I recently did an integration between Hive and HBase. I created a hive table with HBase serde and when i insert the records into the hive table it gets loaded into the HBase table. I am trying to understand what if the insert into HiveHBase table fails in between ? (HBase service fails / network issue). I assume the records which have already loaded into the HBase will be there and when i do a rerun of the operation i will have two copies of data with different timestamp (Assuming out of 20K records 10k was inserted and the failure occured).
What is the best way to insert records into HBase ?
Can Hive provide me the security check to see if the data is already there ?
Is mapreduce the best shot for scenarios like these ? I will write a mapreduce program that reads data from hive and checks record by record in hbase before the insertion . This makes sure there are no duplicate writes
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, you will have 2 versions of data when you rerun the load operation. But that's ok since the 2nd version will get cleaned up on the next compaction. As long as your inserts are idempotent (which they most likely are), you won't have a problem.
At Lithium+Klout, we use a custom built HBaseSerDe which writes HFiles, instead of using Put's to insert the data. So we generate the HFiles and use the bulk load tool to load all of the data after the job has completed. That's another way you can integrate Hive and HBase.
Related
We are stuck with a problem where-in we are trying to do a near real time sync between a RDBMS(Source) and hive (Target). Basically the source is pushing the changes (inserts, updates and deletes) into HDFS as avro files. These are loaded into external tables (with avro schema), into the Hive. There is also a base table in ORC, which has all the records that came in before the Source pushed in the new set of records.
Once the data is received, we have to do a de-duplication (since there could be updates on existing rows) and remove all deleted records (since there could be deletes from the Source).
We are now performing a de-dupe using rank() over partitioned keys on the union of external table and base table. And then the result is then pushed into a new table, swap the names. This is taking a lot of time.
We tried using merges, acid transactions, but rank over partition and then filtering out all the rows has given us the best possible time at this moment.
Is there a better way of doing this? Any suggestions on improving the process altogether? We are having quite a few tables, so we do not have any partitions or buckets at this moment.
You can try with storing all the transactional data into Hbase table.
Storing data into Hbase table using Primary key of RDBMS table as Row Key:-
Once you pull all the data from RDBMS with NiFi processors(executesql,Querydatabasetable..etc) we are going to have output from the processors in Avro format.
You can use ConvertAvroToJson processor and then use SplitJson Processor to split each record from array of json records.
Store all the records in Hbase table having Rowkey as the Primary key in the RDBMS table.
As when we get incremental load based on Last Modified Date field we are going to have updated records and newly added records from the RDBMS table.
If we got update for the existing rowkey then Hbase will overwrite the existing data for that record, for newly added records Hbase will add them as a new record in the table.
Then by using Hive-Hbase integration you can get the Hbase table data exposed using Hive.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HBaseIntegration
By using this method we are going to have Hbase table that will take care of all the upsert operations and we cannot expect same performance from hive-hbase table vs native hive table will perform faster,as hbase tables are not meant for sql kind of queries, hbase table is most efficient if you are accessing data based on Rowkey,
if we are going to have millions of records then we need to do some tuning to the hive queries
Tuning Hive Queries That Uses Underlying HBase Table
At my organization we are trying to use HIVE Or PIG as alternative
Primary goal : reduce process time
NETEZZA process time : 90 min
looking to end process : within 30 min
How does process works:
Process is about to maintain incremental history.There are two tables history_table and new_table.History table maintains total history and new
_table has updated records.So every day updated records are added to history table.Process has very complex stored procedures (Joins/deletion/insert/update)
same process is being applied on multiple tables.Every history table has almost billions of records.
Doubts I have :
Does HIVE/PIG perform better than NETEZZA ?
Is UDF in hive a good alternative for Stored Procedure as I want to create generic process for multiple tables (where I can pass table name as argument) ?
Which performs better HIVE or PIG for really complex joins with multiple condition, generating create statement dynamically and exception handling?
use impala which is Netezza on Hadoop, try Kudu for real time and batch or use HBase for real time and impala for batch , but you can query HBase using impala
What would happen if I'm trying to read from a hive table , while concurrently there is someone inserting into the hive table.
Does it lock the files while querying into it, or does it do a dirty read???
Hadoop is meant for parallel proceesing. So in a cluster parallel querying can be done on a hive table.
While some data is being inserted in the table if another user queries the same table, the files are not locked, rather a job is accepted is put to execution.
Now if the new data insert is successful before the second query
is processed the the result of the second query will
acknowledge the inserted data.
