Being a beginner with the Apache Beam programming model, I would like to know what is the difference between JDBC and jdbcio. I have developed a simple dataflow which involves normal JDBC connection and it is working as expected.
Is it mandatory to use jdbcio over JDBC? If yes, what are the issues we face when we go with a normal JDBC code?
Within a Beam pipeline there are various options for reading and writing out to external sources of data. The most common method is to make use of inbuilt sinks and sources that have been built by the Beam community (Built-in I/O Transforms). These connectors will often have had considerable development effort spent on them and will have been production hardened. For example the BigQueryIO has been used in production for many years, with continuous development throughout that period. The general advice will therefore be to make use of the standard Sinks and Sources whenever possible.
However not all interactions with external data sources should be via Sources and Sinks, there are use cases where a hand built communication from a DoFn to the external source is the correct path. A few examples below (there are more of course!);
There is no Sink / Source to the data source, or there is a source
but it does not yet support all switches / modes etc for your needs.
Of course you can always enhance the existing Sink / Source or if it
does not exist to build a new I/O connector from scratch and if
possible would be great to contribute this back to the community :)
You are enriching elements flowing through your streaming pipeline
with a small subset of data from a large data set. For example, let's
say your processing events coming from a sales order and you would
like to add information for each item. The information for the item's
lives in a large multi TB store but on average you will only access a
small percentage of the data as lookup keys. In this example it makes
sense to enrich each element by making an external call to the data
store within a DoFn. Rather than reading all of the data in as a
Source and doing the join operation within the pipeline.
Extra notes / hints:
When calling external systems, keep in mind that Apache Beam is designed to distribute work across many threads, this can place significant load on your external datasource, you can often reduce this load by making use of the start & end bundle annotations;
Java (SDK 2.9.0)
DoFn.StartBundle
DoFn.FinishBundle
Python (SDK 2.9.0)
start_bundle()
finish_bundle()
Related
I am planning to do a class project and was going through few technologies where I can automate or set the flow of data between systems and found that there are couple of them i.e. Apache NiFi and StreamSets ( to my knowledge ). What I couldn't understand is the difference between them and use-cases where they can be used? I am new to this and if anyone can explain me a bit would be highly appreciated. Thanks
Suraj,
Great question.
My response is as a member of the open source Apache NiFi project management committee and as someone who is passionate about the dataflow management domain.
I've been involved in the NiFi project since it was started in 2006. My knowledge of Streamsets is relatively limited so I'll let them speak for it as they have.
The key thing to understand is that NiFi was built to do one really important thing really well and that is 'Dataflow Management'. It's design is based on a concept called Flow Based Programming which you may want to read about and reference for your project 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming'
There are already many systems which produce data such as sensors and others. There are many systems which focus on data processing like Apache Storm, Spark, Flink, and others. And finally there are many systems which store data like HDFS, relational databases, and so on. NiFi purely focuses on the task of connecting those systems and providing the user experience and core functions necessary to do that well.
What are some of those key functions and design choices made to make that effective:
1) Interactive command and control
The job of someone trying to connect systems is to be able to rapidly and efficiently interact with the constant streams of data they see. NiFi's UI allows you do just that as the data is flowing you can add features to operate on it, fork off copies of data to try new approaches, adjust current settings, see recent and historical stats, helpful in-line documentation and more. Almost all other systems by comparison have a model that is design and deploy oriented meaning you make a series of changes and then deploy them. That model is fine and can be intuitive but for the dataflow management job it means you don't get the interactive change by change feedback that is so vital to quickly build new flows or to safely and efficiently correct or improve handling of existing data streams.
2) Data Provenance
A very unique capability of NiFi is its ability to generate fine grained and powerful traceability details for where your data comes from, what is done to it, where its sent and when it is done in the flow. This is essential to effective dataflow management for a number of reasons but for someone in the early exploration phases and working a project the most important thing this gives you is awesome debugging flexibility. You can setup your flows and let things run and then use provenance to actually prove that it did exactly what you wanted. If something didn't happen as you expected you can fix the flow and replay the object then repeat. Really helpful.
