every one.
I have some data about 6G in hdfs that has been exported from mysql.And I have write mapreduces prehandling data to fill some key field that data can be easily queried.
As the business demands are different aggregation data group by day ,hour,hospital,area etc,
so I have to write many hive sqls exporting data to local disk,and then I write python script to parse files on local disk ,then get datas in demand.
Is there some good technique on hadoop to resolve my demand.I am considering.
Can you help me ,please.
Related
Is Cassandra a good alternative for Hadoop as a data warehouse where data is append only and all updates in source databases should not overwrite the existing rows in the data warehouse but get appended. Is Cassandra really ment to act as a data warehouse or just as a database to store the results of batch / stream queries?
Cassandra can be used both as a data warehouse(raw data storage) and as a database (for final data storage). It depends more on the cases you want to do with the data.
You even may need to have both Hadoop and Cassandra for different purposes.
Assume, you need to gather and process data from multiple mobile devices and provide some complex aggregation report to the user.
So at first, you need to save data as fast as possible (as new portions appear very often) so you use Cassandra here. As Cassandra is limited in aggregation features, you load data into HDFS and do some processing via HQL scripts (assume, you're not very good at coding but great in complicated SQLs). And then you move the report results from HDFS to Cassandra in a dedicated reports table partitioned by user id.
So when the user wants to have some aggregation report about his activity in the last month, the application takes the id of active user and returns the aggregated result from Cassandra (as it is simple key-value search).
So for your question, yes, it could be an alternative, but the selection strategy depends on the data types and your application business cases.
You can read more information about usage of Cassandra
here
I have some questions about migration, data model and performance of Hadoop/Impala.
How to migrate Oracle application to cloudera hadoop/Impala
1.1 How to replace oracle stored procedure in impala or M/R or java/python app.
For example, the original SP include several parameters and sqls.
1.2 How to replace unsupported or complex SQL like over by partition from Oracle to impala.
Are there any existing examples or Impala UDF?
1.3 How to handle update operation since part of data has to be updated.
For example, use data timestamp? use the store model which can support update like HBase? or use delete all data/partition/dir and insert it again(insert overwrite).
Data store model , partition design and query performance
2.1 How to chose impala internal table or external table like csv, parquet, habase?
For example, if there are several kind of data like importing exsited large data in Oracle into hadoop, new business data into hadoop, computed data in hadoop and frequently updated data in hadoop, how to choose the data model? Do you need special attention if the different kind of data need to join?
We have XX TB's data from Oracle, do you have any suggestion about the file format like csv or parquet? Do we need to import the data results into impala internal table or hdfs fs after calculation. If those kind of data can be updated, how to we considered that?
2.2 How to partition the table /external table when joining
For example, there are huge number of sensor data and each one includes measuring data, acquisition timestamp and region information.
We need:
calculate measuring data by different region
Query a series of measuring data during a certain time interval for specific sensor or region.
Query the specific sensor data from huge number of data cross all time.
Query data for all sensors on specific date.
Would you please provide us some suggestion about how to setup up the partition for internal and directories structure for external table(csv) .
In addition, for the structure of the directories, which is better when using date=20090101/area=BEIJING or year=2009/month=01/day=01/area=BEIJING? Is there any guide about that?
Im trying to get a clear understanding on HBASE.
Hive:- It just create a Tabular Structure for the Underlying Files in
HDFS. So that we can enable the user to have Querying Abilities on the
HDFS file. Correct me if im wrong here?
Hbase- Again, we have create a Similar table Structure, But bit more
in Structured way( Column Oriented) again over HDFS File system.
aren't they both Same considering the type of job they does. except that Hive runs on Mapredeuce.
Also is that true that we cant create a Hbase table over an Already existing HDFS file?
Hive shares a very similar structures to traditional RDBMS (But Not all), HQL syntax is almost similar to SQL which is good for Database Programmer from learning perspective where as HBase is completely diffrent in the sense that it can be queried only on the basis of its Row Key.
If you want to design a table in RDBMS, you will be following a structured approach in defining columns concentrating more on attributes, while in Hbase the complete design is concentrated around the data, So depending on the type of query to be used we can design a table in Hbase also the columns will be dynamic and will be changing at Runtime (core feature of NoSQL)
You said aren't they both Same considering the type of job they does. except that Hive runs on Mapredeuce .This is not a simple thinking.Because when a hive query is executed, a mapreduce job will be created and triggered.Depending upon data size and complexity it may consume time, since for each mapreduce job, there are some number of steps to do by JobTracker, initializing tasks like maps,combine,shufflesort, reduce etc.
But in case we access HBase, it directly lookup the data they indexed based on specified Scan or Get parameters. Means it just act as a database.
Hive and HBase are completely different things
Hive is a way to create map/reduce jobs for data that resides on HDFS (can be files or HBase)
HBase is an OLTP oriented key-value store that resides on HDFS and can be used in Map/Reduce jobs
In order for Hive to work it holds metadata that maps the HDFS data into tabular data (since SQL works on tables).
