I need to query table1 find all orders and created date ( key is order number an date)).
In table 2 ( key is order number an date) Check if the order exists for a a date.
For this i am scanning table 1 and for each record checking if it exists in table 2. Any better way to do this
In this situation in which your key is identical for both tables, it makes sense to have a single table in which you store both data for Table 1 and Table 2. In that way you can do a single scan on your data and know straight away if the data exists for both criteria.
Even more so, if you want to use this data in MapReduce, you would simply scan that single table. If you only want to get the relevant rows, you could define a filter on the Scan. For example, in the case where you will not be populating rows at all in Table 2, you would simply use a ColumnPrefixFilter
If, however, you do need to keep this data separately in 2 tables, you could pre-split the tables with the same region boundaries for both tables - this will be helpful when you do the query that you are aiming for - load all rows in Table 1 when row exists in Table 2. Essentially this would be a map-side join. You could define multiple inputs in your MapReduce job, and since the region borders are the same, the splits will be such that each mapper will have corresponding rows from both tables. You would probably need to implement your own MultipleInput format for that (the MultiTableInputFormat class recently introduced in 0.96 does not seem to do that map side join)
Related
I need to update the some tables in my application from some other warehouse tables which would be updating weekly or biweekly. I should update my tables based on those. And these are having foreign keys in another tables. So I cannot just truncate the table and reinsert the whole data every time. So I have to take the delta and update accordingly based on few primary key columns which doesn't change. Need some inputs on how to implement this approach.
My approach:
Check the last updated time of those tables, views.
If it is most recent then compare each row based on the primary key in my table and warehouse table.
update each column if it is different.
Do nothing if there is no change in columns.
insert if there is a new record.
My Question:
How do I implement this? Writing a PL/SQL code is it a good and efficient way? as the expected number of records are around 800K.
Please provide any sample code or links.
I would go for Pl/Sql and bulk collect forall method. You can use minus in your cursor in order to reduce data size and calculating difference.
You can check this site for more information about bulk collect, forall and engines: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/2012/12-sep/o52plsql-1709862.html
There are many parts to your question above and I will answer as best I can:
While it is possible to disable referencing foreign keys, truncate the table, repopulate the table with the updated data then reenable the foreign keys, given your requirements described above I don't believe truncating the table each time to be optimal
Yes, in principle PL/SQL is a good way to achieve what you are wanting to
achieve as this is too complex to deal with in native SQL and PL/SQL is an efficient alternative
Conceptually, the approach I would take is something like as follows:
Initial set up:
create a sequence called activity_seq
Add an "activity_id" column of type number to your source tables with a unique constraint
Add a trigger to the source table/s setting activity_id = activity_seq.nextval for each insert / update of a table row
create some kind of master table to hold the "last processed activity id" value
Then bi/weekly:
retrieve the value of "last processed activity id" from the master
table
select all rows in the source table/s having activity_id value > "last processed activity id" value
iterate through the selected source rows and update the target if a match is found based on whatever your match criterion is, or if
no match is found then insert a new row into the target (I assume
there is no delete as you do not mention it)
on completion, update the master table "last processed activity id" to the greatest value of activity_id for the source rows
processed in step 3 above.
(please note that, depending on your environment and the number of rows processed, the above process may need to be split and repeated over a number of transactions)
I hope this proves helpful
I've recently started to play around with Cassandra. My understanding is that in a Cassandra table you define 2 keys, which can be either single column or composites:
The Partitioning Key: determines how to distribute data across nodes
The Clustering Key: determines in which order the records of a same partitioning key (i.e. within a same node) are written. This is also the order in which the records will be read.
Data from a table will always be sorted in the same order, which is the order of the clustering key column(s). So a table must be designed for a specific query.
But what if I need to perform 2 different queries on the data from a table. What is the best way to solve this when using Cassandra ?
Example Scenario
Let's say I have a simple table containing posts that users have written :
CREATE TABLE posts (
username varchar,
creation timestamp,
content varchar,
PRIMARY KEY ((username), creation)
);
This table was "designed" to perform the following query, which works very well for me:
SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' [ORDER BY creation DESC];
Queries
But what if I need to get all posts regardless of the username, in order of time:
Query (1): SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation;
Or get the posts in alphabetical order of the content:
Query (2): SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content;
I know that it's not possible given the table I created, but what are the alternatives and best practices to solve this ?
