I'm an ETL developer that's currently being tasked with developing a type 2 SCD from existing historical data in a relational database. I'm perfectly capable of creating a type 2 SCD that's responsible for tracking future changes to the data, but I'm completely useless when it comes to the task at hand.
The relational model is in our ODS . Based on that relational model, I'm supposed to build flat records in our DW dimension. There are multiple attributes which need to be monitored for changes, each in specific related tables in the relational model. Historical changes must be kept on a daily basis, and if multiple changes to the same attribute occur on the same day, only the last subsists.
How can I tackle this? I'm lost. Thanks in advance.
P.S. we're talking tables with 20-30 million rows and multiple attributes that may change at any given time and therefore must result in a new record in the SCD.
This will indeed be painful. I'm assuming from your question that the tables containing the attribute values are currently varying independently (or you wouldn't need to ask the question).
If you have a table 'Table1' containing 'Key', 'Attribute1' and 'Effective From','Effective To' columns, then you can 'explode' that table into a virtual table in the form 'Key','Attribute1','Date', projecting out one row for every date where that attribute was current.
(Note that you probably don't want to do this as a ranged join against your date dimension, because this will be a Triangular Join (ie perform really badly), you probably need to explode the rows in an ETL tool/programmatically)
If you perform this process across multiple tables, you will have a set of tables giving you the full day-by-day snapshot of each attribute for every day that you care about. It's then fairly easy to join those tables based on 'FK' and 'Date' to give you the complete daily snapshot across all of the attribute values.
Then, of course, you need to run this though another process to collapse rows with the same Key, contiguous dates and all the same attribute values, ie 'unexplode' the rows, back into 'effective from','effective to' form. Note again, that this is fundamentally a row-by-row operation (or at very least a windowing function), and a set-based approach will perform very badly. Personally I'd just stream it all though some .net/java code to achieve this.
Given data volumes this will take a while, but should be achievable.
Related
Here's the situation:
I have a large table consisting of transactional data (credit card transaction records), and I am creating a dashboard application to visualize the data.
For example, I want to display the count of transactions for each customer, or the breakdown of transaction types for a customer, etc.
Obviously, I can't query the table on the fly because it takes too long, and also I don't want to create lots of different aggregated tables manually (like customers_table, terminals_table, etc.) because then I have to implement the update method too.
I did some research and I think what I need is a cube, which has all the necessary columns as its dimensions (like customer_id, transaction_type, city, time, etc.), with pre-computed aggregations, so then I can query the cube and get whatever aggregated data that I need instantly (NOT ON THE FLY).
So I have two questions:
First of all, am I right about how cubes work, or did I misunderstand something?
Secondly, can I create this cube directly using PL/SQL, or should I use ODI or other tools?
I am trying to prepare DB design for APEX application. Requirement is as follows.
In Departments IR page, users are asking below columns
Number of employees in each department (Department may or may not have employees)
Primary Location for Department (Department can have multiple addresses and addresses are stored in other table, along with primary flag)
Alternative Manager's Email Address for Department (alt_manager_id column, this is optional column and refers to employees table)
I can implement these requirements using either inline sub queries or using OUTER JIONs. But, these approaches will have performance impact as the data grows (like 100s of thousands of rows). So, my question is, is it ok to store these data directly at "Departments" table and update "Departments" table when child tables gets updated. Basically, I am trying to store summary data at master table, instead of deriving it as on when needed from child tables. Is this considered bad practice? Is it ok to implement such DB design?
Thank you
"Is this considered bad practice?"
Usually yes. There are several problems with maintaining summary detail information in a master record.
Your inserts into child tables (and deletes if you have them) now also have to take a lock on the master record, to increment the count. This adds complexity to what should be simple transactions.
It also has two performance hits: the additional overhead of maintaining the counts and the potential for sessions to hang in multi-user environments.
Note that you are adding a definite performance hit to your insert activity for a possible saving in the performance of aggregating queries.
The good practice is to just run the counts when you need the summaries. Tune the queries if you need to.
