Cassandra sort and a changing clustering key - sorting

I have a data modeling question for cases where data needs to be sorted by keys which can be modified.
So , say we have a user table
{
dept_id text,
user_id text,
user_name text,
mod_date timestamp
PRIMARY KEY (dept_id,user_id)
}
Now I can query cassandra to get all users by a dept_id.
What if I wanted to query to get all users in a dept, sorted by mod_date.
So, one way would be to
{
dept_id text,
mod_date timestamp,
user_id text,
user_name text,
PRIMARY KEY (dept_id, mod_date,user_id)
}
But, mod_date changes every time user name is updated. So it can't be part of clustering key.
Attempt 1:
Don't update the row but instead create new record for every update.
So, say the record for user foo is like below
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp1','user_id1','foo'}
and then the name was changed to 'bar' and then to 'baz' .
In that case we add another row to table, so it would look like
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp3','user_id1','baz'}
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp2','user_id1','bar'}
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp1','user_id1','foo'}
Now we can get all users in a dept, sorted by mod_date but it presents a different problem.
The data returned is duplicated
.
Attempt 2 :
Add another column to identify the head record much like a linked list
{
dept_id text,
mod_date timestamp,
user_id text,
user_name text,
next_record text
PRIMARY KEY (dept_id,mod_date,user_id)
}
Every time an update happens it adds a row and also adds the PK of new record.
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp3','user_id1','baz','HEAD'}
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp2','user_id1','bar','dept_id1#TimeStamp3'}
{'dept_id1',TimeStamp1','user_id1','foo','dept_id1#TimeStamp2'}
and also add a secondary index to 'next_record' column.
Now I can support get all users in a dept, sorted by mod_date by
select * from USERS where dept_id=':dept' AND next_record='HEAD' order
by mod_date.
But it looks fairly involved solution and perhaps I am missing something , a simpler solution ..
The other option is delete and insert but for high frequency changes I think Cassandra has issues with tombstones.
Suggestions/Feedback are welcome.
Thanks !

As I see, the simplest way is sorting users on application (client code) side. You use dept as a partition key, this means that all users in one dept can be handled one cassandra node, so there is no many users in one dept and this users can be sorted on application side fast enough.

Related

How to find the position of the primary key which is varchar GUID generated by application row in Oracle

So my use case is i have to find the location of the primary key column so that i can write query like select * from my_table where ID <='00000536-37ee-471c-a8e0-3d233b8102f5'
So my table has a primary key which is varchar type and values of the column is GUID generated by an application.
Here is an example of primary key
000000bd-104e-4fd6-a791-c5422f29e1b5
0000016e-7e68-4453-b360-7ffd1627dc22
00000196-2dba-4532-8cba-1e853c466697
0000025a-cfae-41b4-b8e7-ef854d49e54a
00000260-8bdb-4b30-acdb-5a67efd4dbfe
00000366-552d-48a0-b8a1-20190ccd087c
000003f2-d6d8-4a51-96cc-407063bc568b
000003ff-3d16-4e88-9cf3-bcdf01c39a2b
00000487-1e6c-4d6d-a683-6f11d517962c
000004cc-6359-4a9a-aa2a-70a6b73a06b1
00000536-37ee-471c-a8e0-3d233b8102f5
Now i need to use this table in aws DMS which accepts only query like select * from table where column =,<=,>=
My use case is to find the exact location of the millions of GUID so that i can divide table into multiple query and select based on GUID .
For example if we have 100th GID is 00000536-37ee-471c-a8e0-3d233b8102f5 then i can write query like select * from my table where GUID <=100
The limitation is i can not add any new columns in the existing table because application impact is huge .
How can i do this ?
One Option that i thought but wanted to confirm is below
Create a temp table
Temp table will have auto generated sequence and ID column
Inset into temp table select only GUID from main table with order of GUID .
In this case the value will be stored on order and i an first select GUID based on 100th number and then i can pass that GUID and write my oroginal query
But i am not sure whether this will work on not
Can some one suggest on this or suggest some other option ?
So let me explain what i want .
I want DMS to read may main table in parallel and migrate .
So lets say one DMS task can read nd migrate from 1 to 100,another 100 to 200 another >200 like that .
Currently i can not do because we dont know the position of the primary key and write the query .
If you want to divide your table into chunks of equal sizes, I would take advantage of the hexadecimal nature of the GUIDs. It will be 256 instead of 100 chunks, but this might be acceptable.
CREATE TABLE t (pk VARCHAR2(36) PRIMARY KEY);
INSERT INTO t VALUES ('000000bd-104e-4fd6-a791-c5422f29e1b5');
The easiest option would be
SELECT * FROM t WHERE pk LIKE '%b5';
A bit more advanced:
SELECT pk, to_number(substr(pk, -2),'xx') FROM t;
If you have millions of rows, this is probably faster:
ALTER TABLE t ADD (mycol GENERATED ALWAYS AS (to_number(substr(pk, -2),'xx')));
CREATE INDEX i ON t(mycol);
SELECT * FROM t WHERE mycol=181;
Once your migration is done, you can undo the additional virtual column:
DROP INDEX i;
ALTER TABLE t DROP (mycol);