Solution Ideas
Here are a few ideas spawned from my imagination (just to show that at least I tried):
Querying with the IN clause to select posts from many users. This could help in Query (1). When using the IN clause, you can fetch globally sorted results if you disable paging. But using the IN clause quickly leads to bad performance when the number of usernames grows.
Maintaining full copies of the table for each query, each copy using its own PRIMARY KEY adapted to the query it is trying to serve.
Having a main table with a UUID as partitioning key. Then creating smaller copies of the table for each query, which only contain the (key) columns useful for their own sort order, and the UUID for each row of the main table. The smaller tables would serve only as "sorting indexes" to query a list of UUID as result, which can then be fetched using the main table.
I'm new to NoSQL, I would just want to know what is the correct/durable/efficient way of doing this.
The SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation; will results in a full cluster scan because you do not provide any partition key. And the ORDER BY clause in this query won't work anyway.
Your requirement I need to get all posts regardless of the username, in order of time is very hard to achieve in a distributed system, it supposes to:
fetch all user posts and move them to a single node (coordinator)
order them by date
take top N latest posts
Point 1. require a full table scan. Indeed as long as you don't fetch all records, the ordering can not be achieve. Unless you use Cassandra clustering column to order at insertion time. But in this case, it means that all posts are being stored in the same partition and this partition will grow forever ...
Query SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content; is possible using a denormalized table or with the new materialized view feature (http://www.doanduyhai.com/blog/?p=1930)
Question 1:
Depending on your use case I bet you could model this with time buckets, depending on the range of times you're interested in.
You can do this by making the primary key a year,year-month, or year-month-day depending on your use case (or finer time intervals)
The basic idea is that you bucket changes for what suites your use case. For example:
If you often need to search these posts over months in the past, then you may want to use the year as the PK.
If you usually need to search the posts over several days in the past, then you may want to use a year-month as the PK.
If you usually need to search the post for yesterday or a couple of days, then you may want to use a year-month-day as your PK.
I'll give a fleshed out example with yyyy-mm-dd as the PK:
The table will now be:
CREATE TABLE posts_by_creation (
creation_year int,
creation_month int,
creation_day int,
creation timeuuid,
username text, -- using text instead of varchar, they're essentially the same
content text,
PRIMARY KEY ((creation_year,creation_month,creation_day), creation)
)
I changed creation to be a timeuuid to guarantee a unique row for each post creation event. If we used just a timestamp you could theoretically overwrite an existing post creation record in here.
Now we can then insert the Partition Key (PK): creation_year, creation_month, creation_day based on the current creation time:
INSERT INTO posts_by_creation (creation_year, creation_month, creation_day, creation, username, content) VALUES (2016, 4, 2, now() , 'fromanator', 'content update1';
INSERT INTO posts_by_creation (creation_year, creation_month, creation_day, creation, username, content) VALUES (2016, 4, 2, now() , 'fromanator', 'content update2';
now() is a CQL function to generate a timeUUID, you would probably want to generate this in the application instead, and parse out the yyyy-mm-dd for the PK and then insert the timeUUID in the clustered column.
For a usage case using this table, let's say you wanted to see all of the changes today, your CQL would look like:
SELECT * FROM posts_by_creation WHERE creation_year = 2016 AND creation_month = 4 AND creation_day = 2;
Or if you wanted to find all of the changes today after 5pm central:
SELECT * FROM posts_by_creation WHERE creation_year = 2016 AND creation_month = 4 AND creation_day = 2 AND creation >= minTimeuuid('2016-04-02 5:00-0600') ;
minTimeuuid() is another cql function, it will create the smallest possible timeUUID for the given time, this will guarantee that you get all of the changes from that time.
Depending on the time spans you may need to query a few different partition keys, but it shouldn't be that hard to implement. Also you would want to change your creation column to a timeuuid for your other table.
Question 2:
You'll have to create another table or use materialized views to support this new query pattern, just like you thought.
Lastly if your not on Cassandra 3.x+ or don't want to use materialized views you can use Atomic batches to ensure data consistency across your several de-normalized tables (that's what it was designed for). So in your case it would be a BATCH statement with 3 inserts of the same data to 3 different tables that support your query patterns.
The solution is to create another tables to support your queries.
For SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY creation;, you may need some special column for grouping it, maybe by month and year, e.g. PRIMARY KEY((year, month), timestamp) this way the cassandra will have a better performance on read because it doesn't need to scan the whole cluster to get all data, it will also save the data transfer between nodes too.
