I'm learning to use Raik, the NoSQL engine. Given that I have a user "timeline" with posts, and that post may range from millions to billions, how can I take the last N posts from the raik bucket? I mean, the last created.
I read that when using a Secondary Index Raik will return posts ordered by key. So I decided to use an UUID1 for post keys and to have a Secondary Index for the post author, so that I can take all posts from that author using it's key.
However the posts are sorted ASCENDING! I also want to use the max_results parameter as the SQL LIMIT.
This query however returns the FIRST N posts of that user, not the last. Given that I already saw some StackOverflow posts, and that the proposed solution, MapReduce is not efficient for big buckets, how would you model data or write the query?
Thanks
When coming from a SQL environment it is easy to treat a bucket as a table and store small individual records there, often relying on secondary indexes to get the data out. As Riak is a key-value store that uses consistent hashing, this is however often not the most efficient or scalable approach.
A lookup based on key in Riak allows the partitions holding the data to be directly identified, and the coordinating node can directly query these partitions. When querying a secondary index, Riak does not know on which partitions data that may match the index will reside. It will therefore need to send the query to a large number of partitions in order to ensure that all matching objects can be found. This is known as a 'coverage query' and means that, assuming n_val of 3 is used for the bucket, at least 1/3 of all partitions need to be queried. This generally leads to higher load on the cluster and does not scale as well as direct key lookups. Latencies also tend to be higher.
When using Riak it is therefore often recommended that you structure your data so that you can use direct key lookups as much as possible, e.g. through de-normalization.
If your messages/posts can be grouped some way, e.g. by user or conversation, it may make sense to store them in a single object representing this grouping instead of as separate objects.
If we assume that your posts can consist of either text or images and are linked to a conversation thread, you could create an object representing the conversation thread. This would contain information about the conversation as well as a list of posts. This list of posts can e.g. contain the id of the poster, a timestamp and the key of the record containing the post. If the post is a reasonably short text message it may even contain the entire post, reducing the number of records that will need to be fetched.
As posts come in to this conversation, the record is updated and the list of posts gets longer. It may be wise to set allow_mult to true in order to enable siblings, as this will allow you to handle concurrent writes. This approach allows you to always get the conversation as well as the latest posts through a single direct key lookup.
Riak works best when the size of objects are kept below a couple of MB. You will therefore need to move the oldest posts off to a separate object at some point to keep the size in check. If you keep a list of these related objects in the main conversation object, possibly together with some information about the time interval they cover, you can easily access these through direct key lookup as well if you should need to scroll back over older posts.
As the most common query usually is for the most recent entries, this can always be fulfilled through the main conversation object.
I would also like to point out that we do have a very active mailing list where these kind of issues are discussed quite frequently.
I know it's probably too late to help you, but I found this post through wondering about the same thing. The workaround I have come up with and been using to good effect is to create two secondary indexes, one with the real timestamp, and another that is (MAX_DATE - timestamp). Performing lookups on the first query gets ascending results, and performing lookups on the second query gets descending results (once you do the math to turn it back into a real date). You can find the max date value in the Javascript specification, such as reported in MDN, which is 8640000000000000. I can't speak to how performant it is under really heavy load, but I can tell you that for my purposes it has been blazingly fast and I'm very satisfied. I just came here hoping to find a less hacky way to do it.
Related
So, our production environment has an ES cluster that contains all our products inventory (ID and attributes) where each product is mapped to one document. Internally, one of our use cases is to create a logical grouping of these products based on text matching on a bunch of these product attributes.
Often times, it's possible that a product set could contain a very large number of products, say, 5 million. That is, the query to create a product set could match about 5 million documents.
Now, my question is, is ES capable of handling such large retrievals of documents, or is it recommended to use a backing store like Cassandra or HBase to fetch a huge number of documents? Note that I'm not concerned about realtime use cases - I'm okay with having an asynchronous execution of the product set creation, so latency isn't a major concern for me. From what I understand, ES provides the Scroll API to retrieve a large number of documents, but, I'm approaching the problem more from a school of thought perspective.
Is it fine to use ES to fetch very large documents, in the range of 5-10 million? Or should we use a parallel DB with big data capabilities to fetch the data and use ES only as the search store?