Note: In most cases data insertion takes lesser time than
querying a table because while querying MR jobs are created and
are run in backend
I am new to Hadoop and learning Hive.
In Hadoop definative guide 3rd edition page no. 428 last paragraph
I don't understand below paragraph regarding external table in HIVE.
"A common pattern is to use an external table to access an initial dataset stored in HDFS (created by another process), then use a Hive transform to move the data into a managed Hive table."
Can anybody explain briefly what above phrase says?
Usually the data in the initial dataset is not constructed in the optimal way for queries.
You may want to modify the data (like modifying some columns adding columns, making aggregation etc) and to store it in a specific way (partitions / buckets / sorted etc) so that the queries would benefit from these optimizations.
The key difference between external and managed table in Hive is that data in the external table is not managed by Hive.
When you create external table you define HDFS directory for that table and Hive is simply "looking" in it and can get data from it but Hive can't delete or change data in that folder. When you drop external table Hive only deletes metadata from its metastore and data in HDFS remains unchanged.
Managed table basically is a directory in HDFS and it's created and managed by Hive. Even more - all operations for removing/changing partitions/raw data/table in that table MUST be done by Hive otherwise metadata in Hive metastore may become incorrect (e.g. you manually delete partition from HDFS but Hive metastore contains info that partition exists).
In Hadoop definative guide I think author meant that it is a common practice to write MR-job that produces some raw data and keeps it in some folder. Than you create Hive external table which will look into that folder. And than safelly run queries without the risk to drop table etc.
In other words - you can do MR job that produces some generic data and than use Hive external table as a source of data for insert into managed tables. It helps you to avoid creating boring similar MR jobs and delegate this task to Hive queries - you create query that takes data from external table, aggregates/processes it how you want and puts the result into managed tables.
Another goal of external table is to use as a source data from remote servers, e.g. in csv format.
There is no reason to move table to managed unless you are going to enable ACID or other features supported only for managed tables.
The list of differences in features supported by managed/external tables may change in future, better use current documentation. Currently these features are:
ARCHIVE/UNARCHIVE/TRUNCATE/MERGE/CONCATENATE only work for managed
tables
DROP deletes data for managed tables while it only deletes
metadata for external ones
ACID/Transactional only works for
managed tables
Query Results Caching only works for managed
tables
Only the RELY constraint is allowed on external tables
Some Materialized View features only work on managed tables
You can create both EXTERNAL and MANAGED tables on top of the same location, see this answer with more details and tests: https://stackoverflow.com/a/54038932/2700344
Data structure has nothing in common with external/managed table type. If you want to change structure you do not necessarily need to change table managed/external type
It is also mentioned in the book.
when your table is external table.
you can use other technologies like PIG,Cascading or Mapreduce to process it .
You can also use multiple schemas for that dataset.
and You can also create data lazily if it is external table.
when you decide that dataset should be used by only Hive,make it hive managed table.
I have a design question where in in my CDH 4.1.2(Cloudera) installation I have daily rolling log data dumped into the HDFS. I have some reports to calculate the success and failure rates per day.
I have two approaches
load the daily log data into Hive Tables and create a complex query.
Run a MapReduce job upfront everyday to generate the summary (which
is essentially few lines) and keep appending to a common file which is a Hive Table. Later while running the report I could use a simple select query to fetch the summary.
I am trying to understand which would be a better approach among the two or if there is a better one.
The second approach adds some complexity in terms of merging files. If not merged I would have lots of very small files which seems to be a bad idea.
Your inputs are appreciated.
Thanks
Hive seems well suited to this kind of tasks, and it should be fairly simple to do:
Create an EXTERNAL table in Hive which should be partitioned by day. The goal is that the directory where you will dump your data will be directly in your Hive table. You can specify the delimiter of the fields in your daily logs like shown below where I use commas:
create external table mytable(...) partitioned by (day string) row format delimited keys terminated by ',' location '/user/hive/warehouse/mytable`
When you dump your data in HDFS, make sure you dump it on the same directory with day= so it can be recognized as a hive partition. For example in /user/hive/warehouse/mytable/day=2013-01-23.
You need then to let Hive know that this table has a new partition:
alter table mytable add partition (day='2013-01-23')
Now the Hive metastore knows about your partition, you can run your summary query. Make sure you're only querying the partition by specifying ... where day='2013-01-23'
You could easily script that to run daily in cron or something else and get the current date (for example with the shell date command) and substitute variables to this in a shell script doing the steps above.