If you think you really are going to be querying the summary data often enough for the workload to be a problem you should consider building materialized views for the summary queries. Then, when you enable query rewrites, Oracle will transparently query the materialized view if it can satisfy the query rather than re-running the aggregations. This is a technique which is used a lot in data warehouses, but there's no reason not to use it in OLTP environments if you really have the data volumes to justify it. Find out more.
Generally, try the simplest thing which could work first. Only look to do something different (like building a materialized view for aggregations) when you know you have a demonstrable problem with performance.
We seem to have bit of a debate on a discussion point in our team.
We are working on a Data Warehouse in the Microsoft SQL Server 2012 platform. We have followed the Kimball Architecture to build this Data Warehouse.
Issue:
A reporting solution (built on SSRS), which sources data from this Warehouse, has significant performance issues when sourcing data from fact and dim tables. Some of our team members suggest that we extract data from facts and dims into a new set of tables using SSIS packages. This would mean we denormalise these tables into ‘Snapshot’ tables. In this way the we would not need to join these tables to create data sets within the reports. Data could be read out of these tables directly.
I do have my own worries about this; inconsistencies, maintenance of different data structures, duplication of data etc to name a few.
Question:
Would you consider creating snapshot tables (by denormalising facts and dim tables) for reporting tables a right approach?
Would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Cheers
Nithin
I don't think there is anything wrong with snapshot tables. The two most important aspects of a data warehouse are:
The data is correct.
The data is useful.
If your users are unable to extract the totals they require, in a reasonable timescale, they won't use the warehouse.
My own solution includes 3 snapshot tables. Like you, I was worried about inconsistencies. To address this we built an automated checking process. This sub-system executes a series of queries, stored on a network drive, once an hour. Any records returned by the queries are considered a fail. Fails are reported and immediately investigated by my ETL team. This sub-system ensures the snapshots and underlying facts are always aligned and consistent with each other. Drift is prevented.
That said, additional tables equals additional complexity. And that requires more time/effort to manage. Before introducing another layer to your warehouse, you should investigate why these queries are underperforming. If joins are to blame:
Are you using an inappropriate data type, for your P/F keys?
Are the FKeys indexed (some RDBMS do this by default, others do not)?
Have you looked at the execution plans, for the offending queries?
Is the join really to blame, or is it a filter applied to the dim table?
for raw cube performance my advice would be to always try to denormalize your tables and have one fact table and one table for each dimension (star schema).
If you are unsure if it will actually help you could start creating materialized views. These are kind of the best of both worlds, on the long run you should alter your etl.
In my previous job we only had flattened tables which worked quite well. Currenly we have a normalized schema but flatten it in the last step.
I have a situation where I need a large amount of data (9+ billion per day) data being collected in a loading table that has fields like
-TABLE loader
first_seen,request,type,response,hits
1232036346,mydomain.com,A,203.11.12.1,200
1332036546,ogm.com,A,103.13.12.1,600
1432039646,mydomain.com,A,203.11.12.1,30
that need to split into two tables (de-duplicated)
-TABLE final
request,type,response,hitcount,id
mydomain.com,A,203.11.12.1,230,1
ogm.com,A,103.13.12.1,600,2
and
-TABLE timestamps
id,times_seen
1,1232036346
2,1432036546
1,1432039646
I can create the schemas and do the select like
select request,type,response,sum(hitcount) from loader group by request,type,response;
get data into the final table. for best performance I want to see if I can use "insert all" to move data from the loader to these two tables and perhaps use triggers in the database to try to achieve this. Any ideas and recommendations on the best ways to solve this?
"9+ billion per day"
That's more than just a large number of rows: that's a huge number, and it will require special engineering to handle it.
For starters, you don't just need INSERT statements. The requirement to maintain the count for existing (request,type,response) tuples points to UPDATE too. The need to generate and return a synthetic key is problematic in this scenario. It rules out MERGE, the easiest way of implementing upserts (because the MERGE syntax doesn't support the RETURNING clause).
Beyond that, attempting to handle nine billion rows in a single transaction is a bad idea. How long will it take to process? What happens if it fails halfway through? You need to define a more granular unit of work.