TL;DR no, it is not meant to retrieve large sets of documents, although you could work your way around with different approaches
notice that Scroll API might not be suitable for purposes other than re-indexing:
Scrolling is not intended for real time user requests, but rather for processing large amounts of data, e.g. in order to reindex the contents of one data stream or index into a new data stream or index with a different configuration.
Another way to achieve it would be the Search after parameter
search_after is not a solution to jump freely to a random page but rather to scroll many queries in parallel. It is very similar to the scroll API but unlike it, the search_after parameter is stateless, it is always resolved against the latest version of the searcher. For this reason the sort order may change during a walk depending on the updates and deletes of your index.
Rethink whether your use case really needs to exhaustively paginate over large sets of documents. Since ElasticSearch's strength doesn't lie on large result sets.
consult documentation:
Paginate search results
index.max_result_window
Track total hits
Scroll API
Search after parameter
Imagine: someone has a huge website selling, let's say, T-shirts.
we want to show paginated sorted listings of offers, also with options to filter by parameters, let's say - T-shirt colour.
offers should be sortable by any of 5 properties (creating date,
price, etc...)
Important requirement 1: we have to give a user an ability to browse all the 15 million offers, and not just the "top-N".
Important requirement 2: they must be able to jump to a random page at any time, not just flick through them sequentially
we use some sort of a traditional data storage (MongoDB, to be precise).
The problem is that MongoDB (as well as other traditional databases) performs poorly when it comes to big offsets. Imagine if a user wants to fetch a page of results somewhere in the middle of this huge list sorted by creation date with some additional filters (for instance - by colour)
There is an article describing this kind of problem:
http://openmymind.net/Paging-And-Ranking-With-Large-Offsets-MongoDB-vs-Redis-vs-Postgresql/
Okay now, so we are told that redis is a solution for similar kind of problem. You "just" need to prepare certain data structures and search them instead of your primary storage.
the question is:
What kind of structures and approaches whould you suggest to use in order to solve this with Redis?
Sorted Sets, paging through with ZRANGE.
I'm planning to use Elasticsearch for a social network kind of platform where users can post "updates", be friends with other users and follow their friends' feed. The basic and probably most frequent query will be "get posts shared with me by friends I follow". This query could be augmented by additional constraints (like tags or geosearch).
I've learned that social networks usually take a fan-out-on-write approach to disseminate "updates" to followers so queries are more localized. So I can see 2 potential indexing strategies:
Store all posts in a single index and search for posts (1) shared with the requester and (2) whose author is among the list of users followed by the requester (the "naive" approach).
Create one index per user, inject posts that are created by followed users and directly search among this index (the "fan-out" approach).
The second option is obviously much more efficient from a search perspective, although it presents sync challenges (like the need to delete posts when I stop following a friend, for example). But the thing I would be most concerned with is the multiplication of indices; in a (successful) social network, we can expect at least tens of thousands of users...
So my questions here are:
how does ES cope with a very high number of indices? can it incur performance issues?
any thoughts about a better indexing strategy for my particular use-case?
Thanks
Each elasticsearch index shard is a separate Lucene index, which means several open file descriptors and memory overhead. Generally, even after reducing number of shards per index from default 5, the resource consumption in index-per-user scenario may be too large.
It is hard to give any concrete numbers, but my guess is that if you stick to two shards per index, you would be able to handle no more than 3000 users per m3.medium machine, which is prohibitive in my opinion.
However, you don't necessarily need to have dedicated index for every user. You can use filtered aliases to use one index for multiple users. From application point of view, it would look like a per-user scenario, without incurring overhead mentioned above. See this video for details.
With that being said, I don't think elasticsearch is particularly good fit for fan-out-on-write strategy. It is, however, very good solution to employ in fan-out-on-read scenario (something similar to what you've outlined as (1)):
The biggest advantage of using elasticsearch is that you are able to perform relevance scoring, typically based on some temporal features, like browsing context. Using elasticsearch to just retrieve documents sorted by timestamp means that you don't utilize its potential. Meanwhile, solutions like Redis will give you far superior read performance for such task.
Fan-out-on-write scenario means a lot of writes on each update (especially, if you have users with many followers). Elasticsearch is not a database and is not optimized for such usage-pattern. It is, however, prepared for frequent reads.
Fan-out-on-write also means that you are producing a lot of 'extra' data by duplicating info about posts. To keep this data in RAM, you need to store only metadata, like id of document in separate document storage and tags. Again, there are other formats than JSON to store and search this kind of structured data effectively.