3) Purpose built data repositories
NiFi's out of the box experience offers very powerful performance even on really modest hardware or virtual environments. This is because of the flowfile and content repository design which gives us the high performance but transactional semantics we want as data works its way through the flow. The flowfile repository is a simple write ahead log implementation and the content repository provides an immutable versioned content store. That in turn means we can 'copy' data by only ever adding a new pointer (not actually copying bytes) or we can transform data by simply reading from the original and writing out a new version. Again very efficient. Couple that with the provenance stuff I mentioned a moment ago and it just provides a really powerful platform. Another really key thing to understand here is that in the business of connecting systems you don't always get to dictate things like size of data involved. The NiFi API was built to honor that fact and so our API lets processors do things like receive, transform, and send data without ever having to load the full objects in memory. These repositories also mean that in most flows the majority of processors do not even touch the content at all. However, you can easily see from the NiFi UI precisely how many bytes are actually being read or written so again you get really helpful information in establishing and observing your flows. This design also means NiFi can support back-pressure and pressure-release naturally and these are really critical features for a dataflow management system.
It was mentioned previously by the folks from the Streamsets company that NiFi is file oriented. I'm not really sure what the difference is between a file or a record or a tuple or an object or a message in generic terms but the reality is when data is in the flow then it is 'a thing that needs to be managed and delivered'. That is what NiFi does. Whether you have lots of really high speed tiny things or you have large things and whether they came from a live audio stream off the Internet or they come from a file sitting on your harddrive it doesn't matter. Once it is in the flow it is time to manage and deliver it. That is what NiFi does.
It was also mentioned by the Streamsets company that NiFi is schemaless. It is accurate that NiFi does not force conversion of data from whatever it is originally to some special NiFi format nor do we have to reconvert it back to some format for follow-on delivery. It would be pretty unfortunate if we did that because what this means is that even the most trivial of cases would have problematic performance implications and luckily NiFi does not have that problem. Further had we gone that route then it would mean handling diverse datasets like media (images, video, audio, and more) would be difficult but we're on the right track and NiFi is used for things like that all the time.
Finally, as you continue with your project and if you find there are things you'd like to see improved or that you'd like to contribute code we'd love to have your help. From https://nifi.apache.org you can quickly find information on how to file tickets, submit patches, email the mailing list, and more.
Here are a couple of fun recent NiFi projects to checkout:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nifi-ocr-using-apache-read-childrens-books-jeremy-dyer
https://twitter.com/KayLerch/status/721455415456882689
Good luck on the class project! If you have any questions the users#nifi.apache.org mailing list would love to help.
Thanks
Joe
Both Apache NiFi and StreamSets Data Collector are Apache-licensed open source tools.
Hortonworks does have a commercially supported variant called Hortonworks DataFlow (HDF).
While both have a lot of similarities such as a web-based ui, both are used for ingesting data there are a few key differences. They also both consist of a processors linked together to perform transformations, serialization, etc.
NiFi processors are file-oriented and schemaless. This means that a piece of data is represented by a FlowFile (this could be an actual file on disk, or some blob of data acquired elsewhere). Each processor is responsible for understanding the content of the data in order to operate on it. Thus if one processor understands format A and another only understands format B, you may need to perform a data format conversion in between those two processors.
NiFi can be run standalone, or as a cluster using its own built-in clustering system.
StreamSets Data Collector (SDC) however, takes a record based approach. What this means is that as data enters your pipeline it (whether its JSON, CSV, etc) it is parsed into a common format so that the responsibility of understanding the data format is no longer placed on each individual processor and any processor can be connected to any other processor.
SDC also runs standalone, and also a clustered mode, but it runs atop Spark on YARN/Mesos instead, leveraging existing cluster resources you may have.
NiFi has been around for about the last 10 years (but less than 2 years in the open source community).
StreamSets was released to the open source community a little bit later in 2015. It is vendor agnostic, and as far as Hadoop goes Hortonworks, Cloudera, and MapR are all supported.
Full Disclosure: I am an engineer who works on StreamSets.