Same as SELECT * FROM posts WHERE username='luke' ORDER BY content;, you must create another table for this query too. All column may be same as your first table but with the different Primary Key, because you cannot order by the column that is not the clustering column.
I wanna know how hive partitioning works I know the concept but I am trying to understand how its working and store the in exact partition.
Let say I have a table and I have created partition on year its dynamic, ingested data from 2013 so how hive create partition and store the exact data in exact partition.
If the table is not partitioned, all the data is stored in one directory without order. If the table is partitioned(eg. by year) data are stored separately in different directories. Each directory is corresponding to one year.
For a non-partitioned table, when you want to fetch the data of year=2010, hive have to scan the whole table to find out the 2010-records. If the table is partitioned, hive just go to the year=2010 directory. More faster and IO efficient
Hive organizes tables into partitions. It is a way of dividing a table into related parts based on the values of partitioned columns such as date.
Partitions - apart from being storage units - also allow the user to efficiently identify the rows that satisfy a certain criteria.
Using partition, it is easy to query a portion of the data.
Tables or partitions are sub-divided into buckets, to provide extra structure to the data that may be used for more efficient querying. Bucketing works based on the value of hash function of some column of a table.
Suppose you need to retrieve the details of all employees who joined in 2012. A query searches the whole table for the required information. However, if you partition the employee data with the year and store it in a separate file, it reduces the query processing time.
Let's assume I have two tables of the same row count. Both tables contain a column that allows for 1-1 join between them.
If those tables were turned into one table instead and thus JOIN statement eliminated from the query, would there be any performance benefit of that?
Another example... Let's assume I have table with 10 columns. From that table I created new table but only taking one column. If I issue statement selecting that one column with WHERE predicate on the same column would there be any performance difference in executing this query on both tables?
What I'm trying to get to is if performance is the same in above cases is it safe to say tables are only containers wrapping number of columns together?
I did run couple tests but with non conclusive results.
Let's assume I have two tables of the same row count. Both tables
contain a column that allows for 1-1 join between them. If those
tables were turned into one table instead and thus JOIN statement
eliminated from the query, would there be any performance benefit of
that?
Performing that join for every query is of course more expensive than materializing the table once and then reading it. So yes, there would be a performance benefit.
Another example... Let's assume I have table with 10 columns. From
that table I created new table but only taking one column. If I issue
statement selecting that one column with WHERE predicate on the same
column would there be any performance difference in executing this
query on both tables?
No, there would be no difference, since tables are represented as collections of columns, which are each stored in their own file.
What I'm trying to get to is if performance is the same in above cases
is it safe to say tables are only containers wrapping number of
columns together?
That is indeed safe to say.
In Oracle 10g, does it matter what order create index and alter table comes in?
Say i have a query Q with a where clause on column C in table T. Now i perform one of the following scenarios:
I create index I(C) and then add columns X,Y,Z.
Add columns X,Y,Z then create index I(C).
Q is 'select * from T where C = whatever'
Between 1 and 2 will there be a significant difference in performance of Q on table T when T contains a very large number of rows?
I personally make it a practice to do #2 but others seem to have a different opinion.
thanks
It makes no difference if you add columns to a table before or after creating an index. The optimizer should pick the same plan for the query and the execution time should be unchanged.
Depending on the physical storage parameters of the table, it is possible that adding the additional columns and populating them with data may force quite a bit of row migration to take place. That row migration will generate changes to the indexes on the table. If the index exists when you are populating the three new columns with data, it is possible that populating the data in X, Y, and Z will take a bit longer because of the additional index maintenance.
If you add columns without populating them, then it is pretty quick as it is just a metadata change. Adding an index does require the table to be read (or potentially another index) so that can be very time consuming and of much greater impact than the simple metadata change of recording the new index details.
If the new columns are going to be populated as part of the ALTER TABLE, it is a different matter.
The database may undergo an unplanned shutdown during the course of adding that data to every row of the table data
The server memory may not have room to record every row changed in that table
Therefore those row changes may be written to datafiles before commit, and are therefore written as dirty blocks
The next read of those blocks, after the ALTER table has successfully completed will do a delayed block cleanout (ie record the fact that the change has been committed)
If you add the columns (with data) first, then the create index will (probably) read the table and do the added work of the delayed block cleanout.
If you create the index first then add the columns, the create index may be faster but the delayed block cleanout won't happen and that housekeeping will be picked up by the application later (potentially by the select * from T where C = whatever)