My Data
It's primarily monitoring data, passed in the form of Timestamp: Value, for each monitored value, on each monitored appliance. It's regularly collected over many appliances and many monitored values.
Additionally, it has the quirky feature of many of these data values being derived at the source, with the calculation changing from time to time. This means that my data is effectively versioned, and I need to be able to simply call up only data from the most recent version of the calculation. Note: This is not versioning where the old values are overwritten. I simply have timestamp cutoffs, beyond which the data changes its meaning.
My Usage
Downstream, I'm going to have various undefined data mining/machine learning uses for the data. It's not really clear yet what those uses are, but it is clear that I will be writing all of the downstream code in Python. Also, we are a very small shop, so I can really only deal with so much complexity in setup, maintenance, and interfacing to downstream applications. We just don't have that many people.
The Choice
I am not allowed to use a SQL RDBMS to store this data, so I have to find the right NoSQL solution. Here's what I've found so far:
Cassandra
Looks totally fine to me, but it seems like some of the major users have moved on. It makes me wonder if it's just not going to be that much of a vibrant ecosystem. This SE post seems to have good things to say: Cassandra time series data
Accumulo
Again, this seems fine, but I'm concerned that this is not a major, actively developed platform. It seems like this would leave me a bit starved for tools and documentation.
MongoDB
I have a, perhaps irrational, intense dislike for the Mongo crowd, and I'm looking for any reason to discard this as a solution. It seems to me like the data model of Mongo is all wrong for things with such a static, regular structure. My data even comes in (and has to stay in) order. That said, everybody and their mother seems to love this thing, so I'm really trying to evaluate its applicability. See this and many other SE posts: What NoSQL DB to use for sparse Time Series like data?
HBase
This is where I'm currently leaning. It seems like the successor to Cassandra with a totally usable approach for my problem. That said, it is a big piece of technology, and I'm concerned about really knowing what it is I'm signing up for, if I choose it.
OpenTSDB
This is basically a time-series specific database, built on top of HBase. Perfect, right? I don't know. I'm trying to figure out what another layer of abstraction buys me.
My Criteria
Open source
Works well with Python
Appropriate for a small team
Very well documented
Has specific features to take advantage of ordered time series data
Helps me solve some of my versioned data problems
So, which NoSQL database actually can help me address my needs? It can be anything, from my list or not. I'm just trying to understand what platform actually has code, not just usage patterns, that support my super specific, well understood needs. I'm not asking which one is best or which one is cooler. I'm trying to understand which technology can most natively store and manipulate this type of data.
Any thoughts?
It sounds like you are describing one of the most common use cases for Cassandra. Time series data in general is often a very good fit for the cassandra data model. More specifically many people store metric/sensor data like you are describing. See:
http://rubyscale.com/blog/2011/03/06/basic-time-series-with-cassandra/
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/advanced-time-series-with-cassandra
http://engineering.rockmelt.com/post/17229017779/modeling-time-series-data-on-top-of-cassandra
As far as your concerns with the community I'm not sure what is giving you that impression, but there is quite a large community (see irc, mailing lists) as well as a growing number of cassandra users.
http://www.datastax.com/cassandrausers
Regarding your criteria:
Open source
Yes
Works well with Python
http://pycassa.github.com/pycassa/
Appropriate for a small team
Yes
Very well documented
http://www.datastax.com/docs/1.1/index
Has specific features to take advantage of ordered time series data
See above links
Helps me solve some of my versioned data problems
If I understand your description correctly you could solve this multiple ways. You could start writing a new row when the version changes. Alternatively you could use composite columns to store the version along with the timestamp/value pair.
I'll also note that Accumulo, HBase, and Cassandra all have essentially the same data model. You will still find small differences around the data model in regards to specific features that each database offers, but the basics will be the same.
The bigger difference between the three will be the architecture of the system. Cassandra takes its architecture from Amazon's Dynamo. Every server in the cluster is the same and it is quite simple to setup. HBase and Accumulo or more direct clones of BigTable. These have more moving parts and will require more setup/types of servers. For example, setting up HDFS, Zookeeper, and HBase/Accumulo specific server types.
