Part 1: my enviroment
I have following files uploaded to Hadoop:
The are plain text
Each line contains JSON like:
{code:[int], customerId:[string], data:{[something more here]}}
code are numbers from 1 to 3000,
customerId are total up to 4 millions, daily up to 0.5 millon
All files are gzip
In hive I created external table with custom JSON serde (let's call it CUSTOMER_DATA)
All files from each date is stored in separate directory - and I use it as partitions in Hive tables
Most queries which I do are filtering by date, code and customerId. I have also a second file with format (let's call it CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTES]:
[customerId] [attribute_1] [attribute_2] ... [attribute_n]
which contains data for all my customers, so rows are up to 4 millions.
I query and filter my data in following way:
Filtering by date - partitions do the job here using WHERE partitionDate IN (20141020,20141020)
Filtering by code using statement like for example `WHERE code IN (1,4,5,33,6784)
Joining table CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTES with CUSTOMER_DATA with condition query like
SELECT customerId
FROM CUSTOMER_DATA
JOIN CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTES ON (CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTES.customerId=CUSTOMER_DATA.customerId)
WHERE CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTES.attribute_1=[something]
Part 2: question
Is there any efficient way how can I optimize my queries. I read about indexes and buckets by I don't know if I can use them with external tables and if they will optimize my queries.
Performance on search:
Internal or External table does not make a difference as far as performance is considered. You can build indexes on both. Either ways building indexes on large data sets is counter intuitive.
Bucketing the data on your searching columns would give a lot of performance gains. But whether you can bucket you data or not depends on your use case.
You can consider more partitioning (if possible) to get more gains if you can on code/customer id. Hopefully you don't have to many unique code or customer id.
Rather than trying these things out on your Textual Json formatted data, I would strongly suggest you to move away from JSON test data. Parsing JSON(Text) is a big performance killer.
These days there are a lot of file format which work pretty good. If cant change the component which produces the data, you use a series of queries and tables to convert to other file formats. This will be one time job for each partition data. After that your search queries will run faster on newer file formats.
for eg. RCFile format is support by hive. If you pull out code, customerid as separate columns in RCFILE then the query engine can completely skip data col for not matching code in (1,4,5,33,6784) , reducing IO heavily.
Also storing data in RCFile ie columnar storage will help your joins. With RCFile when you run a query with join the hive execution engine will only read in required columns, again significantly reducing IO. On top of this if you bucketted your columns which are a part of JOIN keys it will lead to more performance gains.
If you need to have JSON due to nesting nature of data then I would suggesting you look at Parquet
It will give you performance gains of RCFile + binary (avro, thrift etc)
At my work we had 2 columns of heavily nested JSON data. We tried storing this as compressed text and sequence file format. We then broke up the complex nested JSON columns to lesser nested multiple columns and pulled out some frequently searched keys into other columns. We stored this as RCfile and performance gains we observed on searching were huge.
Rightnow with more burst in data we need to improve more. After trying a few more things and talking to Cloudera guys there is only one big area to improve. Move away from JSON parsing. Parquet seems to be ideal candidate for this.
Yes you can use Indexes with External Tables. Index do optimize the search Queries.
CREATE INDEX your_index_name ON TABLE your_table_name(field_you_want_to_index) AS 'COMPACT' WITH DEFERRED REBUILD;
indexing takes a lot of time for a huge dataset, so we can do a deferred rebuild, i.e after production hours :)
ALTER INDEX your_index_name ON your_table_name REBUILD;
you can even rebuild a specific partition.
ALTER INDEX your_index_name ON your_table_name PARTITION(your_field = 'any_thing') REBUILD;
when you JOIN two tables BUCKETING is the best option to go with, does alot of optimization.
Related
I have a spark job that writes to s3 bucket and have a athena table on top of this location.
The table is partitioned. Spark was writing 1GB single file per partition. We experimented with maxRecordsPerFile option thus writing only 500MB data per file. In the above case we ended up having 2 files with 500MB each
This saved 15 mins in run-time on the EMR
However, there was a problem with athena. Athena query CPU time started getting worse with the new file size limit.
I tried comparing the same data with the same query before and after execution and this is what I found:
Partition columns = source_system, execution_date, year_month_day
Query we tried:
select *
from dw.table
where source_system = 'SS1'
and year_month_day = '2022-09-14'
and product_vendor = 'PV1'
and execution_date = '2022-09-14'
and product_vendor_commission_amount is null
and order_confirmed_date is not null
and filter = 1
order by product_id
limit 100;
Execution time:
Before: 6.79s
After: 11.102s
Explain analyze showed that the new structure had to scan more data.
Before: CPU: 13.38s, Input: 2619584 rows (75.06MB), Data Scanned: 355.04MB; per task: std.dev.: 77434.54, Output: 18 rows (67.88kB)
After: CPU: 20.23s, Input: 2619586 rows (74.87MB), Data Scanned: 631.62MB; per task: std.dev.: 193849.09, Output: 18 rows (67.76kB)
Can you please guide me why this takes double the time? What are the things to look out for? Is there a sweet spot on file size that would be optimal for spark & athena combination?
