Is Cassandra a good alternative for Hadoop as a data warehouse where data is append only and all updates in source databases should not overwrite the existing rows in the data warehouse but get appended. Is Cassandra really ment to act as a data warehouse or just as a database to store the results of batch / stream queries?
Cassandra can be used both as a data warehouse(raw data storage) and as a database (for final data storage). It depends more on the cases you want to do with the data.
You even may need to have both Hadoop and Cassandra for different purposes.
Assume, you need to gather and process data from multiple mobile devices and provide some complex aggregation report to the user.
So at first, you need to save data as fast as possible (as new portions appear very often) so you use Cassandra here. As Cassandra is limited in aggregation features, you load data into HDFS and do some processing via HQL scripts (assume, you're not very good at coding but great in complicated SQLs). And then you move the report results from HDFS to Cassandra in a dedicated reports table partitioned by user id.
So when the user wants to have some aggregation report about his activity in the last month, the application takes the id of active user and returns the aggregated result from Cassandra (as it is simple key-value search).
So for your question, yes, it could be an alternative, but the selection strategy depends on the data types and your application business cases.
You can read more information about usage of Cassandra
here
Related
We have billions of records formatted with relational data format (e.g transaction id, user name, user id and some other fields), my requirement is to create system where user can request data export from this data store (user will provide some filters like user id, date and so on), typically exported file will be having thousand to 100s of thousands to millions of records based on selected filters (output file will be CSV or similar format)
Other than raw data, I am also looking for some dynamic aggregation on few of the fields during data export.
Typical time between user submitting request and exported data file available should be within 2-3 minutes (max can be 4-5 minutes).
I am seeking suggestions on backend noSQLs for this use case, I've used Hadoop map-reduce so far but hadoop batch job execution with typical HDFS data map-reduce might not give expected SLA in my opinion.
Another option is to use Spark map-reduce which I've never used but it should be way faster then typical Hadoop map-reduce batch job.
We've already tried production grade RDBMS/OLTP instance but it clearly seems not a correct option due to size of data we are exporting and dynamic aggregation.
Any suggestion on using Spark here? or any other better noSQL?
In summary SLA, dynamic aggregation and raw data (millions) are the requirement considerations here.
If system only requires to export data after doing some ETL - aggregations, filtering and transformations then answer is very straight forward. Apache Spark is the best. You would have to fine tune the system and decide whether you want to use only memory or memory + disk or serialization etc.. However, most of the times one needs to think about other aspects too; I am considering them as well.
This is a wide topic of discussion and it involves many aspects such aggregations involved, search related queries (if any), development time. As per the description, it seems to be an interactive/near-real-time-interactive system. Other aspect is whether any analysis involved? And another important point is type of system (OLTP/OLAP, only reporting etc..).
I see there are two questions involved -
Which computing/data processing engine to use?
Which data storage/NoSQL?
- Data processing -
Apache Spark would be a best choice for computing. We are using for the same purpose, along with the filtering, we also have xml transformations to perform which are also done in Spark. Its superfast as compared to Hadoop MapReduce. Spark can run standalone and it can also run on the top of Hadoop.
- Storage -
There are many noSQL solutions available. Selection depends upon many factors such as volume, aggregations involved, search related queries etc..
Hadoop - You can go with Hadoop with HDFS as a storage system. It has many benefits as you get entire Hadoop ecosystem.If you have analysts/data scientists who require to get insights of data/ play with data then this would be a better choice as you would get different tools such as Hive/Impala. Also, resource management would be easy. But for some applications it can be too much.
Cassendra - Cassandra as a storage engine that has solved the problems of distribution and availability while maintaining scale and performance. It brings wonders when used with Spark. For example, performing complex aggregations. By the way, we are using it. For visualization (to view data for analyzing), options are Apache Zeppelin, Tableau (lot of options)
Elastic Search - Elastic Search is also a suitable option if your storage is in few TBs upto 10 TBs. It comes with Kibana (UI) which provides limited analytics capabilities including aggregations. Development time is minimal, its very quick to implement.
So, depending upon your requirement I would suggest Apache Spark for data processing (transformations/filtering/aggregations) and you may also require to consider other technology for storage and data visualization.
I'm trying to understand how to architect a big data solution. I have historic data of 400TB of data and every hour 1GB of data is getting inserted.
