In this post I am not asking any tutorials, how to do something, in this post, I am asking your help, if someone could explain me with simple words, what is DWH (data warehouse ) and what is ETL.
Of course, I google'ed and youtube'd alot, I found many articles, videos, but still, I am not very sure what it is.
Why I am asking?
I need to know it very well before I am applying for a job.
This answer by no means should be treated as a complete definition of a data warehouse. It's only my attempt to explain the term in layman's terms.
Transactional (operational, OLTP) and analytical (data warehouses) systems can both use the same RDBMS as the back-end and they may contain exactly the same data. However, their data models will be completely different, because they are optimized for different access patterns.
In transactional systems you usually work with a single row (e.g. a customer or an invoice) and the write consistency is crucial, so the data model is normalized. On the contrary, data warehouses are optimized for reading large number of rows (e.g. all invoices from the previous year) and aggregating data, so dimensional models are flattened (star schema, Kimball's dimensions and facts).
Transactional systems store only the current version of entities (i.e. current customer's address), while data warehouses may use slowly changing dimensions (SCD) to preserve history (e.g. all addresses of the customer with date ranges to indicate when each of them was valid).
ETL stands for extract, transform, load and it is the procedure of:
extracting data from a transactional system,
transforming it into dimensional format,
loading in a data warehouse.
Related
I use Tableau and have a table with 140 fields. Due to the size/width of the table, the performance is poor. I would like to remove fields to increase reading speed, but my user base is so large, that at least one person uses each of the fields, while 90% use the same ~20 fields.
What is the best solution to this issue? (Tableau is our BI tool, BigQuery is our database)
What I have done thus far:
In Tableau, it isn't clear how to user dynamic data sources that change based on the field selected. Ideally, I would like to have smaller views OR denormalized tables. As the users makes their selections in Tableau, the underlying data sources updates to the table or view with that field.
I have tried a simple version of a large view, but that performed worse than my large table, and read significantly more data (remember, I am BigQuery, so I care very much about bytes read due to costs)
Suggestion 1: Extract your data.
Especially when it comes to datasources which are pay per query byte, (Big Query, Athena, Etc) extracts make a great deal of sense. Depending how 'fresh' the data must be for the users. (Of course all users will say 'live is the only way to go', but dig into this a little and see what it might actually be.) Refreshes can be scheduled for as little as 15 minutes. The real power of refreshes comes in the form of 'incremental refreshes' whereby only new records are added (along an index of int or date.) This is a great way to reduce costs - if your BigQuery database is partitioned - (which it should be.) Since Tableau Extracts are contained within .hyper files, a structure of Tableau's own design/control, they are extremely fast and optimized perfectly for use in Tableau.
Suggestion 2: Create 3 Data Sources (or more.) Certify these datasources after validating that they provide correct information. Provide users with with clear descriptions.
Original Large Dataset.
Subset of ~20 fields for the 90%.
Remainder of fields for the 10%
Extract of 1
Extract of 2
Extract of 3
Importantly, if field names match in each datasource (ie: not changed manually ever) then it should be easy for a user to 'scale up' to larger datasets as needed. This means that they could generally always start out with a small subset of data to begin their exploration, and then use the 'replace datasource' feature to switch to a different datasource while keeping their same views. (This wouldn't work as well if at all for scaling down, though.)
I did a bit R&D on the fact tables, whether they are normalized or de-normalized.
I came across some findings which make me confused.
According to Kimball:
Dimensional models combine normalized and denormalized table structures. The dimension tables of descriptive information are highly denormalized with detailed and hierarchical roll-up attributes in the same table. Meanwhile, the fact tables with performance metrics are typically normalized. While we advise against a fully normalized with snowflaked dimension attributes in separate tables (creating blizzard-like conditions for the business user), a single denormalized big wide table containing both metrics and descriptions in the same table is also ill-advised.
The other finding, which I also I think is ok, by fazalhp at GeekInterview:
The main funda of DW is de-normalizing the data for faster access by the reporting tool...so if ur building a DW ..90% it has to be de-normalized and off course the fact table has to be de normalized...
So my question is, are fact tables normalized or de-normalized? If any of these then how & why?
From the point of relational database design theory, dimension tables are usually in 2NF and fact tables anywhere between 2NF and 6NF.