Choosing between the two scenarios is a question about your requirements, like average number of followers, number of 'hubs' that nearly everybody follows, whether the feed is naturally ordered (e.g. by time) etc. I think that deciding whether to use elasticsearch needs to be a consequence of this analysis.
I have a variety of data that I've got cached in a standard Redis hashmap, and I've run into a situation where I need to respond to client requests for ordering and filtering. Order rankings for name, average rating, and number of reviews can change regularly (multiple times a minute, possibly). Can anyone advise me on a proper strategy for attacking this problem? Consider the following example to help understand what I'm looking for:
Client makes an API request to /api/v1/cookbooks?orderBy=name&limit=20&offset=0
I should respond with the first 20 entries, ordered by name
Strategies I've considered thus far:
for each type of hashmap store (cookbooks, recipes, etc), creating a sorted set for each ordering scheme (alphabetical, average rating, etc) from a Postgres ORDER BY; then pulling out ZRANGE slices based on limit and offset
storing ordering data directly into the JSON string data for each key.
hitting postgres with an SELECT id FROM table ORDER BY _, and using the ids to pull directly from the hashmap store
Any additional thoughts or advice on how to best address this issue? Thanks in advance.
So, as mentioned in a comment below Sorted Sets are a great way to implement sorting and filtering functionality in cache. Take the following example as an idea of how one might solve the issue of needing to order objects in a hash:
Given a hash called "movies" with the scheme of bucket:objectId -> object, which is a JSON string representation (read about "bucketing" your hashes for performance here.
Create a sorted set called "movieRatings", where each member is an objectId from your "movies" hash, and its score is an average of all rating values (computed by the database). Just use a numerical representation of whatever you're trying to sort, and Redis gives you a lot of flexibility on how you can extract the slices you need.
This simple scheme has a lot of flexibility in what can be achieved - you simply ask your sorted set for a set of keys that fit your requirements, and look up those keys with HMGET from your "movies" hash. Two swift Redis calls, problem solved.
Rinse and repeat for whatever type of ordering you need, such as "number of reviews", "alphabetically", "actor count", etc. Filtering can also be done in this manner, but normal sets are probably quite sufficient for that purpose.
This depends on your needs. Each of your strategies could work.
Your first approach of storing an auxiliary sorted set for each way
you want to order is the best way to do this if you have a very big
hash and/or you run your order queries frequently. This approach will
require a lot of ram if your hash is big, but it will also scale well
in terms of time complexity as your hash gets bigger and you start
running order queries more frequently. On the other hand, it
introduces complexity in your data structures, and feels like you're
trying to use Redis for something a typical DB like Postgres, MySQL,
or Mongo would be better at.
Storing ordering data directly into your keys means you need to pull
your entire hash every time you do an order query. Maybe that's not
so bad if your hash is very small, or you don't do ordered queries very often, but this won't scale at all.
If you're already hitting Postgres to get keys, why not just store the values in Postgres as well. That would be much cheaper than hitting Postgres and then hitting Redis, and would have your code depend on fewer things. IMO, this is probably your best option and would work most naturally. Do this, unless you have some really good reason to not store values in Postgres, or some really big speed concerns, in which case go with your first strategy.
For example, there are 5 object stores. I am thinking of inserting documents into them, but not in sequential order. Initially it might be sequential, but if i could insert by using some ranking method it would be easier to know which object store to search to find the document. The goal is to reduce the number of object store searches. This can only be achieved if the insertion uses some intelligent algorithm.
One method i found useful is using the current year MOD N (number of object stores) to determine where a document goes. Could we have some better approaches to this?
If you want fast access there are a couple of criteria:
The hash function has to be reproducible based on the data which is queried. This means, a lot depends on the queries you expect.
You usually want to distribute your object as much evenly accross stores as possible. If you want to go parallel, you want to access each document for a given query from different stores, so they will not block each other. Hence your hashing function should spread as much as possible to different stores for similar documents. If you expect documents related to the same query to be from the same year, do not use the year directly.
This assumes, you want to be able to have fast queries which can be paralised. If you instead have a system in which you first have to open a potentially expensive connection to the store, then most documents related to the same query should go in the same store and you should not take my advice above.
Your criteria for "what goes in a FileNet object store?" is basically "what documents logically belong together?".