session item does not change when using lov in primary key

I am implementing a Interactive grid to perform DML operations on a table.
it has combined primary key of two columns
One primary key column is display only and refer to master table and another primary key column I want to have a LOV to select value. LOV is dynamic lov having a display and return value picked from another table.
Inserts are fine but session state item value is set for one row and all the operations are performed on that same row irrespective of which row is selected.
you can see a sample here
https://apex.oracle.com/pls/apex/f?p=128616:2:1964277347439::NO:::
master table name: sample
detail table name: sample_child
primary key in sample child : ID and Name
pop lov is implemented in NAME
LOV values are picked from table: Sample_uncle
LOV display : ID || '-' || NAME
LOV return : ID
you can try to update blabla column of sample_child table to see the issue.
I am not sure how I can give you access to look at the implementation.
I have already tried all the options I can think of
This is to do with your primary keys, the detail table does not appear to have proper ones, thats why it always tried to update the first entry, and I think this is also why every row is marked when you load the table.
Primary keys also do the annoying thing of refusing to be empty, as you can see if you insert a new row, the middle column(which is a PK) is filled with 't1001'.
Since you are dealing with simple tables(and not a whole bunch of joined tables) I always consider it best to use ROWID as PK. So set ROWID as PK for the master table, and ROWID for the detail table. And have the detail table have a Master table be your master table, and then click on the first column in the detail table and set the master column for it. And I also personaly always hide the column that is linked.
I would advise you use ROWID whenever possible as its just so much easier to work with, it does mean you might need to set up a validation to prevent someone adding duplicated values for your actual PK, but since the PK is in the underlying table, they cant enter it anyways(but if you have a validation, the error will be much prettier), whilst if the column is a PK, APEX will prevent duplicates by default.
I hope this helps