Disclaimer: I work for DataStax (we work with Cassandra)
I only have experience in Cassandra and MongoDB but my experience might add something.
So your basically doing time based metrics?
Ok if I understand right you use the timestamp as a versioning mechanism so that you query per a certain timestamp, say to get the latest calculation used you go based on the metric ID or whatever and get ts DESC and take off the first row?
It sounds like a versioned key value store at times.
With this in mind I probably would not recommend either of the two I have used.
Cassandra is too rigid and it's too heirachal, too based around how you query to the point where you can only make one pivot of graph data from (I presume you would wanna graph these metrics) the columfamily which is crazy, hence why I dropped it. As for searching (which Facebook use it for, and only that) it's not that impressive either.
MongoDB, well I love MongoDB and I am an elite of the user group and it could work here if you didn't use a key value storage policy but at the end of the day if your mind is not set and you don't like the tech then let me be the very first to say: don't use it! You will be no good at a tech that you don't like so stay away from it.
Though I would picture this happening in Mongo much like:
{
_id: ObjectID(),
metricId: 'AvailableMessagesInQueue',
formula: '4+5/10.01',
result: NaN
ts: ISODate()
}
And you query for the latest version of your calculation by:
var results = db.metrics.find({ 'metricId': 'AvailableMessagesInQueue' }).sort({ ts: -1 });
var latest = results.getNext();
Which would output the doc structure you see above. Without knowing more of exactly how you wish to query and the general servera and app scenario etc thats the best I can come up with.
I fond this thread on HBase though: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201011.mbox/%3C5A76F6CE309AD049AAF9A039A39242820F0C20E5#sc-mbx04.TheFacebook.com%3E
Which might be of interest, it seems to support the argument that HBase is a good time based key value store.
I have not personally used HBase so do not take anything I say about it seriously....
I hope I have added something, if not you could try narrowing your criteria so we can answer more dedicated questions.
Hope it helps a little,
Not a plug for any particular technology but this article on Time Series storage using MongoDB might provide another way of thinking about the storage of large amounts of "sensor" data.
http://www.10gen.com/presentations/mongodc-2011/time-series-data-storage-mongodb
Axibase Time-Series Database
Open source
There is a free Community Edition
Works well with Python
https://github.com/axibase/atsd-api-python. There are also other language wrappers, for example ATSD R client.
Appropriate for a small team
Built-in graphics and rule engine make it productive for building an in-house reporting, dashboarding, or monitoring solution with less coding.
Very well documented
It's hard to beat IBM redbooks, but we're trying. API, configuration, and administration is documented in detail and with examples.
Has specific features to take advantage of ordered time series data
It's a time-series database from the ground-up so aggregation, filtering and non-parametric ARIMA and HW forecasts are available.
Helps me solve some of my versioned data problems
ATSD supports versioned time-series data natively in SE and EE editions. Versions keep track of status, change-time and source changes for the same timestamp for audit trails and reconciliations. It's a useful feature to have if you need clean, verified data with tracing. Think energy metering, PHMR records. ATSD schema also supports series tags, which you could use to store versioning columns manually if you're on CE edition or you need to extend default versioning columns: status, source, change-time.
Disclosure - I work for the company that develops ATSD.
Related
I'm building a data visualization system for Forex trading and I'm exploring ways of storing the historical Forex trading tick data that I have.
The data are in the form of currency pair (e.g. USD/CAD) chronological ticks of Ask and Bid prices. At the end of the day I need my data to be indexed in Elasticsearch and what I searching for is the best way to get them there.
I found a couple of approaches online; they start out simple but then get complicated. I'm wondering if adding that extra complexity is worth it. Some of my options are:
Storing tick data on PostgreSQL and then via a plugin sync them to Elasticsearch (here)
Storing tick data on PostgreSQL, push them to Logstash and then to Elasticsearch
Finally, storing tick data on PostgreSQL, push them to Redis, then to Logstash, and then to Elasticsearch
My intuition says that solution No 2 would be the ideal one, but what is considered best practice?