One hypothesis is that pushdown filters are more effective with the single file strategy.
From AWS Big Data Blog's post titled Top 10 Performance Tuning Tips for Amazon Athena:
Parquet and ORC file formats both support predicate pushdown (also
called predicate filtering). Both formats have blocks of data that
represent column values. Each block holds statistics for the block,
such as max/min values. When a query is being run, these statistics
determine whether the block should be read or skipped depending on the
filter value used in the query. This helps reduce data scanned and
improves the query runtime. To use this capability, add more filters
in the query (for example, using a WHERE clause).
One way to optimize the number of blocks to be skipped is to identify
and sort by a commonly filtered column before writing your ORC or
Parquet files. This ensures that the range between the min and max of
values within the block are as small as possible within each block.
This gives it a better chance to be pruned and also reduces data
scanned further.
To test it I would suggest to do another experiment if possible. Change the spark job and sort the data before persisting it into the two files. Use the following order:
source_system, execution_date, year_month_day, product_vendor, product_vendor_commission_amount, order_confirmed_date, filter and product_id. Then check the query statistics.
At least the dataset would be optimised for the presented use case. Otherwise, change it according to the most heavy queries.
The post comments about optimal file sizes too and it gives a general rule of thumb. From my experience, Spark works well with sizes between 128MB and 2GB. It should be also fine for other query engines like Presto used by Athena.
My suggestion would be to break year_month_day/execution date ( as mostly used in the queries ) to Year, Month and Day partitions , which would reduce the amount of data scan and efficient filtering.
In order to speed up ETL queries on large tables, we run many analyze queries on these tables and date columns in the evening.
but these analyze queries on columns take lot of memory and time.
we are using tez.
is there any way to optimize analyze query also like some set commands.
If you are loading tables using insert overwrite then statistics can be gathered automatically by setting hive.stats.autogather=true during insert overwrite queries.
If the table is partitioned and partitions are being loaded incrementally, then you can analyze only last partitions.
ANALYZE TABLE [db_name.]tablename [PARTITION(partcol1[=val1], partcol2[=val2], ...)]
See examples here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/StatsDev
For ORC files it's possible to specify hive.stats.gather.num.threads to incraase parallelism.
See full list of statistic settings here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Configuration+Properties#ConfigurationProperties-Statistics
I have CSV files organized by date and time as follows
logs/YYYY/MM/DD/CSV files...
I have setup Apache Drill to execute SQL queries on top of these CSV files. Since there are many CSV files; the organization of the files can be utilized to optimize the performance. For example,
SELECT * from data where trans>='20170101' AND trans<'20170102';
In this SQL, the directory logs/2017/01/01 should be scanned for data. Is there a way to let Apache Drill do optimization based on this directory structure? Is it possible to do this in Hive, Impala or any other tool?
Please note:
SQL queries will almost always contain the time frame.
Number of CSV files in a given directory is not huge. Combined all years worth of data, it will be huge
There is a field called 'trans' in every CSV file, which contains the date and time.
The CSV file is put under appropriate directory based on the value of 'trans' field.
CSV files do not follow any schema. Columns may or may not be different.
Querying using column inside the data file would not help in partition pruning.
You can use dir* variables in Drill to refer to partitions in table.
create view trans_logs_view as
select
`dir0` as `tran_year`,
`dir1` as `trans_month`,
`dir2` as `tran_date`, * from dfs.`/data/logs`;
You can query using tran_year,tran_month and tran_date columns for partition pruning.
Also see if below query helps for pruning.
select count(1) from dfs.`/data/logs`
where concat(`dir0`,`dir1`,`dir2`) between '20170101' AND '20170102';
If so , you can define view by aliasing concat(dir0,dir1,dir2) to trans column name and query.
See below for more details.
https://drill.apache.org/docs/how-to-partition-data/
When reading a 1 Billion records of a table in Spark from Hive and this table have date and country columns as partitions. It is running for very long time since we are doing many transformations on it. If I change the Hive table file format to Parquet then will it be there any performance? Any suggestions on improvement of performance .
Change the Orc to Parquet maybe will not improve the performance.
But it depends of the type of data you have. If you are working with nested objects you need to use Parquet, Orc is not good for that.
But to create some improvement, I suggest you to do some steps that can help with your data in Hive.
Check the number of files in Hive.
One common thing that can create big problems in Hive Query is the number of files in each partition, and the size of these files are. If you are using Spark to store the data, I suggest you to check the size of the files and if they are stored with the size of your Hadoop block. If not, try to use the command CONCATENATE to solve that problem. As you can see here.
Predicate PushDown
This is what Hive, and Orc files can give you with the best performance in query the data. I suggest you to run one ANALYSE command to force the creation of the Statistics of your table, this will improve the performance and if the data is not efficient this will help. Check here and with this will update the Hive Metastore and will give you some relevant data information.
Ordered Data
If it is possible, try to store your data ordered by some column, and filter and do other stuffs in that column. Your join can be improved with this.
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?