I guess it is also important to note that in recent versions Hive is evolving to go beyond a SQL way to write map/reduce jobs and with what HortonWorks calls the "stinger initiative" they have added a dedicated file format (Orc) and import Hive's performance (e.g. with the upcoming Tez execution engine) to deliver SQL on Hadoop (i.e. relatively fast way to run analytics queries for data stored on Hadoop)
Hive:
It's just create a Tabular Structure for the Underlying Files in HDFS. So that we can enable the user to have SQL-like Querying Abilities on existing HDFS files - with typical latency up to minutes.
However, for best performance it's recommended to ETL data into Hive's ORC format.
HBase:
Unlike Hive, HBase is NOT about running SQL queries over existing data in HDFS.
HBase is a strictly-consistent, distributed, low-latency KEY-VALUE STORE.
From The HBase Definitive Guide:
The canonical use case of Bigtable and HBase is the webtable, that is, the web pages
stored while crawling the Internet.
The row key is the reversed URL of the page—for example, org.hbase.www. There is a
column family storing the actual HTML code, the contents family, as well as others
like anchor, which is used to store outgoing links, another one to store inbound links,
and yet another for metadata like language.
Using multiple versions for the contents family allows you to store a few older copies
of the HTML, and is helpful when you want to analyze how often a page changes, for
example. The timestamps used are the actual times when they were fetched from the
crawled website.
The fact that HBase uses HDFS is just an implementation detail: it allows to run HBase on an existing Hadoop cluster, it guarantees redundant storage of data; but it is not a feature in any other sense.
Also is that true that we cant create a Hbase table over an already
existing HDFS file?
No, it's NOT true. Internally HBase stores data in its HFile format.
In Hadoop, I can easily create Map/Reduce apps which access and process data in huge text files and csv files. My question is can Hbase do the same and access such huge files, or HBase has other uses?
Hbase runs queries just as relational databases; so, I kind of have a hard time to understand the advantage of HBase, unless it can access huge text and csv files just as Hadoop does.
First of all Hbase is just a store. And a store never accesses anything. Rather you access the store to fetch or put the data. Like any other datastore Hbase has only one job to do, store your data and make it available to you whenever you need it. You can write MapReduce jobs or sequential Java programs etc etc to put data into Hbase or fetch data from it. It's totally upto you which path you prefer.
Coming to the second part of your question, Hbase never ever works like traditional relational databases. Everything, starting from storing the data to accessing the data, is totally different. The advantage of using Hbase is that you can store really really huge amount of data into it and have random read/write access. The data can be of any type viz. text, csv, tsv, binary etc etc. But, before going ahead, you must think well whether Hbase is a suitable choice for you or not, as one size doesn't fit all.
HTH
I have a requirement of parsing both Apache access logs and tomcat logs one after another using map reduce. Few fields are being extracted from tomcat log and rest from Apache log.I need to merge /map extracted fields based on the timestamp and export these mapped fields into a traditional relational db ( ex. MySQL ).
I can parse and extract information using regular expression or pig. The challenge i am facing is on how to map extracted information from both logs into a single aggregate format or file and how to export this data to MYSQL.
Few approaches I am thinking of
1) Write output of map reduce from both parsed Apache access logs and tomcat logs into separate files and merge those into a single file ( again based on timestamp ). Export this data to MySQL.
2) Use Hbase or Hive to store data in table format in hadoop and export that to MySQL
3) Directly write the output of map reduce to MySQL using JDBC.
Which approach would be most viable and also please suggest any other alternative solutions you know.
It's almost always preferable to have smaller, simpler MR jobs and chain them together than to have large, complex jobs. I think your best option is to go with something like #1. In other words:
Process Apache httpd logs into a unified format.
Process Tomcat logs into a unified format.
Join the output of 1 and 2 using whatever logic makes sense, writing the result into the same format.
Export the resulting dataset to your database.
You can probably perform the join and transform (1 and 2) in the same step. Use the map to transform and do a reduce side join.
It doesn't sound like you need / want the overhead of random access so I wouldn't look at HBase. This isn't its strong point (although you could do it in the random access sense by looking up each record in HBase by timestamp, seeing if it exists, merging the record in, or simply inserting if it doesn't exist, but this is very slow, comparatively). Hive could be conveinnient to store the "unified" result of the two formats, but you'd still have to transform the records into that format.
You absolutely do not want to have the reducer write to MySQL directly. This effectively creates a DDOS attack on the database. Consider a cluster of 10 nodes, each running 5 reducers, you'll have 50 concurrent writers to the same table. As you grow the cluster you'll exceed max connections very quickly and choke the RDBMS.
All of that said, ask yourself if it makes sense to put this much data into the database, if you're considering the full log records. This amount of data is precisely the type of case Hadoop itself is meant to store and process long term. If you're computing aggregates of this data, by all means, toss it into MySQL.
Hope this helps.