I have this structure with about 1000 data points in a list on the website:
Datapoint1:
Datapoint2:
...
Datapoint1000:
With each datapoint containing 6 fields of information.
Each datapoint can be opened to reveal an additional 2-3x of information in sublist.
Would making a new request upon the user clicking on one of my datapoints be considered bad practice in Cassandra? Should I just go ahead and get it all in one go?
Should I just go ahead and get it all in one go?
Definitely not.
Would making a new request upon the user clicking on one of my datapoints be considered bad practice in Cassandra?
That's absolutely the way you should do it. Cassandra is great at writing large amounts of data, but not so great a returning large amounts of data. More, small key-based queries are definitely the way to go.
It is possible to do the JOINs on the client side but as a general proposition, queries which require joins indicate that you possibly didn't design the data model correctly.
You need to model your data such that (a) each application query (b) maps to a single table. If you need to do a client-side JOIN then you need to query the database multiple times to get the data required by your app. It will work but it's not efficient so affects the performance of the app and the database.
To illustrate with an example, let's say you app needs to display a customer's list of orders. The table design would need to be partitioned by customer with (clustered) multiple rows of orders:
CREATE TABLE orders_by_customerid (
customerid text,
orderid text,
orderdate timestamp,
ordertotal decimal,
...
PRIMARY KEY (customerid, orderid)
)
You would retrieve the list of orders for a customer with:
SELECT ... FROM orders_by_customerid WHERE customerid = ?
By default, the driver or Stargate API your app is using would page the results so only the first 100 rows (for example) will be returned instead of retrieving thousands of rows in a single pass. Note that the page size is configurable. Cheers!
Related
I have a table that stores list products that a user has. The table looks like this.
create table my_keyspace.userproducts{
userid,
username,
productid,
productname,
producttype,
Primary Key(userid)
}
All users belong to a group, there could be min 1 to max 100 users in a group
userid|groupid|groupname|
1 |g1 | grp1
2 |g2 | grp2
3 |g3 | grp3
We have new requirement to display all products for all users in a single group.
So do i change my userproducts so that my Partition Key is now groupid and make userid as my cluster key, so that i get all my results in one single query.
Or do I keep my table design as it is and fire multiple select queries by selecting all users in a group from second table and then fire one select query for each user, consolidate data in my code and then return it to the users
Thanks.
Even before getting to your question, your data modelling as you presented it has a problem: You say that you want to store "a list products that a user has". But this is not what the table you presented has - your table has a single product for each userid. The "userid" is the key of your table, and each entry in the table, i.e, each unique userid, has one combination of the other fields.
If you really want each user to have a list of products, you need the primary key to be (userid, productid). This means that each record is indexed by both a userid and a productid, or in other words - a userid has a list of records each with its own productid. Cassandra allows you to efficiently fetch all the productid records for a single userid because it implements the first part of the key as a "partition key" but the second part is a "clustering key".
Regarding your actual question, you indeed have two options: Either do multiple queries on your original tables, or do so-called denormalization, i.e., create a second table with exactly what you want searchable immediately. For the second option you can either do it manually (update both tables every time you have new data), or let Cassandra update the second table for you automatically, using a feature called Materialized Views.
Which of the two options - multiple queries or multiple updates - to use really depends on your workload. If it has many updates and rare queries, it is better to leave updates quick and make queries slower. If, on the other hand, it has few updates but many queries, it is better to make updates slower (when each update needs to update both tables) but make queries faster. Another important issue is how much query latency is important for you - the multiple queries option not only increases the load on the cluster (which you can solve by throwing more hardware at the problem) but also increases the latency - a problem which does not go away with more hardware and for some use cases may become a problem.
You can also achieve a similar goal in Cassandra by using the Secondary Index feature, which has its own performance characteristics (in some respects it is similar to the "multiple queries" solution).
I have to develop a project using a NoSql base, either couchbase or cassandra.
I would like to know if it is recommended to partition the data of each customer in a bucket?
In my case, there will never be requests between the different clients.
The data can be completely separated.
For couchbase, I saw that for each bucket a memory capacity, was reserved for him.
Where does the separation have to be done at another place document or super column for cassandra.
Thank you
Where does the separation have to be done at another place document or super column for cassandra.
Tip #1, when working with Cassandra, completely erase the word "super column" from your vocabulary.