It's a good idea to store your data in a long-term storage DB, such as PostgreSQL or similar. That way you can decide at any time whether you need to change your mappings, add fields, remove fields, change their types, or what have you, and then you can easily rebuild your ES index/indices without too much trouble from your primary source of truth (i.e. PostgreSQL) and you always have clean data in ES.
I don't know ZomboDB (solution 1) so I can't really speak for it, all I know is that I'm generally not too fond of tying two different technologies together, it makes it hard to upgrade any of them in case you need/must/want to apply patches or benefit from new features in either of them.
Unless you have big and costly transformations to do on your source data, I feel that solution 3 doesn't bring much, i.e. the additional step of storing data in an intermediary Redis, doesn't bring much in my opinion (your mileage may vary here). It's a good idea to use a temporary store, such as Redis or Kafka, when you may lose data along the pipeline, but in this case, since you have your data in PostgreSQL, you don't really run the risk of losing anything. If at all, you can relaunch your pipeline and rebuild a few days of data.
That leaves solution 2, which would be fine given the information at hand. Using the Logstash JDBC input, you can easily retrieve the latest changes and forward them to ES every x minutes.
Eric from ZomboDB here. I wanted to try and answer your question as it relates to ZDB.
ZomboDB is really designed for full-text searching within Postgres. It's important to note that it's not a tool to synchronize your PG data to Elasticsearch. It's a fully-functional Postgres index type (akin to the built-in types like btree, gin, and gist) that happens to be backed by Elasticsearch. The fact that ZomboDB uses Elasticsearch is really an implementation detail.
While ZDB does provide a number of UDFs that expose access to ES' aggregate facilities, again, it's really designed for text searching.
So if your data is really just pairs of numbers, you're probably better off using ES directly -- especially if you're loading in one batch per day. There's no doubt that ZDB could provide superior aggregate performance compared to standard Postgres "GROUP BY" queries (because it passes it through to Elasticsearch), but you're paying a heavy operational penalty for a limited use-case.
If, on the other hand, your ask/bid data comes with a lot of related metadata, and:
You need PG to be your source of truth,
You need to text-search that metadata (with or without aggregation support), and
You don't want to learn ES and introduce another database system to your application, then...
... ZomboDB could be right for you.
I suspect Stack Overflow isn't the place to get into this, so feel free to contact me via the ways ZDB's github page recommends.
I am implementing a sinatra/rails based web portal that might eventually have few many:many relationships between tables/models. This is a one man team and part time but real world app.
I discussed my entity with someone and was advised to try neo4j. Coming from real 'non-sexy' enterprise world, my inclination is to use relational db until it stops scaling or becomes a nightmare because of sharding etc and then think about anything else.
HOWEVER,
I am using postgres for the first time in this project along with datamapper and its taking me time to get started very fast
I am just trying out few things and building more use cases so I consitently have to update my schema (prototyping idea and feedback from beta) . I wont have to do this in neo4j (except changing my queries)
Seems like its very easy to setup search using neo4j . But Postgres can do full text search as well.
Postgres recently announced support for json and javascript. Wondering if I should just stick with PG and invest more time learning PG (which has a good community) instead neo4j.
Looking for usecases where neo4j is better, especially at protyping/initial phase of a project. I understand if the website grows I might end up having multiple persistent technologies like s3, relational (PG), mongo etc.
Also it would be good to know how it plays out with Rails/Ruby ecosystem.
Update1:
I got a lot of good answers and seems like the right thing to do is stick with Postgres for now (especially since I deploy to heroku)
However the idea of being schema-less is tempting. Basically I am thinking of a approach where you don't define a datamodel until you have say 100-150 users and you have yourself figured out a good schema (business use cases) for your product , while you are just demoing the concept and getting feedback with limited signups. Then one can decide a schema and start with relational.
Would be nice to know if there are easy to use schema/less persistence option (based on ease to use/setup for new user) that might give up say scaling etc.
Graph databases should be considered if you have a really chaotic data model. They were needed to express highly complex relationships between entities. To do that, they store relationships at the data level whereas RDBMS use a declarative approach. Storing relationships only makes sense if these relationships are very different, otherwise you'll just end up duplicating data over and over, taking a lot of space for nothing.