However, dimensional modelling is a methodology unto itself, tailored to:
one use case, namely reporting
mostly one basic type (pattern) of a query
one main user category -- business analyst, or similar
row-store RDBMS like Oracle, SQl Server, Postgres ...
one independently controlled load/update process (ETL); all other clients are read-only
There are other DW design methodologies out there, like
Inmon's -- data structure driven
Data Vault -- data structure driven
Anchor modelling -- schema evolution driven
The main thing is not to mix-up database design theory with specific design methodology. You may look at a certain methodology through database design theory perspective, but have to study each methodology separately.
Most people working with a data warehouse are familiar with transactional RDBMS and apply various levels of normalization, so those concepts are used to describe working a star schema. What they're doing is trying to get you to unlearn all those normalization habits. This can get confusing because there is a tendency to focus on what "not" to do.
The fact table(s) will probably be the most normalized since they usually contain just numerical values along with various id's for linking to dimensions. They key with fact tables is how granular do you need to get with your data. An example for Purchases could be specific line items by product in an order or aggregated at a daily, weekly, monthly level.
My suggestion is to keep searching and studying how to design a warehouse based on your needs. Don't look to get to high levels of normalized forms. Think more about the reports you want to generate and the analysis capabilities to give your users.
I am currently trying to improve the performance of a web application. The goal of the application is to provide (real time) analytics. We have a database model that is similiar to a star schema, few fact tables and many dimensional tables. The database is running with Mysql and MyIsam engine.
The Fact table size can easily go into the upper millions and some dimension tables can also reach the millions.
Now the point is, select queries can get awfully slow if the dimension tables get joined on the fact tables and also aggretations are done. First thing that comes in mind when hearing this is, why not precalculate the data? This is not possible because the users are allowed to use several freely customizable filters.
So what I need is an all-in-one system suitable for every purpose ;) Sadly it wasn't invented yet. So I came to the idea to combine 2 existing systems. Mixing a row oriented and a column oriented database (e.g. like infinidb or infobright). Keeping the mysql MyIsam solution (for fast inserts and row based queries) and add a column oriented database (for fast aggregation operations on few columns) to it and fill it periodically (nightly) via cronjob. Problem would be when the current data (it must be real time) is queried, therefore I maybe would need to get data from both databases which can complicate things.
First tests with infinidb showed really good performance on aggregation of a few columns, so I really think this could help me speed up the application.
So the question is, is this a good idea? Has somebody maybe already done this? Maybe there is are better ways to do it.
I have no experience in column oriented databases yet and I'm also not sure how the schema of it should look like. First tests showed good performance on the same star schema like structure but also in a big table like structure.
I hope this question fits on SO.
Greenplum, which is a proprietary (but mostly free-as-in-beer) extension to PostgreSQL, supports both column-oriented and row-oriented tables with high customizable compression. Further, you can mix settings within the same table if you expect that some parts will experience heavy transactional load while others won't. E.g., you could have the most recent year be row-oriented and uncompressed, the prior year column-oriented and quicklz-compresed, and all historical years column-oriented and bz2-compressed.
Greenplum is free for use on individual servers, but if you need to scale out with its MPP features (which are its primary selling point) it does cost significant amounts of money, as they're targeting large enterprise customers.
(Disclaimer: I've dealt with Greenplum professionally, but only in the context of evaluating their software for purchase.)
As for the issue of how to set up the schema, it's hard to say much without knowing the particulars of your data, but in general having compressed column-oriented tables should make all of your intuitions about schema design go out the window.
In particular, normalization is almost never worth the effort, and you can sometimes get big gains in performance by denormalizing to borderline-comical levels of redundancy. If the data never hits disk in an uncompressed state, you might just not care that you're repeating each customer's name 40,000 times. Infobright's compression algorithms are designed specifically for this sort of application, and it's not uncommon at all to end up with 40-to-1 ratios between the logical and physical sizes of your tables.
We have a system that generates many events as the result of a phone call/web request/sms/email etc, each of these events need to be able to be stored and be available for reporting (for MI/BI etc) on, each of these events have many variables and does not fit any one specific scheme.
The structure of the event document is a key-value pair list (cdr= 1&name=Paul&duration=123&postcode=l21). Currently we have a SQL Server system using dynamically generated sparse columns to store our (flat) document, of which we have reports that run against the data, for many different reasons I am looking at other solutions.
I am looking for suggestions of a system (open or closed) that allows us to push these events in (regardless of the schema) and provide reporting and anlytics on top of it.
