Are there any performance benchmark(genuine ones) that compare Stinger vs Impala vs Drill? Also, which is preferred - my use case will be mainly towards ad-hoc interactive queries on top of Hive. Thanks.
There are some performance numbers on the site http://allegro.tech/fast-data-hackathon.html.
In general, we see Drill and Impala are comparable in performance for the interactive queries with the differentiation of Drill being its ability to query without metadata definitions and its ease of use working with JSON data.
Note that these tests are on much older versions on Drill such as 0.8/0.9 (also not configured appropriately for data locality). Now Drill is 1.1 with a lot of improvements on SQL (window functions etc) and performance.
You cannot do benchmark like this, it's no sense and you should never trust a such benchmark.
Everything will depend on your own data, you have JSON files ? prefer Drill. You want to query more than 1TB, prefer Hive and so on.
Also, you may consider file format, JSON, Kudu, Parquet or ORC.
Then come the optimization, Hive+Tez seems better for parrarel queries but very slow for single query. Whereas Impala is the opposite (MapReduce versus MassiveParrarelProcessing).
Also, you want to consider the hardware ressource, disk SSD or not etc..
I recommend, start with Apache Drill + JSON file, then try Apache Drill with Parquet or ORC.
If you want help, describe exactly what you have (data + hardware) and what you want.
Related
I tried using apache-drill to run a simple join-aggregate query and the speed wasn't really good. my test query was:
SELECT p.Product_Category, SUM(f.sales)
FROM facts f
JOIN Product p on f.pkey = p.pkey
GROUP BY p.Product_Category
Where facts has about 422,000 rows and product has 600 rows. the grouping comes back with 4 rows.
First I tested this query on SqlServer and got a result back in about 150ms.
With drill I first tried to connect directly to SqlServer and run the query, but that was slow (about 5 sec).
Then I tried saving the tables into json files and reading from them, but that was even slower, so I tried parquet files.
I got the result back in the first run in about 3 sec. next run was about 900ms and then it stabled at about 500ms.
From reading around, this makes no sense and drill should be faster!
I tried "REFRESH TABLE METADATA", but the speed didn't change.
I was running this on windows, through the drill command line.
Any idea if I need some extra configuration or something?
Thanks!
Drill is very fast, but it's designed for large distributed queries while joining across several different data sources... and you're not using it that way.
SQL Server is one of the fastest relational databases. Data is stored efficiently, cached in memory, and the query runs in a single process so the scan and join is very quick. Apache Drill has much more work to do in comparison. It has to interpret your query into a distributed plan, send it to all the drillbit processes, which then lookup the data sources, access the data using the connectors, run the query, return the results to the first node for aggregation, and then you receive the final output.
Depending on the data source, Drill might have to read all the data and filter it separately which adds even more time. JSON files are slow because they are verbose text files that are parsed line by line. Parquet is much faster because it's a binary compressed column-oriented storage format designed for efficient scanning, especially when you're only accessing certain columns.
If you have a small dataset stored on a single machine then any relational database will be faster than Drill.
The fact that Drill gets you results in 500ms with Parquet is actually impressive considering how much more work it has to do to give you the flexibility it provides. If you only have a few million rows, stick with SQL server. If you have billions of rows, then use the SQL Server columnstore feature to store data in columnar format with great compression and performance.
Use Apache Drill when you:
Have 10s of billions of rows or more
Have data spread across many machines
Have unstructured data like JSON stored in files without a standard schema
Want to split the query across many machines to run in faster in parallel
Want to access data from different databases and file systems
Want to join data across these different data sources
One thing people need to understand about how Drill works is how Drill translates an SQL query to an executable plan to fetch and process data from, theoretically, any source of data. I deliberately didn't say data source so people won't think of databases or any software-based data management system.
Drill uses storage plugins to read records from whatever data the storage plugin supports.
After Drill gets these rows, it starts performing what is needed to execute the query, whats needed may be filtering, sorting, joining, projecting (selecting specific columns)...etc
So drill doesn't by default use any of the source's capabilities of processing the queried data. In fact, the source may not support any capability of such !
If you wish to leverage any of the source's data processing features, you'll have to modify the storage plugin you're using to access this source.
One query I regularly remember when I think about Drill's performance, is this one
Select a.CUST_ID, (Select count(*) From SALES.CUSTOMERS where CUST_ID < a.CUST_ID) rowNum from SALES.CUSTOMERS a Order by CUST_ID
Only because of the > comparison operator, Drill has to load the whole table (i.e actually a parquet file), SORT IT, then perform the join.
This query took around 18 minutes to run on my machine which is a not so powerful machine but still, the effort Drill needs to perform to process this query must not be ignored.
Drill's purpose is not to be fast, it's purpose is to handle vast amounts of data and run SQL queries against structured and semi-structured data. And probably other things that I can't think about at the moment but you may find more information for other answers.
I would like to store a large amount of timeseries from devices. Also these timeseries have to be validated, can be modified by an operator and have to be exported to other systems. Holes in the timeseries must be found. Timeseries must be shown in the UI filtered by serialnumber and date range.
We have thought about using hadoop, hbase, opentsdb and spark for this scenario.
What do you think about it? Can Spark connect to opentsdb easily?
Thanks
OpenTSDB is really great for storing large amount of time series data. Internally, it is underpinned by HBase - which means that it had to find a way around HBase's limitations in order to perform well. As a result, the representation of time series is highly optimized and not easy to decode. AFAIK, there is no out-of-the-box connector that would allow to fetch data from OpenTSDB into Spark.
The following GitHub project might provide you with some guidance:
Achak1987's connector
If you are looking for libs that would help you with time series, have a look at spark-ts - it contains useful functions for missing data imputation as well.