To require such variety in relationships you'd have to handle huge amount of data. This is where graph databases shines because instand of doing tons of joins, they just pick a record and follow his relationships. To support my statement : you'll notice that every use cases on Neo4j's website are dealing with very complex data.
In brief, if you don't feel concerned with what I said above, I think you should use another technology. If this is just about scaling, schemalessness or starting fast a project, then look at other NoSQL solutions (more specifically, either column or document oriented databases). Otherwise you should stick with PostgreSQL. You could also, like you said, consider polyglot persistence,
About your update, you might consider hStore. I think it fits your requirements. It's a PostgreSQL module which also works on Heroku.
I don't think I agree that you should only use a graph database when your data model is very complex. I'm sure they could handle a simple data model/relationships as well.
If you have no prior experience with Neo4j or Postgres, then most likely both with take quite a bit of time to learn well.
Some things to keep in mind when picking:
It's not just about development against a database technology. You should consider deployment as well. How easy is it to deploy and scale Postgres/Neo4j?
Consider the community and tools around each technology. Is there a data mapper for Neo4j like there is for Postgres?
Consider that the data models are considerably different between the two. If you can already think relationally, then I'd probably stick with Postgres. If you go with Neo4j you're going to be making a lot of mistakes for several months with your data models.
Over time I've learned to keep it simple when I can. Postgres might be the boring choice compared to Neo4j, but boring doesn't keep you up at night. =)
Also I never see anyone mention it, but you should look at Riak (http://basho.com/riak/) too. It's a document database that also provides relationships (links) between objects. Not as mature as a graph database, but it can connect a few entities quickly.
The most appropriate choice depends on what problem you are trying to solve.
If you just have a few many to many tables, a relational database can be fine. In general, there is better OR-mapper support for relational databases, as they are much older and have a standardized interface and row-column structure. They also have been improved on for a long time, so they are stable and optimized for what they are doing.
A graph database is better if e.g. your problem is more about the connections between entities, especially if you need higher distance connections, like "detect cycles (of unspecified length)", some "what do friends-of-a-friend like". Things like that get unwieldy when restricted to SQL joins. A problem specific language like cypher in case of Neo4j makes that much more concise. On the downside, there are mappers between graph dbs and objects, but not for every framework and language under the sun.
I recently implemented a system prototype using neo4j and it was very useful to be able to talk about the structure and connections of our data and be able to model that one to one in the data storage. Also, adding other connections between data points was easy, neo4j being a schemaless storage. We ended up switching to mongodb due to troubles with write performance, but I don't think we could have finished the prototype with that in the same time.
Other NoSQL datastores like document based, column, key-value also cover specific usecases. Polyglot persistence is definitively something to look at, so keep your choice of backend reasonably separated from your business logic, to allow you to change your technology later if you learned something new.
I currently run a MySQL-powered website where users promote advertisements and gain revenue every time someone completes one. We log every time someone views an ad ("impression"), every time a user clicks an add ("click"), and every time someone completes an ad ("lead").
Since we get so much traffic, we have millions of records in each of these respective tables. We then have to query these tables to let users see how much they have earned, so we end up performing multiple queries on tables with millions and millions of rows multiple times in one request, hundreds of times concurrently.
We're looking to move away from MySQL and to a key-value store or something along those lines. We need something that will let us store all these millions of rows, query them in milliseconds, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, use adhoc queries where we can query any single column, so we could do things like:
FROM leads WHERE country = 'US' AND user_id = 501 (the NoSQL equivalent, obviously)
FROM clicks WHERE ad_id = 1952 AND user_id = 200 AND country = 'GB'
etc.
Does anyone have any good suggestions? I was considering MongoDB or CouchDB but I'm not sure if they can handle querying millions of records multiple times a second and the type of adhoc queries we need.
Thanks!
With those requirements, you are probably better off sticking with SQL and setting up replication/clustering if you are running into load issues. You can set up indexing on a document database so that those queries are possible, but you don't really gain anything over your current system.