I have seen Pentaho and Jasper, but most of the seem to connect to a system to get the data out of it to then report on it. I really just want to be able to push a document in and have it available to be reported on.
As much as I love CouchDB, I am looking for a system that allows schema-less submitting of data and reporting on top of it (much like Pentaho, Jasper, SQL Reporting/Analytics Server etc)
I don't think there is any DBMS that will do what you want and allow an off-the-shelf reporting tool to be used. Low-latency analytic systems are not quick and easy to build. Low-latency on unstructured data is quite ambitious.
You are going to have to persist the data in some sort of database, though.
I think you may have to take a closer look at your problem domain. Are you trying to run low-latency analytical reports, or an operational report that prompts some action within the business when certain events occur? For low-latency systems you need to be quite ruthless about what constitutes operational reporting and what constitutes analytics.
Edit: Discourage the 'potentially both' mindset unless the business are prepared to pay. Investment banks and hedge funds spend big bucks and purchase supercomputers to do 'real-time analytics'. It's not a trivial undertaking. It's even less trivial when you try to do such a system and build it for high uptimes.
Even on apps like premium-rate SMS services and .com applications the business often backs down when you do a realistic scope and cost analysis of the problem. I can't say this enough. Be really, really ruthless about 'realtime' requirements.
If the business really, really need realtime analytics then you can make hybrid OLAP architectures where you have a marching lead partition on the fact table. This is an architecture where the fact table or cube is fully indexed for historical data but has a small leading partition that is not indexed and thus relatively quick to insert data into.
Analytic queries will table scan the relatively small leading data partition and use more efficient methods on the other partitions. This gives you low latency data and the ability to run efficient analytic queries over the historical data.
Run a process nightly that rolls over to a new leading partition and consolidates/indexes the previous lead partition.
This works well where you have items such as bitmap indexes (on databases) or materialised aggregations (on cubes) that are expensive on inserts. The lead partition is relatively small and cheap to table scan but efficient to trickle insert into. The roll-over process incrementally consolidates this lead partition into the indexed historical data which allows it to be queried efficiently for reports.
Edit 2: The common fields might be candidates to set up as dimensions on a fact table (e.g. caller, time). The less common fields are (presumably) coding. For an efficient schema you could move the optional coding into one or more 'junk' dimensions..
Briefly, a junk dimension is one that represents every existing combination of two or more codes. A row on the table doesn't relate to a single system entity but to a unique combination of coding. Each row on the dimension table corresponds to a distinct combination that occurs in the raw data.
In order to have any analytic value you are still going to have to organise the data so that the columns in the junk dimension contain something consistently meaningful. This goes back to some requirements work to make sure that the mappings from the source data make sense. You can deal with items that are not always recorded by using a placeholder value such as a zero-length string (''), which is probably better than nulls.
Now I think I see the underlying requirements. This is an online or phone survey application with custom surveys. The way to deal with this requirement is to fob the analytics off onto the client. No online tool will let you turn around schema changes in 20 minutes.
I've seen this type of requirement before and it boils down to the client wanting to do some stats on a particular survey. If you can give them a CSV based on the fields (i.e. with named header columns) in their particular survey they can import it into excel and pivot it from there.
This should be fairly easy to implement from a configurable online survey system as you should be able to read the survey configuration. The client will be happy that they can play with their numbers in Excel as they don't have to get their head around a third party tool. Any competent salescritter should be able to spin this to the client as a good thing. You can use a spiel along the lines of 'And you can use familiar tools like Excel to analyse your numbers'. (or SAS if they're that way inclined)
Wrap the exporter in a web page so they can download it themselves and get up-to-date data.
Note that the wheels will come off if you have larger data volumes over 65535 respondents per survey as this won't fit onto a spreadsheet tab. Excel 2007 increases this limit to 1048575. However, surveys with this volume of response will probably be in the minority. One possible workaround is to provide a means to get random samples of the data that are small enough to work with in Excel.
Edit: I don't think there are other solutions that are sufficiently flexible for this type of applicaiton. You've described a holy grail of survey statistics.
I still think that the basic strategy is to give them a data dump. You can pre-package it to some extent by using OLE automation to construct a pivot table and deliver something partially digested. The API for pivot tables in Excel is a bit hairy but this is certainly quite feasible. I have written VBA code that programatically creates pivot tables in the past so I can say from personal experience that this is feasible to do.