Query a table in different ways or orderings in Cassandra

I've recently started to play around with Cassandra. My understanding is that in a Cassandra table you define 2 keys, which can be either single column or composites:
The Partitioning Key: determines how to distribute data across nodes
The Clustering Key: determines in which order the records of a same partitioning key (i.e. within a same node) are written. This is also the order in which the records will be read.
Data from a table will always be sorted in the same order, which is the order of the clustering key column(s). So a table must be designed for a specific query.
But what if I need to perform 2 different queries on the data from a table. What is the best way to solve this when using Cassandra ?
Example Scenario
Let's say I have a simple table containing posts that users have written :
CREATE TABLE posts (
username varchar,
creation timestamp,
content varchar,
PRIMARY KEY ((username), creation)
);
This table was "designed" to perform the following query, which works very well for me:
SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' [ORDER BY creation DESC];
Queries
But what if I need to get all posts regardless of the username, in order of time:
Query (1): SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation;
Or get the posts in alphabetical order of the content:
Query (2): SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content;
I know that it's not possible given the table I created, but what are the alternatives and best practices to solve this ?
Solution Ideas
Here are a few ideas spawned from my imagination (just to show that at least I tried):
Querying with the IN clause to select posts from many users. This could help in Query (1). When using the IN clause, you can fetch globally sorted results if you disable paging. But using the IN clause quickly leads to bad performance when the number of usernames grows.
Maintaining full copies of the table for each query, each copy using its own PRIMARY KEY adapted to the query it is trying to serve.
Having a main table with a UUID as partitioning key. Then creating smaller copies of the table for each query, which only contain the (key) columns useful for their own sort order, and the UUID for each row of the main table. The smaller tables would serve only as "sorting indexes" to query a list of UUID as result, which can then be fetched using the main table.
I'm new to NoSQL, I would just want to know what is the correct/durable/efficient way of doing this.
The SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation; will results in a full cluster scan because you do not provide any partition key. And the ORDER BY clause in this query won't work anyway.
Your requirement I need to get all posts regardless of the username, in order of time is very hard to achieve in a distributed system, it supposes to:
fetch all user posts and move them to a single node (coordinator)
order them by date
take top N latest posts
Point 1. require a full table scan. Indeed as long as you don't fetch all records, the ordering can not be achieve. Unless you use Cassandra clustering column to order at insertion time. But in this case, it means that all posts are being stored in the same partition and this partition will grow forever ...
Query SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content; is possible using a denormalized table or with the new materialized view feature (http://www.doanduyhai.com/blog/?p=1930)
Question 1:
Depending on your use case I bet you could model this with time buckets, depending on the range of times you're interested in.
You can do this by making the primary key a year,year-month, or year-month-day depending on your use case (or finer time intervals)
The basic idea is that you bucket changes for what suites your use case. For example:
If you often need to search these posts over months in the past, then you may want to use the year as the PK.
If you usually need to search the posts over several days in the past, then you may want to use a year-month as the PK.
If you usually need to search the post for yesterday or a couple of days, then you may want to use a year-month-day as your PK.
I'll give a fleshed out example with yyyy-mm-dd as the PK:
The table will now be:
CREATE TABLE posts_by_creation (
creation_year int,
creation_month int,
creation_day int,
creation timeuuid,
username text, -- using text instead of varchar, they're essentially the same
content text,
PRIMARY KEY ((creation_year,creation_month,creation_day), creation)
)
I changed creation to be a timeuuid to guarantee a unique row for each post creation event. If we used just a timestamp you could theoretically overwrite an existing post creation record in here.
Now we can then insert the Partition Key (PK): creation_year, creation_month, creation_day based on the current creation time:
INSERT INTO posts_by_creation (creation_year, creation_month, creation_day, creation, username, content) VALUES (2016, 4, 2, now() , 'fromanator', 'content update1';
INSERT INTO posts_by_creation (creation_year, creation_month, creation_day, creation, username, content) VALUES (2016, 4, 2, now() , 'fromanator', 'content update2';
now() is a CQL function to generate a timeUUID, you would probably want to generate this in the application instead, and parse out the yyyy-mm-dd for the PK and then insert the timeUUID in the clustered column.
For a usage case using this table, let's say you wanted to see all of the changes today, your CQL would look like:
SELECT * FROM posts_by_creation WHERE creation_year = 2016 AND creation_month = 4 AND creation_day = 2;
Or if you wanted to find all of the changes today after 5pm central:
SELECT * FROM posts_by_creation WHERE creation_year = 2016 AND creation_month = 4 AND creation_day = 2 AND creation >= minTimeuuid('2016-04-02 5:00-0600') ;
minTimeuuid() is another cql function, it will create the smallest possible timeUUID for the given time, this will guarantee that you get all of the changes from that time.
Depending on the time spans you may need to query a few different partition keys, but it shouldn't be that hard to implement. Also you would want to change your creation column to a timeuuid for your other table.
Question 2:
You'll have to create another table or use materialized views to support this new query pattern, just like you thought.
Lastly if your not on Cassandra 3.x+ or don't want to use materialized views you can use Atomic batches to ensure data consistency across your several de-normalized tables (that's what it was designed for). So in your case it would be a BATCH statement with 3 inserts of the same data to 3 different tables that support your query patterns.
The solution is to create another tables to support your queries.
For SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation;, you may need some special column for grouping it, maybe by month and year, e.g. PRIMARY KEY((year, month), timestamp) this way the cassandra will have a better performance on read because it doesn't need to scan the whole cluster to get all data, it will also save the data transfer between nodes too.
Same as SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content;, you must create another table for this query too. All column may be same as your first table but with the different Primary Key, because you cannot order by the column that is not the clustering column.

