What is a better approach of storing and querying a big dataset of meteorological data - mongodb
I am looking for a convenient way to store and to query huge amount of meteorological data (few TB). More information about the type of data in the middle of the question.
Previously I was looking in the direction of MongoDB (I was using it for many of my own previous projects and feel comfortable dealing with it), but recently I found out about HDF5 data format. Reading about it, I found some similarities with Mongo:
HDF5 simplifies the file structure to include only two major types of
object: Datasets, which are multidimensional arrays of a homogenous
type Groups, which are container structures which can hold datasets
and other groups This results in a truly hierarchical, filesystem-like
data format. Metadata is stored in the form of user-defined, named
attributes attached to groups and datasets.
Which looks like arrays and embedded objects in Mongo and also it supports indices for querying the data.
Because it uses B-trees to index table objects, HDF5 works well for
time series data such as stock price series, network monitoring data,
and 3D meteorological data.
The data:
Specific region is divided into smaller squares. On the intersection of each one of the the sensor is located (a dot).
This sensor collects the following information every X minutes:
solar luminosity
wind location and speed
humidity
and so on (this information is mostly the same, sometimes a sensor does not collect all the information)
It also collects this for different height (0m, 10m, 25m). Not always the height will be the same. Also each sensor has some sort of metainformation:
name
lat, lng
is it in water, and many others
Giving this, I do not expect the size of one element to be bigger than 1Mb.
Also I have enough storage at one place to save all the data (so as far as I understood no sharding is required)
Operations with the data.
There are several ways I am going to interact with a data:
convert as store big amount of it: Few TB of data will be given to me as some point of time in netcdf format and I will need to store them (and it is relatively easy to convert it HDF5). Then, periodically smaller parts of data (1 Gb per week) will be provided and I have to add them to the storage. Just to highlight: I have enough storage to save all this data on one machine.
query the data. Often there is a need to query the data in a real-time. The most of often queries are: tell me the temperature of sensors from the specific region for a specific time, show me the data from a specific sensor for specific time, show me the wind for some region for a given time-range. Aggregated queries (what is the average temperature over the last two months) are highly unlikely. Here I think that Mongo is nicely suitable, but hdf5+pytables is an alternative.
perform some statistical analysis. Currently I do not know what exactly it would be, but I know that this should not be in a real time. So I was thinking that using hadoop with mongo might be a nice idea but hdf5 with R is a reasonable alternative.
I know that the questions about better approach are not encouraged, but I am looking for an advice of experienced users. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them and will appreciate your help.
P.S I reviewed some interesting discussions, similar to mine: hdf-forum, searching in hdf5, storing meteorological data
It's a difficult question and I am not sure if I can give a definite answer but I have experience with both HDF5/pyTables and some NoSQL databases.
Here are some thoughts.
HDF5 per se has no notion of index. It's only a hierarchical storage format that is well suited for multidimensional numeric data. It's possible to extend on top of HDF5 to implement an index (i.e. PyTables, HDF5 FastQuery) for the data.
HDF5 (unless you are using the MPI version) does not support concurrent write access (read access is possible).
HDF5 supports compression filters which can - unlike popular belief - make data access actually faster (however you have to think about proper chunk size which depends on the way you access the data).
HDF5 is no database. MongoDB has ACID properties, HDF5 doesn't (might be important).
There is a package (SciHadoop) that combines Hadoop and HDF5.
HDF5 makes it relatively easy to do out core computation (i.e. if the data is too big to fit into memory).
PyTables supports some fast "in kernel" computations directly in HDF5 using numexpr
I think your data generally is a good fit for storing in HDF5. You can also do statistical analysis either in R or via Numpy/Scipy.
But you can also think about a hybdrid aproach. Store the raw bulk data in HDF5 and use MongoDB for the meta-data or for caching specific values that are often used.
You can try SciDB if loading NetCDF/HDF5 into this array database is not a problem for you. Note that if your dataset is extremely large, the data loading phase will be very time consuming. I'm afraid this is a problem for all the databases. Anyway, SciDB also provides an R package, which should be able to support the analysis you need.
Alternatively, if you want to perform queries without transforming HDF5 into something else, you can use the product here: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~wayi/papers/HDF5_SQL.pdf
Moreover, if you want to perform a selection query efficiently, you should use index; if you want to perform aggregation query in real time (in seconds), you can consider approximate aggregation. Our group has developed some products to support those functions.
In terms of statistical analysis, I think the answer depends on the complexity of your analysis. If all you need is to compute something like entropy or correlation coefficient, we have products to do it in real time. If the analysis is very complex and ad-hoc, you may consider SciHadoop or SciMATE, which can process scientific data in the MapReduce framework. However, I am not sure if SciHadoop currently can support HDF5 directly.
