We have different set of data into different systems like Hadoop, Cassandra, MongoDB. But our analytic team want to get the stitched data from different systems. For example customer information with demographic will be in one system, their transactions will be in another system. Analytic should able to query to get data like from US users what was the volume of transaction. We need to develop an application to provide ease way to interact with different system. What is the best way to do?
Another requirement:
If we want to provide their custom workspace in a system like MongoDB, they can easily place with it. What is the best strategy to pull data from one system to another system on demand?
Any pointer or common architecture used to solve this kind of problem will be really helpful.
I see two questions here:
How can I consolidate data from different systems into one system?
How can I create some data in Mongo for people to experiment with?
Here we go ... =)
I would pick one system and target that for consolidation. In other words, between Hadoop, Cassandra and MongoDB, which one does your team have the most experience with? Which one do you find easiest to query with? Which one do you have set up to scale well?
Each one has pros and cons to scale, storage and queryability.
I would pick one and then pump all data to that system. At a recent job, that ended up being MongoDB. It was easy to move data to Mongo and it had by far the best query language. It also had a great community and setting up nodes was easier than Hadoop, etc.
Once you have solved (1), you can trim your data set and create a scaled down sandbox for people to run ad-hoc queries against. That would be my approach. You don't want to support the entire data set, because it would likely be too expensive and complicated.
If you were doing this in a relational database, I would say just run a
select top 1000 * from [table]
query on each table and use that data for people to play with.
Related
In an application we have to send sensory data stream from multiple clients to a central server over internet. One obvious solution is to use MOMs (Message Oriented Middlewares) such as Kafka, but I recently learned that we can do this with data base synchronization tools such as oracle Materialized View.
The later approach works in some application (sending data from a central server to multiple clients, inverse directin of our application), but what is the pros and cons of it in our application? Which one is better for sending sensory data stream from multiple (~100) clients to server in terms of speed, security, etc.?
Thanks.
P.S.
For more detail consider an application in which many (about 100) clients have to send streaming data (1MB data per minute) to a central server over internet. The data are needed in server for the sake of online monitoring, analysis and some computation such as machine learning and data mining tasks.
My question is about the difference between db-to-db connection and streaming solutions such as kafka for trasfering data from clients to server.
Prologue
I'm going to try and break your question down into in order to get a clearer understanding of your current requirements and then build it back up again. This has taken a long time to write so I'd really appreciate it if you do two things off the back of it:
Be sceptical - there's absolutely no substitute for testing things yourself. The internet is very useful as a guide but there's no guarantee that the help you receive (if this answer is even helpful!) is the best thing for your specific situation. It's impossible to completely describe your current situation in the space allotted and so any answer is, of necessity, going to be lacking somewhere.
Look again at how you explained yourself - this is a valid question that's been partially stopped by a lack of clarity in your description of the system and what you're trying to achieve. Getting someone unfamiliar with your system to look over your question before posting a complex question may help.
Problem definition
sensory data stream from multiple clients to a central server
You're sending data from multiple locations to a single persistence store
online monitoring
You're going to be triggering further actions based off the raw data and potentially some aggregated data
analysis and some computation such as machine learning and data mining tasks
You're going to be performing some aggregations on the clients' data, i.e. you require aggregations of all of the clients' data to be persisted (however temporarily) somewhere
Further assumptions
Because you're talking about materialized views we can assume that all the clients persist data in a database, probably Oracle.
The data coming in from your clients is about the same topic.
You've got ~100 clients, at that amount we can assume that:
the number of clients might change
you want to be able to add clients without increasing the number of methods of accessing data
You don't work for one of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Quantcast, Apple etc.
Architecture diagram
Here, I'm not making any comment on how it's actually going to work - it's the start of a discussion based on my lack of knowledge of your systems. The "raw data persistence" can be files, Kafka, a database etc. This is description of the components that are going to be required and a rough guess as to how they will have to connect.
Applying assumed architecture to materialized views
Materialized views are a persisted query. Therefore you have two choices:
Create a query that unions all 100 clients data together. If you add or remove a client you must change the query. If a network issue occurs at any one of your clients then everything fails
Write and maintain 100 materialized views. The Oracle database at your central location has 100 incoming connections.