NoSQL systems generally improve performance by leaving out some of the more complex features of relational systems. This means that they will only help if your scenario doesn't require those features. Running ad hoc queries on tabular data is exactly what SQL was designed for.
CouchDB's map/reduce is incremental which means it only processes a document once and stores the results.
Let's assume, for a moment, that CouchDB is the slowest database in the world. Your first query with millions of rows takes, maybe, 20 hours. That sounds terrible. However, your second query, your third query, your fourth query, and your hundredth query will take 50 milliseconds, perhaps 100 including HTTP and network latency.
You could say CouchDB fails the benchmarks but gets honors in the school of hard knocks.
I would not worry about performance, but rather if CouchDB can satisfy your ad-hoc query requirements. CouchDB wants to know what queries will occur, so it can do the hard work up-front before the query arrives. When the query does arrive, the answer is already prepared and out it goes!
All of your examples are possible with CouchDB. A so-called merge-join (lots of equality conditions) is no problem. However CouchDB cannot support multiple inequality queries simultaneously. You cannot ask CouchDB, in a single query, for users between age 18-40 who also clicked fewer than 10 times.
The nice thing about CouchDB's HTTP and Javascript interface is, it's easy to do a quick feasibility study. I suggest you try it out!
Most people would probably recommend MongoDB for a tracking/analytic system like this, for good reasons. You should read the „MongoDB for Real-Time Analytics” chapter from the „MongoDB Definitive Guide” book. Depending on the size of your data and scaling needs, you could get all the performance, schema-free storage and ad-hoc querying features. You will need to decide for yourself if issues with durability and unpredictability of the system are risky for you or not.
For a simpler tracking system, Redis would be a very good choice, offering rich functionality, blazing speed and real durability. To get a feel how such a system would be implemented in Redis, see this gist. The downside is, that you'd need to define all the „indices” by yourself, not gain them for „free”, as is the case with MongoDB. Nevertheless, there's no free lunch, and MongoDB indices are definitely not a free lunch.
I think you should have a look into how ElasticSearch would enable you:
Blazing speed
Schema-free storage
Sharding and distributed architecture
Powerful analytic primitives in the form of facets
Easy implementation of „sliding window”-type of data storage with index aliases
It is in heart a „fulltext search engine”, but don't get yourself confused by that. Read the „Data Visualization with ElasticSearch and Protovis“ article for real world use case of ElasticSearch as a data mining engine.
Have a look on these slides for real world use case for „sliding window” scenario.
There are many client libraries for ElasticSearch available, such as Tire for Ruby, so it's easy to get off the ground with a prototype quickly.
For the record (with all due respect to #jhs :), based on my experience, I cannot imagine an implementation where Couchdb is a feasible and useful option. It would be an awesome backup storage for your data, though.
If your working set can fit in the memory, and you index the right fields in the document, you'd be all set. Your ask is not something very typical and I am sure with proper hardware, right collection design (denormalize!) and indexing you should be good to go. Read up on Mongo querying, and use explain() to test the queries. Stay away from IN and NOT IN clauses that'd be my suggestion.
It really depends on your data sets. The number one rule to NoSQL design is to define your query scenarios first. Once you really understand how you want to query the data then you can look into the various NoSQL solutions out there. The default unit of distribution is key. Therefore you need to remember that you need to be able to split your data between your node machines effectively otherwise you will end up with a horizontally scalable system with all the work still being done on one node (albeit better queries depending on the case).
You also need to think back to CAP theorem, most NoSQL databases are eventually consistent (CP or AP) while traditional Relational DBMS are CA. This will impact the way you handle data and creation of certain things, for example key generation can be come trickery.
Also remember than in some systems such as HBase there is no indexing concept. All your indexes will need to be built by your application logic and any updates and deletes will need to be managed as such. With Mongo you can actually create indexes on fields and query them relatively quickly, there is also the possibility to integrate Solr with Mongo. You don’t just need to query by ID in Mongo like you do in HBase which is a column family (aka Google BigTable style database) where you essentially have nested key-value pairs.
