Edit: Need to identify which one is better for exporting huge data volume from Teradata - Sqoop, TPT, or fexp
OP: I am already aware that teradata's fast export and TPT cannot be used to export data directly to Hadoop. I can bring data to local environment and move it to hadoop parallely.
I want to know which tool extracts the data from Teradata in the most efficient way.
I have to extract dataset having huge data volume (almost 25 billion records ~ 15 TB in size).
Of course the data in Teradata is well partitioned and I am going to split my extraction strategy based on partitions and Unique PI.
I was not able to find enough content which would provide direct comparison between Teradata utilities and Sqoop.
Which tool would make least impact on currently running jobs in Teradata environment and extract the data in most optimized way.
Of course Teradata's FastExport can't be used to export to Hadoop directly, it's an old legacy tool which is not enhanced anymore.
Any new development should be done using TPT, e.g.
Using the DataConnector Operator to Write Files and Tables in Hadoop
Common Data Movement Jobs
Related
What is the best ways to parallel ingest data from Teradata database into Hadoop with parallel data moving?
If we create a job which is simple opens one session to Teradata database it will take a lot of time to load huge table.
if we create a set of sessions to load data in parallel, and also make Select in each of the sessions, than it will make a set of Full table scans Teradata to produce a data
What is the recommended best practice to load data in parallelised streams and make unnecessary workload to Teradata?
If Tera data supports table partitioning like oracle, you could try reading the table based on partitioning points which will enable parallelism in read...
Other option you have is, split the table into multiple partitions like adding a where clause on indexed column. This will ensure index scan and you can avoid full table scan.
The most scalable way to ingest data into Hadoop form teradata, which i found is to use Teradata connector for hadoop. It is included in Cloudera & Hortonworks distributions. I will show example base on Cloudera documentation, but the same works with Hortonworks as well:
Informatica big Data edition is using standard Scoop invocation via command line and submitting set of parameters to it. So the main question is - which driver to use to make parallel connections between two MPP systems.
Here is the link to the Cloudera documentation:
Using the Cloudera Connector Powered by Teradata
And here is the digest from this documentation (You could find that this connector support different kinds of load balancing between connections):
Cloudera Connector Powered by Teradata supports the following methods for importing data from Teradata to Hadoop:
split.by.amp
split.by.value
split.by.partition
split.by.hash
split.by.amp Method
This optimal method retrieves data from Teradata. The connector creates one mapper per available Teradata AMP, and each mapper subsequently retrieves data from each AMP. As a result, no staging table is required. This method requires Teradata 14.10 or higher.
If you use partition names in the select clause, Power Center will select only the rows within that partition so there won't be duplicate read (don't forget to choose Database partitioning in Informatica session level). However if you use key range partition you have to choose the range as you mentioned in settings. Usually we use NTILE oracle analytical function to split the table into multiple portions so that the read will be unique across the selects. Please let me know if you have any question. If you have range/auto generated/surrogate key column in the table use it in where clause - write a sub-query to divide the table into multiple portions.
So I have a Hadoop cluster with three nodes. Vertica is co-located on cluster. There are Parquet files (partitioned by Hive) on HDFS. My goal is to query those files using Vertica.
Right now what I did is using HDFS Connector, basically create an external table in Vertica, then link it to HDFS:
CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE tableName (columns)
AS COPY FROM "hdfs://hostname/...../data" PARQUET;
Since the data size is big. This method will not achieve good performance.
I have done some research, Vertica Hadoop Integration
I have tried HCatalog but there's some configuration error on my Hadoop so that's not working.
My use case is to not change data format on HDFS(Parquet), while query it using Vertica. Any ideas on how to do that?
EDIT: The only reason Vertica got slow performance is because it cant use Parquet's partitions. With higher version Vertica(8+), it can utlize hive's metadata now. So no HCatalog needed.
Terminology note: you're not using the HDFS Connector. Which is good, as it's deprecated as of 8.0.1. You're using the direct interface described in Reading Hadoop Native File Formats, with libhdfs++ (the hdfs scheme) rather than WebHDFS (the webhdfs scheme). That's all good so far. (You can also use the HCatalog Connector, but you need to do some additional configuration and it will not be faster than an external table.)
Your Hadoop cluster has only 3 nodes and Vertica is co-located on them, so you should be getting the benefits of node locality automatically -- Vertica will use the nodes that have the data locally when planning queries.
You can improve query performance by partitioning and sorting the data so Vertica can use predicate pushdown, and also by compressing the Parquet files. You said you don't want to change the data so maybe these suggestions don't work for you; they're not specific to Vertica so they might be worth considering anyway. (If you're using other tools to interact with your Parquet data, they'll benefit from these changes too.) The documentation of these techniques was improved in 8.0.x (link is to 8.1 but this was in 8.0.x too).