Related
Howto compress time-series data in Matlab (e.g. delta-rle)?
We have terabytes of time-series data, handled with Matlab, filling our disks. I know that rle-compression could greatly reduce the storage requirement of time-series data, if it were delta-encoded (or even delta-of-delta). (Reason: The differences between consecutive values are mostly small, often just 0, +1, -1, and rle-compression works great if data contains some values much more often than others.) As the admin I want our Matlab-users to save disk space. Is there an easy way to do this in Matlab? Ideally mostly transparent, so they do not need to manually rewrite all places in their scripts where they access data. I don't even need the actual compression, because the filesystem already does that, just automatic delta-encoding would be sufficient.
Clustering techniques for Binary Data
I want to use clustering techniques for binary data analysis. I have collected the data through survey in which i asked the users to select exactly 20 features out of list of 94 product features. The columns in my data represents the 94 product features and the rows represents the participants. I am trying to cluster the similar users in different user groups based on the product features they selected. Each user cluster should also tell me the product features associated with each cluster. I am using some open source clustering tools like NCSS and JMP. I was trying to use fuzzy clustering technique for achieveing my goal but unfortunately these tools do not deal with binary data. Can you please suggest me which technique would really be appropriate for my tasks , also which online tool i can use for using the cluster analysis on my data? As beacuse of the time limitation, I am not looking to code myself and i am only looking for some open source tools that have all the functionality available in them which i can use as it is.
Clustering for binary data is not really well defined. Rather than looking for some tool/function that may or may not work by trial and error, you should first try to answer a 'simple" question: What is a good cluster, mathematically? Vague terms not allowed. The next questions to answer then are: I) when is clustering A better than clustering B (I.e. how does the computer compute quality), and ii) how can this be found efficiently. You won't get far if you don't understand what you are doing just by calling random functions... Also, is clustering actually what you are looking for? Most of the time with binary data e.g. frequent itemset mining is the better choice.
Doubts about clustering methods for tweets
I'm fairly new to clustering and related topics so please forgive my questions.
I'm trying to get introduced into this area by doing some tests, and as a first experiment I'd like to create clusters on tweets based on content similarity. The basic idea for the experiment would be storing tweets on a database and periodically calculate the clustering (ie. using a cron job). Please note that the database would obtain new tweets from time to time.
Being ignorant in this field, my idea (probably naive) would be to do something like this:
1. For each new tweet in the db, extract N-grams (N=3 for example) into a set
2. Perform Jaccard similarity and compare with each of the existing clusters. If result > threshold then it would be assigned to that cluster
3. Once finished I'd get M clusters containing similar tweets
Now I see some problems with this basic approach. Let's put aside computational cost, how would the comparison between a tweet and a cluster be done? Assuming I have a tweet Tn and a cluster C1 containing T1, T4, T10 which one should I compare it to? Given that we're talking about similarity, it could well happen that sim(Tn,T1) > threshold but sim(Tn,T4) < threshold. My gut feeling tells me that something like an average should be used for the cluster, in order to avoid this problem.
Also, it could happen that sim(Tn, C1) and sim(Tn, C2) are both > threshold but similarity with C1 would be higher. In that case Tn should go to C1. This could be done brute force as well to assign the tweet to the cluster with maximum similarity.
And last of all, it's the computational issue. I've been reading a bit about minhash and it seems to be the answer to this problem, although I need to do some more research on it.
Anyway, my main question would be: could someone with experience in the area recommend me which approach should I aim to? I read some mentions about LSA and other methods, but trying to cope with everything is getting a bit overwhelming, so I'd appreciate some guiding.
From what I'm reading a tool for this would be hierarchical clustering, as it would allow regrouping of clusters whenever new data enters. Is this correct?
Please note that I'm not looking for any complicated case. My use case idea would be being able to cluster similar tweets into groups without any previous information. For example, tweets from Foursquare ("I'm checking in ..." which are similar to each other would be one case, or "My klout score is ..."). Also note that I'd like this to be language independent, so I'm not interested in having to deal with specific language issues.
