Hi I am new to Cassandra.
We are working on IOT project where car sensor data will be stored in cassandra.
Here is the example of one table where I am going to store one of the sensor data.
This is some sample data.
The way I want to partition the data is based on the organization_id so that different organization data is partitioned.
Here is the create table command:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS engine_speed (
id UUID,
engine_speed_rpm text,
position int,
vin_number text,
last_updated timestamp,
organization_id int,
odometer int,
PRIMARY KEY ((id, organization_id), vin_number)
);
This works fine. However all my queries will be as bellow:
select * from engine_speed
where vin_number='xyz'
and organization_id = 1
and last_updated >='from time stamp' and last_updated <='to timestamp'
Almost all queries in all the table will have similar / same where clause.
I am getting error and it is asking to add "Allow filtering".
Kindly let me know how do I partition the table and define right primary key and indexs so that I don't have to add "allow filtering" in the query.
Apologies for this basic question but I'm just starting using cassandra.(using apache cassandra:3.11.12 )
The order of where clause should match with the order of partition and clustering keys you have defined in your DDL and you cannot skip any part of primary key while applying the WHERE clause before using the next key. So as per the query pattern u have defined, you can try the below DDL:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS autonostix360.engine_speed (
vin_number text,
organization_id int,
last_updated timestamp,
id UUID,
engine_speed_rpm text,
position int,
odometer int,
PRIMARY KEY ((vin_number, organization_id), last_updated)
);
But remember,
PRIMARY KEY ((vin_number, organization_id), last_updated)
PRIMARY KEY ((vin_number), organization_id, last_updated)
above two are different in Cassandra, In case 1 your data will be partitioned by combination of vin_number and organization_id while last_updated will act as ordering key. In case 2, your data will be partitioned only by vin_number while organization_id and last_updated will act as ordering key. So you need to figure out which case suits your use case.
Related
Have a table
REATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tabletest (uuid text, uuidHotel text, uuidRoom text, uuidGuest text, bookedTimeStampSet set<text>, PRIMARY KEY (uuidHotel, uuidRoom));
Tried to select with IN:
select * from tabletest where uuidhotel = 'uuidHotel' and bookedtimestampset IN ('1460710800000');
Got
'bookedtimestampset' (set<text>) cannot be restricted by a 'IN' relation"
Can I select elements by IN Set filter?
Can I select elements by IN Set filter?
No, but you can put a secondary index on bookedtimestampset and use the CONTAINS operator:
aploetz#cqlsh:stackoverflow> CREATE INDEX timeset_idx ON tabletest(bookedtimestampset);
aploetz#cqlsh:stackoverflow> SELECT uuidhotel,uuidroom FROM tabletest
WHERE uuidhotel = 'uuidHotel1' and bookedtimestampset CONTAINS '1460710800000';
uuidhotel | uuidroom
------------+----------
uuidHotel1 | uuidroom1
(1 rows)
Normally I wouldn't recommend a secondary index, but as long as you are filtering by a partition key (uuidhotel) it should perform ok.
Can I select elements by IN Set filter?
you can't use clause IN with your primary key. It is highly important to understand how significantly data model influences on query performance. Of course, you can add secondary index for column bookedtimestampset but in this case be ready to for performance degradation.
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tabletest (uuid text, uuidHotel text, uuidRoom text, uuidGuest text, bookedTimeStampSet set, PRIMARY KEY (uuidHotel, uuidRoom));
your compound primary key consists of one partition key uuidHotel and one clustering key uuidRoom which means that all your hotels and rooms would physically stored on same node in order as result retrieval of rows is very efficient. bookedTimeStampSet is different column which would be spread through whole cluster and it is just impossible to restrict by this column without secondary indexing one.
Consequently. I would recommend you to create primary key according to your future queries even if you need to duplicate some data which is common practice for NoSql database such Cassandra is.
e.q.
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tabletest (uuid text, uuidHotel text,
uuidRoom text, uuidGuest text, bookedTimeStamp timestamp, PRIMARY KEY
(uuidHotel, bookedTimeStamp , uuidRoom))
it allows you to make a query like
select * from tabletest where uuidhotel = 'uuidHotel' and
bookedtimestamp > '1460710800000 and bookedtimestamp < '1460710900000'
I have the following Apache Cassandra Table working.
CREATE TABLE user_songs (
member_id int,
song_id int,
title text,
timestamp timeuuid,
album_id int,
album_title text,
artist_names set<text>,
PRIMARY KEY ((member_id, song_id), title)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (title ASC)
CREATE INDEX user_songs_member_id_idx ON music.user_songs (member_id);
When I try to do a select * FROM user_songs WHERE member_id = 1; I thought the Clustering Order by title would have given me a sorted ASC of the return - but it doesn't
Two questions:
Is there something with the table in terms of ordering or PK?
Do I need more tables for my needs in order to have a sorted title by member_id.
Note - my Cassandra queries for this table are:
Find all songs with member_id
Remove a song from memeber_id given song_id
Hence why the PK is composite
UPDATE
It is simialr to: Query results not ordered despite WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY
However one of the suggestion in the comments is to put member_id,song_id,title as primary instead of the composite that I currently have. When I do that It seems that I cannot delete with only song_id and member_id which is the data that I get for deleting (hence title is missing when deleting)
I created a one table posts. When I make request SELECT:
return $this->db->query('SELECT * FROM "posts" WHERE "id" IN(:id) LIMIT '.$this->limit_per_page, ['id' => $id]);
I get error:
PRIMARY KEY column "id" cannot be restricted (preceding column
"post_at" is either not restricted or by a non-EQ relation)
My table dump is:
CREATE TABLE posts (
id uuid,
post_at timestamp,
user_id bigint,
name text,
category set<text>,
link varchar,
image set<varchar>,
video set<varchar>,
content map<text, text>,
private boolean,
PRIMARY KEY (user_id,post_at,id)
)
WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (post_at DESC);
I read some article about PRIMARY AND CLUSTER KEYS, and understood, when there are some primary keys - I need use operator = with IN. In my case, i can not use a one PRIMARY KEY. What you advise me to change in table structure, that error will disappear?