Additional partitioning support was added in 8.0.1. It looks like you're using at least 8.0; I can't tell if you're using 8.0.1. If you are, you can create the external table to only pay attention to the partitions you care about with something like:
CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE t (id int, name varchar(50),
created date, region varchar(50))
AS COPY FROM 'hdfs:///path/*/*/*'
PARQUET(hive_partition_cols='created,region');
We presently load CDRs to an oracle warehouse using a combination of bash shell scripts and SQL loader with multiple threads. We are hoping to offload this process to hadoop because we envisage that the increase in data due to increase in subscriber base will soon max out the current system. And we also want to gradually introduce hadoop into our data warehouse environment.
Will loading from hadoop be faster?
If so what's is the best set of hadoop tool for this?
Further info:
We usually will get contunoius stream of pipe delimited text files through ftp to a folder, add two more fields to each record, load to temp tables in oracle and run a procedure to load to final table. How would u advice the process flow to be in terms of tools to use. For example;
files are ftp to the Linux file system (or is possible to ftp straight to hadoop?) and flume loads to hadoop.
fields are added (what will be best to do this? Pig, hive, spark or any other recommendations)
files are then loaded to oracle using sqoop
the final procedure is called(can sqoop make an oracle procedure call? If not what tool will be best to execute procedure and help control the whole process ?)
Also how can one control the level of paralleism ? Does it equate the number of mappers running the job?
Had a similar task of exporting data from a < 6 node Hadoop cluster to an Oracle Datewarehouse.
I've tested the following:
Sqoop
OraOop
Oracle Loader for Hadoop from the "Oracle BigData Connectors" suite
Hadoop streaming job which uses sqloader as mapper, in its configuration you can read from stdin using: load data infile "-"
Considering just speed, the Hadoop streaming job with sqloader as a mapper was the fastest way to transfer the data, but you have to install sqloader on each machine of your cluster. It was more of a personal curiosity, I would not recommend using this way to export data, the logging capabilities are limited, and should have a bigger impact on your datawarehouse performance.
The winner was Sqoop, it is pretty reliable, it's the import/export tool of the Hadoop ecosystem and was second fastest solution, according to my tests.(1.5x slower than first place)
Sqoop with OraOop (last updated 2012) was slower than the latest version of Sqoop, and requires extra configuration on the cluster.
Finally the worst time was obtained using Oracle's BigData Connectors, if you have a big cluster(>100 machines) than it should not be as bad as the time I obtained. The export was done in two steps. First step involves reprocessing the output and converting it to an Oracle Format that plays nice with the Datawarehouse. The second step was transfering the result to the Datawarehouse. This approach is better if you have allot of processing power, and you would not impact the Datawarehouse's performace as much as the other solutions.
I am new to Hadoop. I ran a map reduce on my data and now I want to query it so I can put it into my website. Is Apache Hive the best way to do that? I would greatly appreciate any help.
Keep in mind that Hive is a batch processing system, which under the hoods converts the SQL statements to bunch of MapReduce jobs with stage builds in between. Also, Hive is a high latency system i.e. based on your dataset sizes you are looking at minutes to hours or even days to process a complicated query.
So, if you want to serve the results from your MapReduce job output in your website, its highly recommended you export the results back to a RDBMS using sqoop and then take it from there.
Or, if the data itself is huge and cannot be exported back to RDBMS. Then another option you could think of is using a NoSQL system like HBase.
welcome to Hadoop!
I highly recommend you watch Cloudera Essentials for Apache Hadoop | Chapter 5: The Hadoop Ecosystem and familiarize yourself with the different ways to transfer data inbound and outbound from your HDFS cluster. The video is easy-to-watch and describes advantages / disadvantages to each tool, but this outline should give you the basics of the Hadoop Ecosystem:
Flume - Data integration and import of flat files into HDFS. Designed for asynchronous data streams (e.g., log files). Distributed, scalable, and extensible. Supports various endpoints. Allows preprocessing on data before loading to HDFS.
Sqoop - Bidirectional transfer of structured data (RDBMS) and HDFS. Permits incremental import to HDFS. RDBMS must support JDBC or ODBC.
Hive - SQL-like interface to Hadoop. Requires table structure. JDBC and/or ODBC is required.
Hbase - Allows interactive access of HDFS. Sits on top of HDFS and apply structure to data. Allows for random reads, scales horizontally with cluster. Not a full query language; only permits get/put/scan operations (can be used with Hive and/or Impala). Row-key indexes only on data. Does not use Map Reduce paradigm.
