and other with '18/03/2018'. I now need to create output data for all the missing dates between '18/03/2017' and '18/04/2017'. So, output '19/03/2017' with every field to 0, and the same for the 20th and 21st and so on.
I know to do this programmatically, but on powercenter I do not. I've been told to do the following (which I have done, but I would like to know of a better method):
Get the minimun date, day0. Then, with an aggregator, create 365 fields, each has that "day0"+1, day0+2, and so on, to create an artificial year.
After that we do several transformations like sorting the dates, union between them, to get the data ready for a joiner. The idea of the joiner is to do an Full Outer Join between the original data, and the data that is going to have all fields to 0 and that we got from the previous aggregator.
Then a router picks with one of its groups the data that had actual dates (and fields without nulls) and other group where all fields are null, and then said fields are given a 0 to finally be written to a table.
I am wondering how can this be achieved by, for starters, removing the need to add 365 days to a date. If I were to do this same process for 10 years intead of one, the task gets ridicolous really quick.
I was wondering about an XOR type of operation, or some other function that would cut the number of steps that need to be done for what I (maybe wrongly) feel is a simple task. Currently I now need 5 steps just to know which dates are missing between two dates, a minimun and one year from that point.
I have tried to be as clear as posible but if I failed at any point please let me know!
Im not sure what the aggregator is supposed to do?
The same with the 'full outer' join? A normal join on a constant port is fine :) c
Can you calculate the needed number of 'dublicates' before the 'joiner'? In that case a lookup configured to return 'all rows' and a less-than-or-equal predicate can help make the mapping much more readable.
In any case You will need a helper table (or file) with a sequence of numbers between 1 and the number of potential dublicates (or more)
I use our time-dimension in the warehouse, which have one row per day from 1753-01-01 and 200000 next days, and a primary integer column with values from 1 and up ...
You've identified you know how to do this programmatically and to be fair this problem is more suited to that sort of solution... but that doesn't exclude powercenter by any means, just feed the 2 dates into a java transformation, apply some code to produce all dates between them and for a record to be output for each. Java transformation is ideal for record generation
You've identified you know how to do this programmatically and to be fair this problem is more suited to that sort of solution... but that doesn't exclude powercenter by any means, just feed the 2 dates into a java transformation, apply some code to produce all dates between them and for a record to be output for each. Java transformation is ideal for record generation
Ok... so you could override your source qualifier to achieve this in the selection query itself (am giving Oracle based example as its what I'm used to and I'm assuming your data in is from a table). I looked up the connect syntax here
SQL to generate a list of numbers from 1 to 100
SELECT (MIN(tablea.DATEFIELD) + levquery.n - 1) AS Port1 FROM tablea, (SELECT LEVEL n FROM DUAL CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 365) as levquery
(Check if the query works for you - haven't access to pc to test it at the minute)
What is the best way to store metrics data used in displaying graphs?
Currently I have a table analytics(domain::text, interval_in_days::int, grouping::text, metric::text, type::text, labels[], data[], summary::json)
domain is the overall category of the metrics. Like what part of the application they're under. Could be sales or support etc.
the interval_in_days and grouping are 'view options' the end user can specify at the interface level to have a different view of the data points.
grouping can be date, day_of_week or time_of_day
interval_in_days can be 7, 30 or 90
labels is an array of the labels on the x-axis and data are the corresponding datapoints.
type is either data_series or summary. If data series, the row represent's the data used for drawing the graph, while a summary has the summary:json field populated with an object like {total_number_of_X: 132, median_X: 320.. etc}
metric is simply the metric the corresponding graph represents, so there's a separate graph for each value of metric
From this it follows that for each metric/graph I display, I have 9 (3 intervals * 3 groupings). For each domain I have a single row with type summary.
Every few hours I aggregate a lot of data across multiple tables into the analytics table. So I don't have to perform expensive queries adhoc.
I feel this is not the optimal approach, so I'm really interested in seeing how other people accomplishes the same task or any suggestions.
There is nothing wrong with storing 9 rows of raw data and later aggregating them to something more comfortable. It's a common approach and has performance benefits in some situations.
What I would really re-think in your design are the datatypes. From your description it seems you can transform all ::text fields into something like ::varchar(20). Then you can use STORAGE PLAIN on these columns and your table will become more efficient.
Also, consider adding foreign keys to describe what is stored in individual columns. For example, you stated grouping can be date, day_of_week or time_of_day, so you could have a groupings table that will list these options. But again, the foreign key would have to be covered by an index, so you may want to skip on that due to performance reasons.
I am trying to creating a way to convert bulk date queries into incremental query. For example, if a query has where condition specified as
WHERE date > now()::date - interval '365 days' and date < now()::date
this will fetch a years data if executed today. Now if the same query is executed tomorrow, 365 days data will again be fetched. However, I already have last 364 days data from previous run. I just want a single day's data to be fetched and a single day's data to be deleted from the system, so that I end up with 365 days data with better performance. This data is to be stored in a separate temp table.
To achieve this, I create an incremental query, which will be executed in next run. However, deleting the single date data is proving tricky when that "date" column does not feature in the SELECT clause but feature in the WHERE condition as the temp table schema will not have the "date" column.
So I thought of executing the bulk query in chunks and assign an ID to that chunk. This way, I can delete a chunk and add a chunk and other data remains unaffected.
Is there a way to achieve the same in postgres or greenplum? Like some inbuilt functionality. I went through the whole documentation but could not find any.
Also, if not, is there any better solution to this problem.
I think this is best handled with something like an aggregates table (I assume the issue is you have heavy aggregates to handle over a lot of data). This doesn't necessarily cause normalization problems (and data warehouses often denormalize anyway). In this regard the aggregates you need can be stored per day so you are able to cut down to one record per day of the closed data, plus non-closed data. Keeping the aggregates to data which cannot change is what is required to avoid the normal insert/update anomilies that normalization prevents.