List partitioning in oracle

I have a table with following schema:
MyTable {
User_ID,
Task_ID,
Task_Description
}
where Task_ID is the primary key.
I wish to partition it on User_ID. Also, new users may be added and I want new corresponding partitions to get created automatically.
I went through this (see page-8) and found that Oracle 11g provides Interval partitioning which does similar thing but with intervals.
Can I do the same with User_ID?
You can't automatically generate a unique partition for each distinct varchar(128) value.
You could hash partition the table. That would not guarantee that every partition had a single, unique user_id value. It would ensure that all the rows with the same user_id were in a single partition and would eliminate the need to do manual partition maintenance.
You could list partition the table. That would require, though, that you explicitly add a new partition when a new user_id value is added.
If the user_id values were strictly predictable, you could probably do something with an interval partitioning scheme on a virtual column. But that seems highly unlikely to be practical.
What is the business problem that you are trying to solve? Why is it necessary to have a single user_id value in each partition? Why are you partitioning the table in the first place?

Is an Index Organized Table appropriate here?

I recently was reading about Oracle Index Organized Tables (IOTs) but am not sure I quite understand WHEN to use them. So I have a small table:
create table categories
(
id VARCHAR2(36),
group VARCHAR2(100),
category VARCHAR2(100
)
create unique index (group, category, id) COMPRESS 2;
The id column is a foreign key from another table entries and my common query is:
select e.id, e.time, e.title from entries e, categories c where e.id=c.id AND e.group=? AND c.category=? ORDER by e.time
The entries table is indexed properly.
Both of these tables have millions (16M currently) of rows and currently this query really stinks (note: I have it wrapped in a pagination query also so I only get back the first 20, but for simplicity I omitted that).
Since I am basically indexing the entire table, does it make sense to create this table as an IOT?
EDIT by popular demand:
create table entries
(
id VARCHAR2(36),
time TIMESTAMP,
group VARCHAR2(100),
title VARCHAR2(500),
....
)
create index (group, time) compress 1;
My real question I dont think depends on this though. Basically if you have a table with few columns (3 in this example) and you are planning on putting a composite index on all three rows is there any reason not to use an IOT?
IOTs are great for a number of purposes, including this case where you're gonna have an index on all (or most) of the columns anyway - but the benefit only materialises if you don't have the extra index - the idea is that the table itself is an index, so put the columns in the order that you want the index to be in. In your case, you're accessing category by id, so it makes sense for that to be the first column. So effectively you've got an index on (id, group, category). I don't know why you'd want an additional index on (group, category, id).
Your query:
SELECT e.id, e.time, e.title
FROM entries e, categories c
WHERE e.id=c.id AND e.group=? AND c.category=?
ORDER by e.time
You're joining the tables by ID, but you have no index on entries.id - so the query is probably doing a hash or sort merge join. I wouldn't mind seeing a plan for what your system is doing now to confirm.
If you're doing a pagination query (i.e. only interested in a small number of rows) you want to get the first rows back as quick as possible; for this to happen you'll probably want a nested loop on entries, e.g.:
NESTED LOOPS
ACCESS TABLE BY ROWID - ENTRIES
INDEX RANGE SCAN - (index on ENTRIES.group,time)
ACCESS TABLE BY ROWID - CATEGORIES
INDEX RANGE SCAN - (index on CATEGORIES.ID)
Since the join to CATEGORIES is on ID, you'll want an index on ID; if you make it an IOT, and make ID the leading column, that might be sufficient.
The performance of the plan I've shown above will be dependent on how many rows match the given "group" - i.e. how selective an average "group" is.
Have you looked at dba-oracle.com, asktom.com, IOUG, another asktom.com?
There are penalties to pay for IOTs - e.g., poorer insert performance
Can you prototype it and compare performance?
Also, perhaps you might want to consider a hash cluster.
IOT's are a trade off. You are getting access performance for decreased insert/update performance. We typically use them for reference data that is batch loaded daily and not updated during the day. This is not to say it's the only way to use them, just how we use them.
Few things here:
You mention pagination - have you considered the first_rows hint?
Is that the order your index is in, with group as the first field? If so I'd consider moving ID to be the first column since that index will not be used.
foreign keys should have an index on the column. Consider addind an index on the foreign key (id column).
Are you sure it's not the ORDER BY causing slowness?
What version of Oracle are you using?
I ASSUME there is a primary key on table entries for field id, correct?
Why the WHERE condition does not include "c.group = e.group" ?
Try to:
Remove the order by condition
Change the index definition from "create unique index (group,
category, id)" to "create unique index (id, group, category)"
Reorganise table categories as an IOT on (group, category, id)
Reorganise table categories as an IOT on (id, group, category)
In each of the above case use EXPLAIN PLAN to review the cost

Resources