So once again it comes to your data, what you want to store, how you plan to store it, and most importantly how you want to access it. The Lily project looks very promising. The work I am involved with we take a large amount of data from the web and we store it, analyse it, strip it down, parse it, analyse it, stream it, update it etc etc. We dont just use one system but many which are best suited to the job at hand. For this process we use different systems at different stages as it gives us fast access where we need it, provides the ability to stream and analyse data in real-time and importantly, keep track of everything as we go (as data loss in a prod system is a big deal) . I am using Hadoop, HBase, Hive, MongoDB, Solr, MySQL and even good old text files. Remember that to productionize a system using these technogies is a bit harder than installing MySQL on a server, some releases are not as stable and you really need to do your testing first. At the end of the day it really depends on the level of business resistance and the mission-critical nature of your system.
Another path that no one thus far has mentioned is NewSQL - i.e. Horizontally scalable RDBMSs... There are a few out there like MySQL cluster (i think) and VoltDB which may suit your cause.
Again it comes to understanding your data and the access patterns, NoSQL systems are also Non-Rel i.e. non-relational and are there for better suit to non-relational data sets. If your data is inherently relational and you need some SQL query features that really need to do things like Cartesian products (aka joins) then you may well be better of sticking with Oracle and investing some time in indexing, sharding and performance tuning.
My advice would be to actually play around with a few different systems. However for your use case I think a Column Family database may be the best solution, I think there are a few places which have implemented similar solutions to very similar problems (I think the NYTimes is using HBase to monitor user page clicks). Another great example is Facebook and like, they are using HBase for this. There is a really good article here which may help you along your way and further explain some points above. http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/3/22/facebooks-new-realtime-analytics-system-hbase-to-process-20.html
Final point would be that NoSQL systems are not the be all and end all. Putting your data into a NoSQL database does not mean its going to perform any better than MySQL, Oracle or even text files... For example see this blog post: http://mysqldba.blogspot.com/2010/03/cassandra-is-my-nosql-solution-but.html
I'd have a look at;
MongoDB - Document - CP
CouchDB - Document - AP
Redis - In memory key-value (not column family) - CP
Cassandra - Column Family - Available & Partition Tolerant (AP)
HBase - Column Family - Consistent & Partition Tolerant (CP)
Hadoop/Hive - Also have a look at Hadoop streaming...
Hypertable - Another CF CP DB.
VoltDB - A really good looking product, a relation database that is distributed and might work for your case (may be an easier move). They also seem to provide enterprise support which may be more suited for a prod env (i.e. give business users a sense of security).
Any way thats my 2c. Playing around with the systems is really the only way your going to find out what really works for your case.
I just wanted to know if there is a fundamental difference between hbase, cassandra, couchdb and monogodb ? In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems. Or they fit best in different scenarios?
All this comes to the question, what should I chose when. Matter of taste?
Thanks,
Federico
Those are some long answers from #Bohzo. (but they are good links)
The truth is, they're "kind of" competing. But they definitely have different strengths and weaknesses and they definitely don't all solve the same problems.
For example Couch and Mongo both provide Map-Reduce engines as part of the main package. HBase is (basically) a layer over top of Hadoop, so you also get M-R via Hadoop. Cassandra is highly focused on being a Key-Value store and has plug-ins to "layer" Hadoop over top (so you can map-reduce).
Some of the DBs provide MVCC (Multi-version concurrency control). Mongo does not.
All of these DBs are intended to scale horizontally, but they do it in different ways. All of these DBs are also trying to provide flexibility in different ways. Flexible document sizes or REST APIs or high redundancy or ease of use, they're all making different trade-offs.
So to your question: In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems?
Yes: they're all trying to solve the issue of database-scalability and performance.
No: they're definitely making different sets of trade-offs.
What should you start with?
Man, that's a tough question. I work for a large company pushing tons of data and we've been through a few years. We tried Cassandra at one point a couple of years ago and it couldn't handle the load. We're using Hadoop everywhere, but it definitely has a steep learning curve and it hasn't worked out in some of our environments. More recently we've tried to do Cassandra + Hadoop, but it turned out to be a lot of configuration work.