My dummy table structure
CREATE TABLE posts (
id timeuuid,
post_at timestamp,
user_id bigint,
PRIMARY KEY (id,post_at,user_id)
)
WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (post_at DESC);
And after inserting some dummy data
I ran query select * from posts where id in (timeuuid1,timeuuid2,timeuuid3);
I was using cassandra 2.0 with cql 3.0
I'm new to cassandra and would like to ask what would be correct model design pattern for such tasks.
I would like to model data with future removal possibility.
I have 100,000,000 records per day of this structure:
transaction_id <- this is unique
transaction_time
transaction_type
user_name
... some other information
I will need to fetch data by user_name (I have about 5,000,000 users).
Also I will need to find transaction details by its id.
All the data will be irrelevant after say about 30 days, so need to find a way to delete outdated rows.
As much I have found, TTL-s expire column values, not rows.
So far I came across with this model, and as I understand it will imply really wide rows:
CREATE TABLE user_transactions (
transaction_date timestamp, //date part of transactiom
user_name text,
transaction_id text,
transaction_time timestamp, //original transaction time
transaction_type int,
PRIMARY KEY ((transaction_date, user_name), transaction_id)
);
CREATE INDEX idx_user_transactions_uname ON USER_TRANSACTIONS(user_name);
CREATE INDEX idx_user_transactions_tid ON USER_TRANSACTIONS(transaction_id);
but this model does not allow deletions by transaction_date.
this also builds indexes with high cardinality, what cassandra docs strongly discourages
So what will be the correct model for this task?
EDIT:
Ugly workaround I came with so far is to create single table per date partition. Mind you, I call this workaround and not a solution. I'm still looking for right data model
CREATE TABLE user_transactions_YYYYMMDD (
user_name text,
transaction_id text,
transaction_time timestamp,
transaction_type int,
PRIMARY KEY (user_name)
);
YYYYMMDD is date part of transaction. we can create similar table with transaction_id for transaction lookup. obsolete tables can be dropped or truncated.
Maybe you should denormalized your data model. For example to query by user_name you can use a cf like this:
CREATE TABLE user_transactions (
transaction_date timestamp, //date part of transactiom
user_name text,
transaction_id text,
transaction_time timestamp, //original transaction time
transaction_type int,
PRIMARY KEY (user_name, transaction_id)
);
So you can query using the partition key directly like this:
SELECT * FROM user_transactions WHERE user_name = 'USER_NAME';
And for the id you can use a cf like this:
CREATE TABLE user_transactions (
transaction_date timestamp, //date part of transactiom
user_name text,
transaction_id text,
transaction_time timestamp, //original transaction time
transaction_type int,
PRIMARY KEY (transaction_id)
);
so the query could be something like this:
SELECT * FROM user_transactions WHERE transaction_id = 'ID';
By this way you dont need indexes.
About the TTL, maybe you could programatically ensure that you update all the columns in the row at the same time (same cql sentence).
Perhaps my answer will be a little useful.
I would have done so:
CREATE TABLE user_transactions (
date timestamp,
user_name text,
id text,
type int,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
CREATE INDEX idx_user_transactions_uname ON user_transactions (user_name);
No need in 'transaction_time timestamp', because this time will be set by Cassandra to each column, and can be fetched by WRITETIME(column name) function. Because you write all the columns simultaneously, then you can call this function on any column.
INSERT INTO user_transactions ... USING TTL 86400;
will expire all columns simultaneously. So do not worry about deleting rows. See here: Expiring columns.
But as far as I know, you can not delete an entire row - key column still remains, and in the other columns will be written NULL.
If you want to delete the rows manually, or just want to have an estimate of rows to be deleted by a TTL, then I recommend driver Astyanax: AllRowsReader All rows query.
And indeed as a driver to work with Cassandra I recommend you use Astyanax.
I have columnfamily with composite key like this
CREATE TABLE sometable(
keya varchar,
keyb varchar,
keyc varchar,
keyd varchar,
value int,
date timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY (keya,keyb,keyc,keyd,date)
);
What I need to do is to
SELECT * FROM sometable
WHERE
keya = 'abc' AND
keyb = 'def' AND
date < '2014-01-01'
And that is giving me this error
Bad Request: PRIMARY KEY part date cannot be restricted (preceding part keyd is either not restricted or by a non-EQ relation)
What's the best way to solve this? Do I need to alter my columnfamily?
I also need to query those table with all keya, keyb, keyc, and date.
You cannot do it in cassandra. Moreover, such a range slicing is costlier too. You are trying to slice through a set of equalities that have the lower priority according to your schema.
I also need to query those table with all keya, keyb, keyc, and date.
If you are considering to solve this problem, considering having this schema. What i would suggest is to have the keys in a separate schema
create table (
timeuuid id,
keyType text,
primary key (timeuuid,keyType))
Use the timeuuid to store the values and do a range scan based on that.
create table(
timeuuid prevTableId,
value int,
date timestamp,
primary key(prevTableId,date))
Guess , in this way, your table is normalized for better scalability in your use case and may save a lot of disk space if keys are repetitive too.