As you can probably guess from the tradeoffs you'll have to make I do not like materialized views as the sole solution. We should be trying to reduce the amount of repeated code and single points of failure.
You can still use materialized views though. If we take our diagram and remove all the duplicated arrows in your central location it implies two things.
There is a single service that accepts incoming data
There is a single service that puts all the incoming data into a single place
You could then use a single materialized view for your aggregation layer (if your raw data persistence isn't in Oracle you'll first have to put the data into Oracle).
Consequences of changes
Now we've decided that you have a single data pipeline your decisions actually become harder. We've decoupled your clients from the central location and the aggregation layer from our raw data persistence. This means that the choices are now yours but they're also considerably easier to change.
Reimagining architecture
Here we need to work out what technologies aren't going to change.
Oracle databases are expensive and you're pushing 140GB/day into yours (that's 50TB/year by the way, quite a bit). I don't know if you're actually storing all the raw data but at those volumes it's less likely that you are - you're only storing the aggregations
I'm assuming you've got some preferred technologies where your machine learning and data mining happen. If you don't then consider getting some to prevent madness supporting everything
Putting all of this together we end up with the following. There's actually only one question that matters:
How many times do you want to read your raw data off your database.
If the answer to that is once then we've just described middleware of some description. If the answer is more than once then I would reconsider unless you've got some very good disks. Whether you use Kafka for this middle layer is completely up to you. Use whatever you're most familiar with and whatever you're most willing to invest the time into learning and supporting. The amount of data you're dealing with is non-trivial and there's going to be some trial and error getting this right.
One final point about this; we've defined a data pipeline. A single method of data flowing through your system. In doing so, we've increased the flexibility of the system. Want to add more clients, no need to do anything. Want to change the technology behind part of the system, as long as the interface remains the same there's no issue. Want to send data elsewhere, no problem, it's all in the raw data persistence layer.
So I will be embarking on designing a dashboard that will display KPI's and other relevant information for my team. Since I am in the early stages of this project and am not very familiar on the technical process behind designing a dashboard, I need some questions vetted out first before I go and shop for some solutions to avoid reinventing the wheel.
Here are some of my questions:
We want a dashboard that can provide live-time information via our data sources (or as close to live-time as possible). What function allows a dashboard to update itself with concurrent datasources? From a conceptual standpoint, I can understand creating a dashboard out of Microsoft Excel, and having the dashboard dependent on the values you may have set within your pivot table.
How do you make a dashboard request information from multiple datasources on its own? Just like the excel example, a user may have to go into the pivot tables to update values, but I want to know how would a dashboard request this by itself and what is the exact method from a programming standpoint? Does the code execute itself every time you refresh the webpage?
How do you create datasources organically? I know for some solutions such as SharePoint BI Center, there are pre-supported datasources like an excel sheet or SharePoint and it's as easy as uploading your document and letting the design handle the rest. However, there are going to be some datasources that I know that will need to be fetched. Do I need to understand something else like an event recorder in order to navigate this issue?
Introduction
The dashboard (or a report, respectively) is usually the result of a long chain of steps. Very much simplified it could look like this:
src1
|------\
src2 | /---- Dashboards
|------+---[DWH]-[BR]-+
src n | | \---- Reports etc.
|------/ [Big Data]
Keep in mind, this is only a very, very simple structure of a data backend / frontend.
DWH means Data Warehouse, where data might be stored temporarily (you referred to this as fetching). This could be a database, could be a Big Data engine, could be a combination of both...
Afterwards, there are Business Rules (BR). Those might be specific rules in how different departments calculate and relate to data, but also simple things like algebra.
Questions
So, the main question should not be about the technology:
What software should we choose?
How can we create a dashboard?
but on the contrary focused on your business processes (see it like a top-down view):
How does our core process look like? Where would I like to measure data?
How would department a calculate sales in difference to department b? Should all use the same rule?
Where does everyone store the data? Can we access it? Do we need structural data?
And, very easy to forget but also easily sometimes one of the biggest parts: Is the identifier of a business object (say, sales id) everywhere build and formatted in the same way?
Conclusion
When those questions are at least in the back of your head and you keep working in this direction, more or less automatically data will spill out at certain points of that process.