I would like to know if it is recommended to partition the data of each customer in a bucket?
That depends. It sounds like your queries would be mostly based on a customer id, so it makes sense to have it as a part of your partition key. However, if each customer partition has millions of rows and/or columns underneath it, that's going to get very big.
Tip #2, proper Cassandra modeling is done based on what your required queries look like. So without actually seeing the kinds of queries you need to serve, it's going to be difficult to be any more specific than that.
If you have customer data relating to accounts and addresses, etc, then building a customers table with a PRIMARY KEY of only customer_id might make sense. But if you find that you need to query your customers (for example) by email_address, then you'll want to create a customers_by_email table, duplicate your data into that, and create a PRIMARY KEY that supports that.
Additionally, if you find yourself storing data on customer activity, you may want to consider a customer_activity table with a PRIMARY KEY of PRIMARY KEY ((customer_id,month),activity_time). That will use both customer_id and month as a partition key, storing the customer's activity clustered by activity_time. In this case, if we didn't use month as an additional partition key, each customer_id partition would be continually written to, until it became too ungainly to write to or query (unbound row growth).
Summary:
If anyone tells you to use a super column in Cassandra, slap them.
You need to know your queries before you design your tables.
Yes, customer_id would be a good way to keep your data separate and ensure that each query is restricted to a single node.
-Build your partition keys to account for unbound row growth, to save you from writing too much data into the same partition.
I am working as freelancer and right now working on one of my game and trying to use Azure table service to log my user moves in Azure tables.
The game is based on Cards.
The flow is like this:
Many users(UserId) will be playing on a table(TableId). Each game on the table will have a unique GameId. In each game there could be multiple deals with Unique DealId.
There can be multiple deals on the same table with same gameId. Also each user will have same DealId in a single game.
Winner is decided after multiple chances of a player.
Problem:
I can make TableId as PartitionKey and but I am not sure what to chose for RowKey because combination of TableId and RowKey (GameId/UserId/DealId) should be unique in the table.
I can have entries like:
TableId GameId DealId UserId timestamp
1 201 300 12345
1 201 300 12567
May be what I can do is to create 4 Azure tables like below but I am doing a lot of duplication; also I would not be able to fire a a point query as mentioned here at https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/storage-table-design-guide/#guidelines-for-table-design
GameLogsByTableId -- this will have TableId as PartitionKey and GUID as RowKey
GameLogsByGameId -- this will have GameId as PartitionKey and GUID as RowKey
GameLogsByUserId -- this will have UserId as PartitionKey and GUID as RowKey
GameLogsByDealId -- this will have DealId as PartitionKey and GUID as RowKey
Thoughts please?
Format of TableId,GameId,DealId and UserId is long.
I would like to query data such that
Get me all the logs from a TableId.
Get me all the logs from a TableId and in a particular game(GameId)
Get me all the logs of a user(userid) in this game(GameId)
Get me all the logs of a user in a deal(dealId)
Get me all the logs from a table on a date; similarly for a user,game and deal
Based on my knowledge so far on Azure Tables, I believe you're on right track.
However there are certain things I would like to mention:
You could use a single table for storing all data
You don't really need to use separate tables for storing each kind of data though this approach logically separates the data nicely. If you want, you could possibly store them in a single table. If you go with single table, since these ids (Game, Table, User, and Deal) are numbers what I would recommend is to prefix the value appropriately so that you can nicely identify them. For example, when specifying PartitionKey denoting a Game Id, you can prefix the value with G| so that you know it's the Game Id e.g. G|101.
Pre-pad your Id values with 0 to make them equal length string
You mentioned that your id values are long. However the PartitionKey value is of string type. I would recommend prepadding the values so that they are of equal length. For example, when storing Game Id as PartitionKey instead of storing them as 1, 2, 103 etc. store them as 00000000001, 00000000002, 00000000103. This way when you list all Ids, they will be sorted in proper order. Without prepadding, you will get the results as 1, 10, 11, 12....19, 20.
You will loose transaction support
Since you're using multiple tables (or even single table with different PartitionKeys), you will not be able to use Entity Batch Transactions available in Azure Tables and all the inserts need to be done as atomic operations. Since each operation is a network call and can possibly fail, you may want to do that through an idempotent background process which will keep on trying inserting the data into multiple tables till the time it succeeds.
