There several kind of file format like impala internal table or external table format like csv, parquet, hbase. Now we need to guarantee the average insert rate is 50K row/s and each row is about 1K. And, some of the data also can be updated occasionally. We also need to do some aggregation operation on those data.
I think Hbase is not a good choose for large aggregation compute when using impala with external table. Does anybody have suggestion about it?
Thanks, Chen.
I've never worked with Impala, but I can tell you a few things based on my experience with Hive.
HBase will be faster if you have a good key design and a proper schema, because just like with Hive, Impala will translate your WHERE into scan filters, it'll depend a lot on the type of queries you run. There are multiple techniques to reduce the amount of data read by a job: from simple ones like providing start and stop rowkeys, timeranges, reading only some families/columns, the already mentioned filters... to more complex like solutions like performing realtime aggregations on your data (*) and keeping them as counters.
Regarding your insert rate, it can perfectly handle it with the proper infrastructure (better to use the HBase native JAVA API), also, you can buffer your writes to get even better performance.
*Not sure if Impala supports HBase counters.
Related
We have billions of records formatted with relational data format (e.g transaction id, user name, user id and some other fields), my requirement is to create system where user can request data export from this data store (user will provide some filters like user id, date and so on), typically exported file will be having thousand to 100s of thousands to millions of records based on selected filters (output file will be CSV or similar format)
Other than raw data, I am also looking for some dynamic aggregation on few of the fields during data export.
Typical time between user submitting request and exported data file available should be within 2-3 minutes (max can be 4-5 minutes).
I am seeking suggestions on backend noSQLs for this use case, I've used Hadoop map-reduce so far but hadoop batch job execution with typical HDFS data map-reduce might not give expected SLA in my opinion.
Another option is to use Spark map-reduce which I've never used but it should be way faster then typical Hadoop map-reduce batch job.
We've already tried production grade RDBMS/OLTP instance but it clearly seems not a correct option due to size of data we are exporting and dynamic aggregation.
Any suggestion on using Spark here? or any other better noSQL?
In summary SLA, dynamic aggregation and raw data (millions) are the requirement considerations here.
If system only requires to export data after doing some ETL - aggregations, filtering and transformations then answer is very straight forward. Apache Spark is the best. You would have to fine tune the system and decide whether you want to use only memory or memory + disk or serialization etc.. However, most of the times one needs to think about other aspects too; I am considering them as well.
This is a wide topic of discussion and it involves many aspects such aggregations involved, search related queries (if any), development time. As per the description, it seems to be an interactive/near-real-time-interactive system. Other aspect is whether any analysis involved? And another important point is type of system (OLTP/OLAP, only reporting etc..).
I see there are two questions involved -
Which computing/data processing engine to use?
Which data storage/NoSQL?
- Data processing -
Apache Spark would be a best choice for computing. We are using for the same purpose, along with the filtering, we also have xml transformations to perform which are also done in Spark. Its superfast as compared to Hadoop MapReduce. Spark can run standalone and it can also run on the top of Hadoop.
- Storage -
There are many noSQL solutions available. Selection depends upon many factors such as volume, aggregations involved, search related queries etc..
Hadoop - You can go with Hadoop with HDFS as a storage system. It has many benefits as you get entire Hadoop ecosystem.If you have analysts/data scientists who require to get insights of data/ play with data then this would be a better choice as you would get different tools such as Hive/Impala. Also, resource management would be easy. But for some applications it can be too much.
Cassendra - Cassandra as a storage engine that has solved the problems of distribution and availability while maintaining scale and performance. It brings wonders when used with Spark. For example, performing complex aggregations. By the way, we are using it. For visualization (to view data for analyzing), options are Apache Zeppelin, Tableau (lot of options)
Elastic Search - Elastic Search is also a suitable option if your storage is in few TBs upto 10 TBs. It comes with Kibana (UI) which provides limited analytics capabilities including aggregations. Development time is minimal, its very quick to implement.
So, depending upon your requirement I would suggest Apache Spark for data processing (transformations/filtering/aggregations) and you may also require to consider other technology for storage and data visualization.
I have a data structure in Hadoop with 100 columns and few hundred rows. Most of the times I need to query 65% of columns. In this case which is better to use HBASE or HIVE? Please advice.
Just number of columns you are accessing is NOT the criteria for deciding hbase or hive.
HIVE (SQL) :
Use Hive when you have warehousing needs and you are good at SQL and don't want to write MapReduce jobs. One important point though, Hive queries get converted into a corresponding MapReduce job under the hood which runs on your cluster and gives you the result. Hive does the trick for you. But each and every problem cannot be solved using HiveQL. Sometimes, if you need really fine grained and complex processing you might have to take MapReduce's shelter.