They are very similar for data ingest scenarios.
Apache NIFI(HDP) is more mature and StreamSets is more lightweight.
Both are easy to use, both have strong capability. And StreamSets could easily
They have companies behind, Hortonworks and Cloudera.
Obviously there are more contributors working on NIFI than StreamSets, of course, NIFI have more enterprise deployments in production.
Two of the key differentiators between the two IMHO are.
Apache NiFi is a Top Level Apache project, meaning it has gone through the incubation process described here, http://incubator.apache.org/policy/process.html, and can accept contributions from developers around the world who follow the standard Apache process which ensures software quality. StreamSets, is Apache LICENSED, meaning anyone can reuse the code, etc. But the project is not managed as an Apache project. In fact, in order to even contribute to Streamsets, you are REQUIRED to sign a contract. https://streamsets.com/contributing/ . Contrast this with the Apache NiFi contributor guide, which wasn't written by a lawyer. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-HowtocontributetoApacheNiFi
StreamSets "runs atop Spark on YARN/Mesos instead, leveraging existing cluster resources you may have." which imposes a bit of restriction if you want to deploy your dataflows further toward the Edge where the Devices that are generating the data live. Apache MiniFi, a sub-project of NiFi can run on a single Raspberry Pi, while I am fairly confident that StreamSets cannot, as YARN or Mesos require more resources than a Raspberry Pi provides.
Disclosure: I am a Hortonworks employee
I am trying to build a data services layer using cassandra as the backend store. I am new to Cassandra and not sure what client to use for cassandra - thrift or cql 3? We have a lot of mapreduce jobs using Amazon elastic mapreduce (EMR) that will be reading/ writing the data from cassandra at high volume. The total data volume will be > 100 TB with billions of rows in Cassandra. The mapreduce jobs may be read or write heavy with high qps (>1000 qps). The requirements are as follows:
Simplicity of client code. It seems thrift has in-built integration with Hadoop for bulk data loading using sstableloader (http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/bulk-loading).
Ability to define new columns at run time. We may need to add more columns depending on application requirements. It seems cql3 does not allow definition of columns dynamically at runtime.
Performance of bulk read/ write. Not sure which client is better. However, I found this post that claims thrift client has better performance for high data volume: http://jira.pentaho.com/browse/PDI-7610?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
I could not find any authoritative source of information that answers this question. Appreciate if you could help with this since I am sure this is a common problem for most folks and would benefit the overall community.
Many thanks in advance.
-Prateek
Hadoop and Cassandra are both written in Java so definitely pick a java based driver. As far as simplicity of code goes I'd go for Astyanax, their wiki page is really good and documentation is solid all round. And yes atyanax does allow you to define columns at runtime as you please but be aware that thrift based APIs are being superseded by cql apis.
If however you want to go down the pure cql3 route, datastax's driver is what I'd advise you to use. It allows for asynchronous connections and is continuously updated (view the logs). The code is also very clean although documentation isn't quite there yet, but there are tests in the source that you can look at.
But to be honest, there are so many questions about the APIs that you should read though them and form an opinion for yourself:
Cassandra Client Java API's
About Java Cassandra Client, which one is better? How about CQL?
Advantages of using cql over thrift
Also for performance here some benchmarks (they are however outdated!) showing that cql is catching up (and somewhat overtaking when it comes to prepared statements) thrift:
compare string vs. binary prepared statement parameters
CQL benchmarking
I have a requirement wherein I need to make realtime updates to my ontological data (in Jena) (Around 30 inserts/updates per minute)
I wanted to know if Jena is good for excessive updates.
Also, if not, Is there any other semantic web based technology which supports excessive updates?
Also, if I want to insert lot of resources in my model, is there any way to automatically (sequentially) generate URIs for the new resources?
I can't for certain - it may well work for you. It'll depend on the amount of data in an update, the storage system used and the capabilities of the machine.
There is no server side automatic generation of resources names. The Jena library contains a URN UUID generator (for type V1 UUIDs) and Java provides type V4. This can help you generate unique names in the application.