Since data is confidential, I'm describing sample scenario, Data contains information of all activities in a bank branch. With every hour, when new data is inserted(no updation) into hdfs, I need to find how many loans closed, loans created,accounts expired, etc ( around 1000 analytics to be performed). Analytics involve processing entire 400TB of data.
I was plan was to use hadoop + spark. But I'm being suggested to use HBase. Reading through all the documents, I'm not able to find a clear advantage.
What is the best way to go for data which will grow to 600TB
1. MR for analytics and impala/hive for query
2. Spark for analytics and query
3. HBase + MR for analytics and query
Thanks in advance
About HBase:
HBase is a database that is build over HDFS. HBase uses HDFS to store data.
Basically, HBase will allow you to update records, have versioning and deletion of single records. HDFS does not support file updates, so HBase is introducing something you can consider "virtual" operations, and merge data from multiple sources (original files, delete markers) when you are asking it for data. Also, HBase as key-value store is creating indices to support selecting by key.
Your problem:
Choosing the technology in such situations you should look into what you are going to do with the data: Single query on Impala (with Avro schema) can be much faster than MapReduce (not to mention Spark). Spark will be faster in batch jobs, when there is caching involved.
You are probably familiar with Lambda architecture, if not, take a look into it. For what I can tell you now, the third option you mentioned (HBase and MR only) won't be good. I did not try Impala + HBase, so I can't say anything about performance, but HDFS (plain files) + Spark + Impala (with Avro), worked for me: Spark was doing reports for pre-defined queries (after that, data was stored in objectFiles - not human-readable, but very fast), Impala for custom queries.
Hope it helps at least a little.
I have some questions about migration, data model and performance of Hadoop/Impala.
How to migrate Oracle application to cloudera hadoop/Impala
1.1 How to replace oracle stored procedure in impala or M/R or java/python app.
For example, the original SP include several parameters and sqls.
1.2 How to replace unsupported or complex SQL like over by partition from Oracle to impala.
Are there any existing examples or Impala UDF?
1.3 How to handle update operation since part of data has to be updated.
For example, use data timestamp? use the store model which can support update like HBase? or use delete all data/partition/dir and insert it again(insert overwrite).
Data store model , partition design and query performance
2.1 How to chose impala internal table or external table like csv, parquet, habase?
For example, if there are several kind of data like importing exsited large data in Oracle into hadoop, new business data into hadoop, computed data in hadoop and frequently updated data in hadoop, how to choose the data model? Do you need special attention if the different kind of data need to join?
We have XX TB's data from Oracle, do you have any suggestion about the file format like csv or parquet? Do we need to import the data results into impala internal table or hdfs fs after calculation. If those kind of data can be updated, how to we considered that?
2.2 How to partition the table /external table when joining
For example, there are huge number of sensor data and each one includes measuring data, acquisition timestamp and region information.
We need:
calculate measuring data by different region
Query a series of measuring data during a certain time interval for specific sensor or region.
Query the specific sensor data from huge number of data cross all time.
Query data for all sensors on specific date.
Would you please provide us some suggestion about how to setup up the partition for internal and directories structure for external table(csv) .
In addition, for the structure of the directories, which is better when using date=20090101/area=BEIJING or year=2009/month=01/day=01/area=BEIJING? Is there any guide about that?
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.
I'm trying to figure out the difference (between tools/services/programs) between Data Warehouse, Clustered Data Processing and the tools/infrastructure for querying a Data Warehouse
So Let's say I have the following setup to perform some data processing for a certain use case
Hadoop Cluster for Distributed Data processing
Hive for providing infrastructure and Functions for querying data from a data warehouse
My data sitting in an RDBMS or a NoSQL database
In the above example, what exactly is the Data Warehouse? My naive brain thinks that it is the RDBMS or the NoSQL database in the above context is the Data warehouse. But by definition, isn't a Data warehouse a database used for reporting and data analysis? (Definition shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia). So can I call a traditional RDBMS/NoSQL database a Data Warehouse? Thanks.
You cannot call every relational database system a data warehouse, since one of data warehouses main feature is to aggregate data from multiple databases (with different schemas). It is usually done with a "star schema" allowing to combine multiple dimensions and multiple granularities.
Because NoSQL database systems (graph-based or map-reduce-based) are schema-less they can indeed store data from different schemas. Moreover Map-Reduce can be used to aggregate data with different granularities (e.g. aggregate daily data to compare them with monthly data).