Hbase (NoSQL database):
You can use Hbase to serve that purpose. If you have some data which you want to access real time, you could store it in Hbase.
hbase get 'rowkey' is powerful when you know your access pattern
Hbase follows CP of CAP Theorm
Consistency:
Every node in the system contains the same data (e.g. replicas are never out of data)
Availability:
Every request to a non-failing node in the system returns a response
Partition Tolerance:
System properties (consistency and/or availability) hold even when the system is partitioned (communicate lost) and data is lost (node lost)
also have a look at this
Its very difficult to answer the question in one line.
HBASE is NoSQL database: your data need to store denormalized data because HBASE is very bad for joi
ning tables.
Hive: You can store data in similar format (normalized) in Hive, but would only see benefits when doing batch processing.
I am building an application which requires lot of data processing and analytics (processing tons of files at same time ).
I am planing to use Hadoop (Map-reduce , Hbase(HDFS file system)) for this.
At same time i have small dataset like user setting, application user listing ,payment information and other which can be easily managed on any RDMS database like sql or Mongo.
Some time it may have few aggregated and analysis data which is computed by Hadoop but that data is also not that big.
My question is whether i should pick 2 database like Mysql/Mongo for storing small dataset and HBase for big dataset ?
Or my HBase can do both job efficiently ?
My opinion you cant compare apple with banana.
Hbase is schema less and From CAP theorem, CP is the main attention for hbase.
Where as CA is for RDBMS. please see my answer.
RDBMS has these properties has schema , is centralized, supports joins, supports ACID, supports referrential integrity.
Where as Hbase is schema less , distributed, doesnt support joins ,no built-in support for ACID.
Now you can decide which one is for what based on your requirements.
Hope this helps!
I'm trying to understand how to architect a big data solution. I have historic data of 400TB of data and every hour 1GB of data is getting inserted.
Since data is confidential, I'm describing sample scenario, Data contains information of all activities in a bank branch. With every hour, when new data is inserted(no updation) into hdfs, I need to find how many loans closed, loans created,accounts expired, etc ( around 1000 analytics to be performed). Analytics involve processing entire 400TB of data.
I was plan was to use hadoop + spark. But I'm being suggested to use HBase. Reading through all the documents, I'm not able to find a clear advantage.
What is the best way to go for data which will grow to 600TB
1. MR for analytics and impala/hive for query
2. Spark for analytics and query
3. HBase + MR for analytics and query
Thanks in advance
About HBase:
HBase is a database that is build over HDFS. HBase uses HDFS to store data.
Basically, HBase will allow you to update records, have versioning and deletion of single records. HDFS does not support file updates, so HBase is introducing something you can consider "virtual" operations, and merge data from multiple sources (original files, delete markers) when you are asking it for data. Also, HBase as key-value store is creating indices to support selecting by key.
Your problem:
Choosing the technology in such situations you should look into what you are going to do with the data: Single query on Impala (with Avro schema) can be much faster than MapReduce (not to mention Spark). Spark will be faster in batch jobs, when there is caching involved.
You are probably familiar with Lambda architecture, if not, take a look into it. For what I can tell you now, the third option you mentioned (HBase and MR only) won't be good. I did not try Impala + HBase, so I can't say anything about performance, but HDFS (plain files) + Spark + Impala (with Avro), worked for me: Spark was doing reports for pre-defined queries (after that, data was stored in objectFiles - not human-readable, but very fast), Impala for custom queries.
Hope it helps at least a little.
I have a set of Hadoop flows that were written before we started using Hive. When we added Hive, we configured the data files as external tables. Now we're thinking about rewriting the flows to output their results using HCatalog. Our main motivation to make the change is to take advantage of the dynamic partitioning.
One of the hurdles I'm running into is that some of our reducers generate multiple data sets. Today this is done with side-effect files, so we write out each record type to its own file in a single reduce step, and I'm wondering what my options are to do this with HCatalog.
One option obviously is to have each job generate just a single record type, reprocessing the data once for each type. I'd like to avoid this.
Another option for some jobs is to change our schema so that all records are stored in a single schema. Obviously this option works well if the data was just broken apart for poor-man's partitioning, since HCatalog will take care of partitioning the data based on the fields. For other jobs, however, the types of records are not consistent.
It seems that I might be able to use the Reader/Writer interfaces to pass a set of writer contexts around, one per schema, but I haven't really thought it through (and I've only been looking at HCatalog for a day, so I may be misunderstanding the Reader/Writer interface).
Does anybody have any experience writing to multiple schemas in a single reduce step? Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Andrew
As best I can tell, the proper way to do this is to use the MultiOutputFormat class. The biggest help for me was the TestHCatMultiOutputFormat test in Hive.
Andrew