Personally, my department is moving several things to MongoDB. Our reasons for this are honestly just simplicity.
Setting up Mongo on a linux box takes minutes and doesn't require root access or a change to the file system or anything fancy. There are no crazy config files or java recompiles required. So from that perspective, Mongo has been the easiest "gateway drug" for getting people on to KV/Document stores.
CouchDB and MongoDB are document stores
Cassandra and HBase are key-value based
Here is a detailed comparison between HBase and Cassandra
Here is a (biased) comparison between MongoDB and CouchDB
Short answer: test before you use in production.
I can offer my experience with both HBase (extensive) and MongoDB (just starting).
Even though they are not the same kind of stores, they solve the same problems:
scalable storage of data
random access to the data
low latency access
We were very enthusiastic about HBase at first. It is built on Hadoop (which is rock-solid), it is under Apache, it is active... what more could you want? Our experience:
HBase is fragile
administrator's nightmare (full of configuration settings where default ones are less than perfect, nontransparent configuration, changes from version to version,...)
loses data (unless you have set the X configuration and changed Y to... you get the point :) - we found that out when HBase crashed and we lost 2 hours (!!!) of data because WAL was not setup properly
lacks secondary indexes
lacks any way to perform a backup of database without shutting it down
All in all, HBase was a nightmare. Wouldn't recommend it to anyone except to our direct competitors. :)
MongoDB solves all these problems and many more. It is a delight to setup, it makes administrating it a simple and transparent job and the default configuration settings actually make sense. You can perform (hot) backups, you can have secondary indexes. From what I read, I wouldn't recommend MapReduce on MongoDB (JavaScript, 1 thread per node only), but you can use Hadoop for that.
And it is also VERY active when compared to HBase.
Also:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=HBase%2CMongoDB
Need I say more? :)
UPDATE: many months later I must say MongoDB delivered on all accounts and more. The only real downside is that hosting companies do not offer it the way they offer MySQL. ;)
It also looks like MapReduce is bound to become multi-threaded in 2.2. Still, I wouldn't use MR this way. YMMV.
Cassandra is good for writing the data. it has advantage of "writes never fail". It has no single point failure.
HBase is very good for data processing. HBase is based on Hadoop File System (HDFS) so HBase dosen't need to worry for data replication, data consistency. HBase has the single point of failure. I am not really sure that what does it's mean if it has single point of failure then it is somhow similar to RDBMS where we have single point of failure. I might be wrong in sense since I am quite new.
How abou RIAK ? Does someone has experience using RIAK. I red some where that you need to pay, I am not sure. Need explanation.
One more thing which one you will prefer to use when you are only concern to reading a lot of data. You don't have any concern with writing. Just imagine you have database with pitabyte and you want to make fast search which NOSQL database would you prefer ?
I've got a lot of mysql data that I need to generate reports from. It's mostly historic data so it won't be changing much, but it weighs in at 20-30 gigabytes easily and is expected to grow. I currently have a collection of php scripts that will do some complex queries and output csv and excel files. I also use phpMyAdmin with bookmarked queries. I manually edit them to change the parameters. The amount of data is growing and the number of people who need access to it is also growing, so I'm making the time to improve this situation.
I started reading about data warehousing the other day and it seems that this an area that relates to what I need to do. I've read some good articles and am even waiting on a book. I think I'm getting a handle on what these sorts of systems do and what's possible.
Creating a reporting system for my data has always been on a todo list, but until recently I figured it would be a highly niche programing venture. Since I now know data warehousing is a common thing, I figure there must be some sort of reporting/warehousing frames available to ease in the development. I'd gladly skip writing interfaces and scripts to schedule and email reports and the like and stick to writing queries and setting up relations.
I've mostly been a lamp guy, but I'm not above switching languages or platforms. I just need a more robust solution as my one off scripts don't scale well.
So where's a good place to get started?
I'll discuss a few points on the {budget, business utility function, time frame} spectrum out there. For convenience, let's follow the architecture conceptualization you linked to at
WikipediaDataWarehouseArticle
Operational database layer
The source data for the data warehouse - Normalized for In One Place Only data maintenance
Data access layer
The transformation of your source data into your informational access layer. ETL tools to extract, transform, load data into the warehouse fall into this layer.