Impala - Similar to Hive, high-performance SQL Engine for querying vast amounts of data stored in HDFS. Does not use Map Reduce. Good alternative to Hive.
Pig - Data flow language for transforming large datasets. Permits schema optionally defined at runtime. PigServer (Java API) permits programmatic access.
Note: I assume the data you are trying to read already exists in HDFS. However, some of the products in the Hadoop ecosystem may be useful for your application or as a general reference, so I included them.
If you're only looking to get data from HDFS then yes, you can do so via Hive.
However, you'll most beneficiate from it if your data are already organized (for instance, in columns).
Lets take an example : your map-reduce job produced a csv file named wordcount.csv and containing two rows : word and count. This csv file is on HDFS.
Let's now suppose you want to know the occurence of the word "gloubiboulga". You can simply achieve this via the following code :
CREATE TABLE data
(
word STRING,
count INT,
text2 STRING
)
ROW FORMAT DELIMITED FIELDS TERMINATED BY ",";
LOAD DATA LOCAL INPATH '/wordcount.csv'
OVERWRITE INTO TABLE data;
select word, count from data where word=="gloubiboulga";
Please note that while this language looks highly like SQL, you'll still have to learn a few things about it.
Im trying to get a clear understanding on HBASE.
Hive:- It just create a Tabular Structure for the Underlying Files in
HDFS. So that we can enable the user to have Querying Abilities on the
HDFS file. Correct me if im wrong here?
Hbase- Again, we have create a Similar table Structure, But bit more
in Structured way( Column Oriented) again over HDFS File system.
aren't they both Same considering the type of job they does. except that Hive runs on Mapredeuce.
Also is that true that we cant create a Hbase table over an Already existing HDFS file?
Hive shares a very similar structures to traditional RDBMS (But Not all), HQL syntax is almost similar to SQL which is good for Database Programmer from learning perspective where as HBase is completely diffrent in the sense that it can be queried only on the basis of its Row Key.
If you want to design a table in RDBMS, you will be following a structured approach in defining columns concentrating more on attributes, while in Hbase the complete design is concentrated around the data, So depending on the type of query to be used we can design a table in Hbase also the columns will be dynamic and will be changing at Runtime (core feature of NoSQL)
You said aren't they both Same considering the type of job they does. except that Hive runs on Mapredeuce .This is not a simple thinking.Because when a hive query is executed, a mapreduce job will be created and triggered.Depending upon data size and complexity it may consume time, since for each mapreduce job, there are some number of steps to do by JobTracker, initializing tasks like maps,combine,shufflesort, reduce etc.
But in case we access HBase, it directly lookup the data they indexed based on specified Scan or Get parameters. Means it just act as a database.
Hive and HBase are completely different things
Hive is a way to create map/reduce jobs for data that resides on HDFS (can be files or HBase)
HBase is an OLTP oriented key-value store that resides on HDFS and can be used in Map/Reduce jobs
In order for Hive to work it holds metadata that maps the HDFS data into tabular data (since SQL works on tables).
I guess it is also important to note that in recent versions Hive is evolving to go beyond a SQL way to write map/reduce jobs and with what HortonWorks calls the "stinger initiative" they have added a dedicated file format (Orc) and import Hive's performance (e.g. with the upcoming Tez execution engine) to deliver SQL on Hadoop (i.e. relatively fast way to run analytics queries for data stored on Hadoop)
Hive:
It's just create a Tabular Structure for the Underlying Files in HDFS. So that we can enable the user to have SQL-like Querying Abilities on existing HDFS files - with typical latency up to minutes.
However, for best performance it's recommended to ETL data into Hive's ORC format.
HBase:
Unlike Hive, HBase is NOT about running SQL queries over existing data in HDFS.
HBase is a strictly-consistent, distributed, low-latency KEY-VALUE STORE.
From The HBase Definitive Guide:
The canonical use case of Bigtable and HBase is the webtable, that is, the web pages
stored while crawling the Internet.
The row key is the reversed URL of the page—for example, org.hbase.www. There is a
column family storing the actual HTML code, the contents family, as well as others
like anchor, which is used to store outgoing links, another one to store inbound links,
and yet another for metadata like language.
Using multiple versions for the contents family allows you to store a few older copies
of the HTML, and is helpful when you want to analyze how often a page changes, for
example. The timestamps used are the actual times when they were fetched from the
crawled website.
The fact that HBase uses HDFS is just an implementation detail: it allows to run HBase on an existing Hadoop cluster, it guarantees redundant storage of data; but it is not a feature in any other sense.
Also is that true that we cant create a Hbase table over an already
existing HDFS file?
No, it's NOT true. Internally HBase stores data in its HFile format.