The problem becomes a bit more complex if you want to compute and report distributions of (say) response times as you have to construct the displays. You can programatically construct pivot charts if necessary but automating report construction through excel in this way will be a fair bit of work.
You might get some mileage from R (www.r-project.org) as you can construct a framework that lets you import data and generate bespoke reports with a bit of R Code. This is not an end-user tool but your client base sounds like they want canned reports anyway.
I know a bit about database internals. I've actually implemented a small, simple relational database engine before, using ISAM structures on disk and BTree indexes and all that sort of thing. It was fun, and very educational. I know that I'm much more cognizant about carefully designing database schemas and writing queries now that I know a little bit more about how RDBMSs work under the hood.
But I don't know anything about multidimensional OLAP data models, and I've had a hard time finding any useful information on the internet.
How is the information stored on disk? What data structures comprise the cube? If a MOLAP model doesn't use tables, with columns and records, then... what? Especially in highly dimensional data, what kinds of data structures make the MOLAP model so efficient? Do MOLAP implementations use something analogous to RDBMS indexes?
Why are OLAP servers so much better at processing ad hoc queries? The same sorts of aggregations that might take hours to process in an ordinary relational database can be processed in milliseconds in an OLTP cube. What are the underlying mechanics of the model that make that possible?
I've implemented a couple of systems that mimicked what OLAP cubes do, and here are a couple of things we did to get them to work.
The core data was held in an n-dimensional array, all in memory, and all the keys were implemented via hierarchies of pointers to the underlying array. In this way we could have multiple different sets of keys for the same data. The data in the array was the equivalent of the fact table, often it would only have a couple of pieces of data, in one instance this was price and number sold.
The underlying array was often sparse, so once it was created we used to remove all the blank cells to save memory - lots of hardcore pointer arithmetic but it worked.
As we had hierarchies of keys, we could write routines quite easily to drill down/up a hierarchy easily. For instance we would access year of data, by going through the month keys, which in turn mapped to days and/or weeks. At each level we would aggregate data as part of building the cube - made calculations much faster.
We didn't implement any kind of query language, but we did support drill down on all axis (up to 7 in our biggest cubes), and that was tied directly to the UI which the users liked.
We implemented core stuff in C++, but these days I reckon C# could be fast enough, but I'd worry about how to implement sparse arrays.
Hope that helps, sound interesting.
The book Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Analysis Services Unleashed spells out some of the particularities of SSAS 2008 in decent detail. It's not quite a "here's exactly how SSAS works under the hood", but it's pretty suggestive, especially on the data structure side. (It's not quite as detailed/specific about the exact algorithms.) A few of the things I, as an amateur in this area, gathered from this book. This is all about SSAS MOLAP:
Despite all the talk about multi-dimensional cubes, fact table (aka measure group) data is still, to a first approximation, ultimately stored in basically 2D tables, one row per fact. A number of OLAP operations seem to ultimately consist of iterating over rows in 2D tables.
The data is potentially much smaller inside MOLAP than inside a corresponding SQL table, however. One trick is that each unique string is stored only once, in a "string store". Data structures can then refer to strings in a more compact form (by string ID, basically). SSAS also compresses rows within the MOLAP store in some form. This shrinking I assume lets more of the data stay in RAM simultaneously, which is good.
Similarly, SSAS can often iterate over a subset of the data rather than the full dataset. A few mechanisms are in play:
By default, SSAS builds a hash index for each dimension/attribute value; it thus knows "right away" which pages on disk contain the relevant data for, say, Year=1997.
There's a caching architecture where relevant subsets of the data are stored in RAM separate from the whole dataset. For example, you might have cached a subcube that has only a few of your fields, and that only pertains to the data from 1997. If a query is asking only about 1997, then it will iterate only over that subcube, thereby speeding things up. (But note that a "subcube" is, to a first approximation, just a 2D table.)
If you're predefined aggregates, then these smaller subsets can also be precomputed at cube processing time, rather than merely computed/cached on demand.
SSAS fact table rows are fixed size, which presumibly helps in some form. (In SQL, in constrast, you might have variable-width string columns.)
The caching architecture also means that, once an aggregation has been computed, it doesn't need to be refetched from disk and recomputed again and again.
These are some of the factors in play in SSAS anyway. I can't claim that there aren't other vital things as well.