Informational access layer
• Report-facilitating Data Structure
Data is not maintained here. It is merely a reflection of your source data
Hence, denormalized structures (containing duplicate, but systematically derived data)
are usually most effective here
• Reporting tools
How do you actually allow your users access to the data
• pre-canned reports (simple)
• more dynamic slice-and-dice access methods
The data accessed for reporting and analyzing and the tools for reporting and analyzing data
fall into this layer. And the Inmon-Kimball differences about design methodology,
discussed later in the Wikipedia article, have to do with this layer.
Metadata layer (facilitates automation, organization, etc)
Roll your own (low-end)
For very little out-of-pocket cost, just recognizing the need for the denormalized structures can buy those that are not using it some efficiencies
Get in the ballgame (some outlays required)
You don't need to use all the functionality of a platform right off the bat.
IMO, however, you want to be on a platform that you know will grow, and in the highly competitive and consolidating BI environment, that seems to be one of the four enterprise mega-vendors (my opinion)
Microsoft (the platform of our 110 employee firm)
SAP
Oracle
IBM
BiMarketStateArticle
My firm is at this stage, using some of the ETL capability offered by SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) and some alternate usage of the open source, but in practice license requiring Talend product in the "Data Access Layer", a denormalized reporting structure (implemented completely in the basic SQL Server database), and SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) to largely automate (based on your skill) the production of pre-specified reports. Note that an SSRS "report" is merely a (scalable) XML configuration/specification that gets rendered at runtime via the SSRS engine. Choices such as export to an excel file are simple options.
Serious Commitment (some significant human commitment required)
Notice above that we have yet to utilize the data mining/dynamic slicing/dicing
capabilities of SQL Server Analysis Services. We are working toward that,
but now focused on improving the quality of our data cleansing in the "Data Access Layer".
I hope this helps you to get a sense of where to start looking.
Pentaho has put together a pretty comprehensive suite of products. The products are "free", but be prepared for the usual heavy sell once you fork over your identifying information.
I haven't had a chance to really stretch them as we're a Microsoft shop from one sad end to the other.
I think you should first check out Kimball and Inmon and see if you want to approach your data warehouse in a particular way. Kimball, in particular, lays out a very good framework for the modelling and construction of the warehouse.
There are a number of tools which try to make the process of designing, implementing and managing/operating a Data Warehouse and they each have their strengths and weaknesses and often vastly differing price points. Under the covers you are always going to be best off if you have a good knowledge of warsehousing principles from the Kimball and/or Inmon camps.
As well as tools like Kalido and Wherescape RED (which do similar thing in very different ways), many of the ETL platforms now have good in-built support for the donkey work of implementation - SCD components etc and lineage tracking.
Best though to view all these as tools to be used in the hands of you, the craftsman, they make certain easy things even easier (or even trivial), some hard things easier but some things they just get in they way of IMHO ;) Learn the methodology and principles first and get a good understanding of them and then you will know which tools to apply from your kitbag and when...
It hasn't been updated in a while but there's a nice Data Warehousing/ETL Ruby package called ActiveWarehouse.
But I would check out the Pentaho products like Nick mentioned in another answer. It should easily handle the volume of data you have and may provide you with more ways to slice and dice your data than you could have ever imagined.
The best framework you can currently get is Anchor Modeling.
It might look quite complex because of it's generic structure and built-in capability to historize data.
Also modeling technique is quite different than ERD.
But you end-up with sql code to generate all db objects including 3NF views and:
insert/update handled by triggers
query any point/range in history
you application developers will not see underlying 6NF anchor model.
The technology is open sourced and at the moment is unbeatable.
If you would have AM question you may want to ask on that tag anchor-modeling.
Kimball is the simpler method for data warehousing.
We use Informatica for moving data around, but it doesn't do DW things like indexing by default.
I like the idea of Wherescape RED, as a DW tool and using MS SQL's Linked Servers to obviate the need for an ETL tool.