Although, that raises some business issues. What do the users only want to see the whole picture, after the Close-Of-Day? Or would they derive benefit from seeing Intra-day results? If yes, how to distinguish Intra-day from Close-Of-Day results? If no, how to hide partially processed results whilst the rest is still in flight? Also, how soon after Close-Of-Day do they want to see those totals?
Then there are the architectural considerations. These figure mean processing over one hundred thousand (one lakh) rows every second. That requires serious crunch and expensive licensing extras. Obviously Enterprise Edition for parallel processing but also Partitioning and perhaps RAC options.
By now you should have an inkling why nobody answered your question straight-away. This is a consultancy gig not a StackOverflow question.
But let's sketch a solution.
We must have continuous processing of incoming raw data. So we stream records for loading into FINAL and TIMESTAMP tables alongside the LOADER table, which becomes an audit of the raw data (or else perhaps we get rid of the LOADER table altogether).
We need to batch the incoming records to leverage set-based operations. Depending on the synthetic key implementation we should aim for pure SQL, otherwise Bulk PL/SQL.
Keeping the thing going is vital so we need to pay attention to Bulk Error Handling.
Ideally the target tables can be partitioned, so we can load into offline tables and use Partition Exchange to bring the cleaned data online.
For the synthetic key I would be tempted to use a hash key based on the (request,type,response) tuple rather than a sequence, as that would give us the option to load TIMESTAMP and FINAL independently. (Collisions are extremely unlikely.)
Just to be clear, this is a bagatelle not a serious architecture. You need to experiment and benchmark various approaches against realistic volumes of data on Production-equivalent hardware.
I am developing an enterprise application with an Oracle backend. I am designing a core part of the DB architecture now and im having some questions on it.
First and most important thing is, most of my tables needs to preserve old data. For example
Consider a table with the fields
Contract No, Contract Name, Contract Person, Contract Email
I have a records like
12, xxx, yyy, xxx#zzz.ccc
and some one modifies it to
12, xxx, zzz, xxx#zzz.ccc
at any point of time i need to display the new record while still have copy of the old record.
So what i thought was to put a duplicate record of the old data and update the fields that was changed and have a flag to keep track of active records with something like "is active" as 1.
The downside is that this creates redundancy in the table and seems like a bad design. But any other model seems unnecessarily complex and this seems cleaner to me. Also i dont see any performance issues having a duplicate record too. So please let me know if this is ok or am i missing something here.
Some times where there is a one to many relationship my assumption is to have a mapping table where i map the multiple entity in individual records by repeating master ID and changing child ID in each record. Is this a right way to do it or is there a better way to do it.
Is there a book on database best practices.
Thanks.
The database im dealing with is Oracle 11g on a two node RAC cluster
Also i dont see any performance issues having a duplicate record too.
Assume you have a row that, over time, has 15 updates to it. If you don't store any temporal data (if you don't store different versions of the row), you end up storing one row. If you do store temporal data, you end up storing 15 rows.
You also need more indexes, because the id number is no longer sufficient to identify a single row.
If you have only relatively small tables, you probably won't see any performance difference. (There will be one, but it probably won't be noticeable to users.) But a table that has 10 million rows will perform differently than a table that has 150 million rows. (15 versions per row, times 10 million rows.)
Some times where there is a one to many relationship my assumption is
to have a mapping table where i map the multiple entity in individual
records by repeating master ID and changing child ID in each record.
Is this a right way to do it or is there a better way to do it.
You probably need to know which child rows belong to which parent rows. So you need more than a single master id for the key. The master id alone doesn't tell you which version of that row in the parent table applies to a given child row.
Is there a book on database best practices.
There are books on temporal databases. The first one that I know of is Snodgrass's Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL. It's available in several formats, and it's free. It's also kind of old, but the information in it is important to understand if you're going to be building a temporal database. Also, think about reading Date's book Temporal Data and the Relational Model.
Wikipedia has an article that summarizes the ideas behind temporal databases.
Is normalization completely mandatory.
That's a meaningless question. You will have different issues with tables normalized to 2NF than you'll have with tables normalized to 5NF or 6NF.
I would keep the old/history records in a separate table. Create an upd/del trigger to populate your audit/history table for you, and keep only the most current data in your main table.
See here for an example. Many other similar examples exists in SO.