Instead of Guid for RowKey, I suggest you create a composite RowKey based on other values
This is more applicable for update scenario. Since an update requires both PartitionKey and RowKey, I would recommend using a RowKey which is created as a composition of other values. For example, if you're using TableId as PartitionKey for GameLogsByTableId, I would suggest creating a RowKey using other values e.g. U|[UserId]|D|[DealId]|G|[GameId]. This way, when you get a record to update, you automatically know how to create a RowKey instead of fetching the data first from the table.
Partition Scans
I looked at your querying requirements and almost all of them would result in Partition Scans. To avoid that, I would suggest keeping even more duplicate copies of the data. For example, consider #3 and #4 in your querying requirements. In this case, you will need to scan the entire partition for a user to find information about a Game Id and Deal Id. So please be prepared for the scenario where table service returns you nothing but continuation tokens.
Personally, unless you have absolutely massive data requirements, I would not use table storage for this. It will make your job much harder than using an SQL database; you can use any index you like, have relational integrity, and so much more. The only thing in favour of ATS is that it's cheap for large data.
I have this structure that I want a user to see the other user's feeds.
One way of doing it is to fan out an action to all interested parties's feed.
That would result in a query like select from feeds where userid=
otherwise i could avoid writing so much data and since i am already doing a read I could do:
select from feeds where userid IN (list of friends).
is the second one slower? I don't have the application yet to test this with a lot of data/clustering. As the application is big writing code to test a single node is not worth it so I ask for your knowledge.
If your title is correct, and userid is a secondary index, then running a SELECT/WHERE/IN is not even possible. The WHERE/IN clause only works with primary key values. When you use it on a column with a secondary index, you will see something like this:
Bad Request: IN predicates on non-primary-key columns (columnName) is not yet supported
Also, the DataStax CQL3 documentation for SELECT has a section worth reading about using IN:
When not to use IN
The recommendations about when not to use an index apply to using IN
in the WHERE clause. Under most conditions, using IN in the WHERE
clause is not recommended. Using IN can degrade performance because
usually many nodes must be queried. For example, in a single, local
data center cluster with 30 nodes, a replication factor of 3, and a
consistency level of LOCAL_QUORUM, a single key query goes out to two
nodes, but if the query uses the IN condition, the number of nodes
being queried are most likely even higher, up to 20 nodes depending on
where the keys fall in the token range.
As for your first query, it's hard to speculate about performance without knowing about the cardinality of userid in the feeds table. If userid is unique or has a very high number of possible values, then that query will not perform well. On the other hand, if each userid can have several "feeds," then it might do ok.
Remember, Cassandra data modeling is about building your data structures for the expected queries. Sometimes, if you have 3 different queries for the same data, the best plan may be to store that same, redundant data in 3 different tables. And that's ok to do.
I would tackle this problem by writing a table geared toward that specific query. Based on what you have mentioned, I would build it like this:
CREATE TABLE feedsByUserId
userid UUID,
feedid UUID,
action text,
PRIMARY KEY (userid, feedid));
With a composite primary key made up of userid as the partitioning key you will then be able to run your SELECT/WHERE/IN query mentioned above, and achieve the expected results. Of course, I am assuming that the addition of feedid will make the entire key unique. if that is not the case, then you may need to add an additional field to the PRIMARY KEY. My example is also assuming that userid and feedid are version-4 UUIDs. If that is not the case, adjust their types accordingly.
I am just stuck in a design problem. I want to assign ranks to user records in a table. They do some action on the site and given a rank on basis of leader board. And the select I want on them could be on Top 10, User's position, Top 10 logged in today etc.
I just can not find a way to store it in Azure table. Than I thought about storing custom collection object (a sorted list) in blob.
Any suggestions?
Table entities are sorted by PartitionKey, RowKey. While you could continually delete and recreate users (thus allowing you to change the PK, RK) to give the correct order, it seems like a bad idea or at least overkill. Instead, I would probably store the data that you use the compute the rankings and periodically compute and store the rankings (as you say). We do this a lot in our work - pre-compute what the data should look like in JSON view, store it in a blob, and let the UI query it directly. The trick is to decide when to re-compute the view. After a user does an item that would cause the rankings to be re-computed, I would probably queue a message and let a worker process go and re-compute the view. This prevents too many workers from trying to update the data at once.