Then it won't matter if you use Excel, a small-to medium app like Tableau, Tibco Spotfire, QlikView, Power BI or you want to go full scale with a big Hadoop backend, databases and JasperReports, Apache Drill, Pentaho, SSIS on top of it... it will come out eventually.
TL;DR
Focus on the processes first. Make sure to understand them. Draft in Excel. Then proceed in getting the data and the tools you need to help your use cases. It will work out much better from a "top-down" approach than trying to solve your requirements with tools only.
The idea is to redesign data structure and/or change DB.
I just started to review this project and plan to start optimization from this one.
Currently i have CouchDb with about 80GB of document data, around 30M records.
From that subset for the most of documents properties like id, group_id, location, type can be considered as generic, but unfortunately for now such are even stored with different property naming around the set. Also a lot of deeply nested can be found.
Structure isn't hardly defined, that's why NoSQL db was selected way before some picture was seen.
Data is calculated and populated in DB in a separate Job on powerful cluster. This isn't done too often. From that perspective i can conclude that general write/update performance isn't very important. Also size decrease would be great, but isn't most important. There are only like 1-10 active customers at a time.
Actually read performance with various filtering/grouping etc is most important.
But no heavy summary calculations should be done, this one is already done while population.
This one is a data analytical tool for displaying compare and other reports to quality engineers and data analyst, so they can browse the results, group them or filter from the Web UI.
Now such tasks like searching a subset of document properties for a text isn't possible due to performance.
For sure i've done some initial investigations(like http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/themes/datastax-2014-08/files/NoSQL_Benchmarks_EndPoint.pdf) and it looks Cassandra seems to be good choice among NoSql.
Also it's quite interesting trying to port this data into the new PostgreSQl.
Any ideas would be highly appreciated :-)
Hello please check the following articles:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/nosql-for-enterprise
For me, PostgreSQL json(and jsonb!) capabilities allow to start schema-less, have transactions, indexes, grouping, aggregate functions with very good performance, just from the start. And when ready(and if needed), you can go for the schema, with internal data migration.
Also check:
https://www.compose.io/articles/is-postgresql-your-next-json-database/
Good luck
I need to store large amount of small data objects (millions of rows per month). Once they're saved they wont change. I need to :
store them securely
use them to analysis (mostly time-oriented)
retrieve some raw data occasionally
It would be nice if it could be used with JasperReports or BIRT
My first shot was Infobright Community - just a column-oriented, read-only storing mechanism for MySQL
On the other hand, people says that NoSQL approach could be better. Hadoop+Hive looks promissing, but the documentation looks poor and the version number is less than 1.0 .
I heard about Hypertable, Pentaho, MongoDB ....
Do you have any recommendations ?
(Yes, I found some topics here, but it was year or two ago)
Edit:
Other solutions : MonetDB, InfiniDB, LucidDB - what do you think?
Am having the same problem here and made researches; two types of storages for BI :
column oriented. Free and known : monetDB, LucidDb, Infobright. InfiniDB
Distributed : hTable, Cassandra (also column oriented theoretically)
Document oriented / MongoDb, CouchDB
The answer depends on what you really need :
If your millions of row are loaded at once (nighly batch or so), InfiniDB or other column oriented DB are the best; They have great performance and are "BI oriented". http://www.d1solutions.ch/papers/d1_2010_hauenstein_real_life_performance_database.pdf
And they won't require a setup of "nodes", "sharding" and other stuff that comes with distributed/"NoSQL" DBs.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/01/07/star-schema-bechmark-infobright-infinidb-and-luciddb/
If the rows are added in real time.. then column oriented DB are bad. You can either choose two have two separate DB (that's my choice : one noSQL for real feeding of the stats by the front, and real time stats. The other DB column-oriented for BI). Or turn towards something that mixes column oriented (for out requests) and distribution (for writes) / like Cassandra.
Document oriented DBs are not suited for BI, they are more useful for CRM/CMS issues where you need frequent access to a particular row
As for the exact choice inside a category, I'm still undecided. Cassandra in distributed, and Monet or InfiniDB for CODB, are leaders. Monet is reported to have problem loading very big tables because it runs indexes in memory.