It looks like to me that you are trying to address two different problems in one, i.e. "syntactic" and "semantic" clustering. They are quite different problems, expecially if you are in the realm of short-text analysis (and Twitter is the king of short-text analysis, of course). "Syntactic" clustering means aggregating tweets that come, most likely, from the same source. Your example of Foursquare fits perfectly, but it is also common for retweets, people sharing online newspaper articles or blog posts, and many other cases. For this type of problem, using a N-gram model is almost mandatory, as you said (my experience suggests that N=2 is good for tweets, since you can find significant tweets that have as low as 3-4 features). Normalization is also an important factor here, removing RT tag, mentions, hashtags might help. "Semantic" clustering means aggregating tweets that share the same topic. This is a much more difficult problem, and it won't likely work if you try to aggregate random sample of tweets, due to the fact that they, usually, carry too little information. These techniques might work, though, if you restrict your domain to a specific subset of tweets (i.e. the one matching a keyword, or an hashtag). LSA could be useful here, while it is useless for syntactic clusters. Based on your observation, I think what you want is syntactic clustering. Your biggest issue, though, is the fact that you need online clustering, and not static clustering. The classical clustering algorithms that would work well in the static case (like hierarchical clustering, or union find) aren't really suited for online clustering , unless you redo the clustering from scratch every time a new tweet gets added to your database. "Averaging" the clusters to add new elements isn't a great solution according to my experience, because you need to retain all the information of every cluster member to update the "average" every time new data gets in. Also, algorithms like hierarchical clustering and union find work well because they can join pre-existant clusters if a link of similarity is found between them, and they don't simply assign a new element to the "closest" cluster, which is what you suggested to do in your post. Algorithms like MinHash (or SimHash) are indeed more suited to online clustering, because they support the idea of "querying" for similar documents. MinHash is essentially a way to obtain pairs of documents that exceed a certain threshold of similarity (in particular, MinHash can be considered an estimator of Jaccard similarity) without having to rely on a quadratic algorithm like pairwise comparison (it is, in fact, O(nlog(n)) in time). It is, though, quadratic in space, therefore a memory-only implementation of MinHash is useful for small collections only (say 10000 tweets). In your case, though, it can be useful to save "sketches" (i.e., the set of hashes you obtain by min-hashing a tweet) of your tweets in a database to form an "index", and query the new ones against that index. You can then form a similarity graph, by adding edges between vertices (tweets) that matched the similarity query. The connected components of your graph will be your clusters.
This sounds a lot like canopy pre-clustering to me. Essentially, each cluster is represented by the first object that started the cluster. Objects within the outer radius join the cluster. Objects that are not within the inner radius of at least one cluster start a new cluster. This way, you get an overlapping (non-disjoint!) quantization of your dataset. Since this can drastically reduce the data size, it can be used to speed up various algorithms. However don't expect useful results from clustering tweets. Tweet data is just to much noise. Most tweets have just a few words, too little to define a good similarity. On the other hand, you have the various retweets that are near duplicates - but trivial to detect. So what would be a good cluster of tweets? Can this n-gram similarity actually capture this?
Reducing Large Datasets with MongoDB and D3
I'm working on a D3 visualization and luckily have made some progress. However, I've run into an issue... and to be honest, I'm not sure if its a MongoDB issue, or a D3 issue. You see, I'm trying to make a series of graphs from a set of sensor points (my JSON object contains timestamps, light, temperature, humidity, and motion detection levels or each datapoint). However, my sensors are uploading data to my MongoDB database every 8 seconds. So, if I query the MongoDB database for just one days worth of data... I get 10,800 datapoints. Worse, if I were to ask for one month of data, I'd be swamped with 324,000 datapoints. My issue is that my d3 visualization slows to a crawl when dealing with more than about 1000 points (I'm visualizing the data on four different graphs each which use a single brush to select a certain domain on the graph. Is there a way to limit the amount of data I'm trying to visualize? Is this better done using MongoDB (so basically filter the data I'm querying and only getting every nth data point based on how big of a time value I'm trying to query). Or is there a better way? Should I try to filter the data using D3 once I've retrieved the entire dataset? What is the best way to go about reducing the amount of points I need to deal with? Thanks in advance.
Mongodb is great at filtering. If you really only need a subset of the data, specify that in a find query -- this could limit to a subset of time, or if you're clever only get data for the first minute of every hour or similar. Or you can literally reduce the amount of data coming out of mongodb using the aggregation framework. This could be used to get partial sums or averages or similar.
Any easy performance data exploration programs?
I'm trying to optimize some software, so I generated a large volume of real world performance measurements - nothing fancy, just a few numbers describing the case plus time in milliseconds. I did some basic analysis on it - mostly dividing data into buckets in various ways and calculating bucket averages - and it was quite helpful in giving me a general idea, but it seems these relationships are more complex than I expected. In the mean time I'll keep throwing various formulas at the data, but perhaps by some chance there exists a tool I could use to explore such data visually, and look for patterns this way? Any recommendations?
If you are willing to spend some money, Tableau and Spotfire are good at visualizing data of practically any kind.
I like Excel for this sort of raw data performance analysis. Dump your raw data into a .csv file, load it up in Excel and from there you can group and graph the data however you want. Once graphed, often discernible patterns will emerge.