I'm writing a report and thought you guys could help by providing me with the costs of company support in setting up and training a client on a data integrator for Salesforce. E.g., if someone wants to use Salesforce, but first needs a tool to consolidate and transfer data from back office systems to Salesforce how much would that support service cost?
Salesforce actually comes with a very good integration tool called Data Loader. It can be run as an interactive application under Windows or Macintosh, or it can be run as a command-line tool on Windows, Mac or Linux.
In interactive mode, it can import & export CSV files.
In batch mode it can also read data from, and write data to, a database.
For example, I have a Linux server where a daily cron job activates the Data Loader which runs several jobs. Some of these jobs run SQL against a database and upload the resulting data into Salesforce. Other jobs extract from Salesforce (using their SOQL query language, which is SQL-like) and store the information into a database.
Data Loader has a bit of a learning curve for batch mode (mostly around creating some XML configuration files), but the Interactive mode is very easy to use.
So, to answer your question... If it's a one-time data load, just run the interactive version and it's easy. If you want regularly-updated data, then use the batch mode. Support costs for operating the integration are really all in the setup. Once it's running, there shouldn't be any on-going costs unless the data structures change and you want to change the data being transferred. Better yet, if the system is setup by somebody who has done it before, you'll avoid a big learning curve.
If you want a figure to put into your report, then allow 3 days for the initial integration (allows for learning curve) and then a half-day for each additional one. That's generous, but provides extra time to debug problems.
To some degree, it depends on two factors:
Where is the data's source of truth?
How often do you want to sync the data?
If the answers are "it's a weird place and I only need to sync it once," then you probably want to figure out how to get it in CSV form and then use tools built into Salesforce to import it.
However, if the data lives in a database or data warehouse (postgres, mysql, mongo, redshift, snowflake, big query, etc) and especially if you want to keep Salesforce up to date with that source of truth continuously, then you could look into so-called "Reverse ETL" tools made for this purpose.
Costs depend on the tool chosen and the data volumes and other factors, but here are some options:
Grouparoo is an open source Reverse ETL tool. You can host it yourself for free. Paid plans start at $150/month.
Census is a SaaS Reverse ETL tool. Paid plans start at $300/month.
Hightouch is a SaaS Reverse ETL tool. Paid plans start at $350/month.
I have an application that talks to several internal and external sources using SOAP, REST services or just using database stored procedures. Obviously, performance and stability is a major issue that I am dealing with. Even when the endpoints are performing at their best, for large sets of data, I easily see calls that take 10s of seconds.
So, I am trying to improve the performance of my application by prefetching the data and storing locally - so that at least the read operations are fast.
While my application is the major consumer and producer of data, some of the data can change from outside my application too that I have no control over. If I using caching, I would never know when to invalidate the cache when such data changes from outside my application.
So I think my only option is to have a job scheduler running that consistently updates the database. I could prioritize the users based on how often they login and use the application.
I am talking about 50 thousand users, and at least 10 endpoints that are terribly slow and can sometimes take a minute for a single call. Would something like Quartz give me the scale I need? And how would I get around the schedular becoming a single point of failure?
I am just looking for something that doesn't require high maintenance, and speeds at least some of the lesser complicated subsystems - if not most. Any suggestions?
This does sound like you might need a data warehouse. You would update the data warehouse from the various sources, on whatever schedule was necessary. However, all the read-only transactions would come from the data warehouse, and would not require immediate calls to the various external sources.
This assumes you don't need realtime access to the most up to date data. Even if you needed data accurate to within the past hour from a particular source, that only means you would need to update from that source every hour.
You haven't said what platforms you're using. If you were using SQL Server 2005 or later, I would recommend SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) for updating the data warehouse. It's made for just this sort of thing.
Of course, depending on your platform choices, there may be alternatives that are more appropriate.
Here are some resources on SSIS and data warehouses. I know you've stated you will not be using Microsoft products. I include these links as a point of reference: these are the products I was talking about above.
SSIS Overview
Typical Uses of Integration Services
SSIS Documentation Portal
Best Practices for Data Warehousing with SQL Server 2008