Warp 10 offers the WarpScript language which can be used from Spark/Pig/Flink to manipulate time series and access data stored in Warp 10 via a Warp10InputFormat.
Warp 10 is Open Source and available at www.warp10.io
Disclaimer: I'm CTO of Cityzen Data, maker of Warp 10.
Take a look at Axibase Time Series Database which has a rather unique versioning feature to maintain a history of value changes for the same timestamp. Once enabled with per-metric granularity, the database keeps track of source, status and times of value modifications for audit trail or data reconciliation.
We have customers streaming data from Spark apps using Network API, typically once data is enriched with additional metadata (aks series tags) for downstream reporting.
You can query data from ATSD with REST API or SQL.
Disclaimer: I work for Axibase.
Which hadoop component can handle all the oracle functions & which has low latency..
Am thinking to use the components like Presto, Drill and Shark..
Can anyone tell which of the above technology can handle all the functions in oracle with low latency..
or atleast which has more compatibility & which can handle all the functions of oracle..
I have the flexibility to use more than one technology but am confused to use which one for which like functions compatible for which technology & which technology can give low latency..?
Presto is designed to implement ANSI SQL and to execute queries with low latency (under 100ms for connectors that support it). Queries against Hive can execute in ~1s, depending on the speed of the Hive metastore (zero time if cached due to repeated access) and HDFS latency.
Regarding Oracle functionality, nothing in open source comes close. Oracle is a huge product with a ton of functionality. However, no one uses all of the functionality. Most people use a small subset. You will need to evaluate the different alternatives and decide which has the functionality subset that best meets your needs.
Disclosure: I am one of the creators of Presto.
I am trying to write a wrapper that could easily be used by people coming from the Sql background. I have not started on this work yet and I would like to know what approach should I take.
Here's the problem statement - If someone has a lot of native Sql written on their rdbms data and they want to switch to hadoop then there are lots of problems. A major problem of building tables in hdfs has been eliminated by Hive. Now comes the querying part - for this we have different frameworks but none is complete in itself - like one might be slow and other might be lacking in features. For example, there's Impala, there's Hive QL but then for the end user there is no ONE framework.
I intend to do something like this - select(comma-separated string of column names, tableName).where(filter-expression)....
Something like Linq for hdfs and underneath it would figure out what's the best way to execute select(hive ql or Impala), best way to do a where clause, etc.
Suggestions? Ideas? Critique?
Thanks
Why not use the ODBC or JDBC drivers for Impala? These drivers are used by third-party tools like MicroStrategy or Tableau to submit queries to Impala.
I need to store large amount of small data objects (millions of rows per month). Once they're saved they wont change. I need to :
store them securely
use them to analysis (mostly time-oriented)
retrieve some raw data occasionally
It would be nice if it could be used with JasperReports or BIRT
My first shot was Infobright Community - just a column-oriented, read-only storing mechanism for MySQL
On the other hand, people says that NoSQL approach could be better. Hadoop+Hive looks promissing, but the documentation looks poor and the version number is less than 1.0 .
I heard about Hypertable, Pentaho, MongoDB ....
Do you have any recommendations ?
(Yes, I found some topics here, but it was year or two ago)
Edit:
Other solutions : MonetDB, InfiniDB, LucidDB - what do you think?
Am having the same problem here and made researches; two types of storages for BI :
column oriented. Free and known : monetDB, LucidDb, Infobright. InfiniDB
Distributed : hTable, Cassandra (also column oriented theoretically)
Document oriented / MongoDb, CouchDB
The answer depends on what you really need :
If your millions of row are loaded at once (nighly batch or so), InfiniDB or other column oriented DB are the best; They have great performance and are "BI oriented". http://www.d1solutions.ch/papers/d1_2010_hauenstein_real_life_performance_database.pdf
And they won't require a setup of "nodes", "sharding" and other stuff that comes with distributed/"NoSQL" DBs.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/01/07/star-schema-bechmark-infobright-infinidb-and-luciddb/
If the rows are added in real time.. then column oriented DB are bad. You can either choose two have two separate DB (that's my choice : one noSQL for real feeding of the stats by the front, and real time stats. The other DB column-oriented for BI). Or turn towards something that mixes column oriented (for out requests) and distribution (for writes) / like Cassandra.
Document oriented DBs are not suited for BI, they are more useful for CRM/CMS issues where you need frequent access to a particular row
As for the exact choice inside a category, I'm still undecided. Cassandra in distributed, and Monet or InfiniDB for CODB, are leaders. Monet is reported to have problem loading very big tables because it runs indexes in memory.
You could also consider GridSQL. Even for a single server, you can create multiple logical "nodes" to utilize multiple cores when processing queries.
GridSQL uses PostgreSQL, so you can also take advantage of partitioning tables into subtables to evaluate queries faster. You mentioned the data is time-oriented, so that would be a good candidate for creating subtables.
If you're looking for compatibility with reporting tools, something based on MySQL may be your best choice. As for what will work for you, Infobright may work. There are several other solutions as well, however you may want also to look at plain-old MySQL and the Archive table. Each record is compressed and stored and, IIRC, it's designed for your type of workload, however I think Infobright is supposed to get better compression. I haven't really used either, so I'm not sure which will work best for you.
As for the key-value stores (E.g. NoSQL), yes, they can work as well and there are plenty of alternatives out there. I know CouchDB has "views", but I haven't had the opportunity to use any, so I don't know how well any of them work.
My only concern with your data set is that since you mentioned time, you may want to ensure that whatever solution you use will allow you to archive data past a certain time. It's a common data warehouse practice to only keep N months of data online and archive the rest. This is where partitioning, as implemented in an RDBMS, comes in very useful.