You could also consider GridSQL. Even for a single server, you can create multiple logical "nodes" to utilize multiple cores when processing queries.
GridSQL uses PostgreSQL, so you can also take advantage of partitioning tables into subtables to evaluate queries faster. You mentioned the data is time-oriented, so that would be a good candidate for creating subtables.
If you're looking for compatibility with reporting tools, something based on MySQL may be your best choice. As for what will work for you, Infobright may work. There are several other solutions as well, however you may want also to look at plain-old MySQL and the Archive table. Each record is compressed and stored and, IIRC, it's designed for your type of workload, however I think Infobright is supposed to get better compression. I haven't really used either, so I'm not sure which will work best for you.
As for the key-value stores (E.g. NoSQL), yes, they can work as well and there are plenty of alternatives out there. I know CouchDB has "views", but I haven't had the opportunity to use any, so I don't know how well any of them work.
My only concern with your data set is that since you mentioned time, you may want to ensure that whatever solution you use will allow you to archive data past a certain time. It's a common data warehouse practice to only keep N months of data online and archive the rest. This is where partitioning, as implemented in an RDBMS, comes in very useful.
I am developing a website that will manage data for multiple entities. No data is shared between entities, but they may be owned by the same customer. A customer may want to manage all their entities from a single "dashboard". So should I have one database for everything, or keep the data seperated into individual databases?
Is there a best-practice? What are the positives/negatives for having a:
database for the entire site (entity
has a "customerID", data has
"entityID")
database for each
customer (data has "entityID")
database for each entity (relation of
database to customer is outside of
database)
Multiple databases seems like it would have better performance (fewer rows and joins) but may eventually become a maintenance nightmare.
Personally, I prefer separate databases, specifically a database for each entity. I like this approach for the following reasons:
Smaller = faster regarding the queries.
Queries are simpler.
No risk of ever accidentally displaying one customer's data to another.
One database could pose a performance bottleneck as it gets large (# of entities increase). You get a sort of build in horizontal scalability with 1 per entity.
Easy data clean up as customers or entities are removed.
Sure it'll take more time to upgrade the schema, but in my experience modifications are fairly uncommon once you deploy and additions are trivial.
I think this is hard to answer without more information.
I lean on the side of one database. Properly coded business objects should prevent you from forgetting clientId in your queries.
The type of database you are using and how it scales might help you make your decision.
For schema changes down the road, it seems one database would be easier from a maintenance perspective - you have one place to make them.
What about backup and restore? Could you experience a customer wanting to restore a backup for one of their entities?
This is a fairly normal scenario in multi-tenant SAAS applications. Both approaches have their pros and cons. Search on best practices for multi-tenant SAAS (software as a service) and you will find tons of stuff to ponder upon.
Check out this article on Microsoft's site. I think it does a nice job of laying out the different costs and benefits associated with Multi-Tenant designs. Also look at the Multi tenancy article on wikipedeia. There are many trade offs and your best match greatly depends on what type of product you are developing.
One good argument for keeping them in separate databases is that its easier to scale (you can simply have multiple installations of the server, with the client databases distributed across the servers).
Another argument is that once you are logged in, you don't need to add an extra where check (for client ID) in each of your queries.
So, a master DB backed by multiple DBs for each client may be a better approach,
If the client would ever need to restore only a single entity from a backup and leave the others in their current state, then the maintenance will be much easier if each entity is in a separate database. if they can be backed up and restored together, then it may be easier to maintain the entities as a single database.
I think you have to go with the most realistic scenario and not necessarily what a customer "may" want to do in the future. If you are going to market that feature (i.e. seeing all your entities in one dashboard), then you have to either find a solution (maybe have the dashboard pull from multiple databases) or use a single database for the whole app.
IMHO, having the data for multiple clients in the same database just seems like a bad idea to me. You'll have to remember to always filter your queries by clientID.
It also depends on your RDBMS e.g.
With SQL server databases are cheep
With Oracle it is easy to partition tables by customer "customerID", so a single large database can run as fast as a small database for each customer.
However witch every you choose, try to hide it as a low level in your data access code
Do you plan to have your code deployed to multiple environments?
If so, then try to keep it within one database and have all table references prefixed with a namespace from a configuration file.
The single database option would make the maintenance much easier.