I am designing the data model of our Scylla database. For example, I created a table, intraday_history, with fields:
CREATE TABLE intraday_history (id bigint,timestamp_seconds bigint,timestamp timestamp,sec_code text,open float,high float,low float,close float,volume float,trade int, PRIMARY KEY ((id,sec_code),timestamp_seconds,timestamp));
My id is a twitter_snowflake generated 64-bit integers.. My problem is how can I use WHERE without providing always the id (most of the time I will use the timestamp with bigint). I also encounter this problem in other tables. Because the id is unique then I cannot query a batch of timestamp.
Is it okay if lets say for a bunch of tables for my 1 node, I will use an ID like cluster1 so that when I query the id I will just id=cluster1 ? But it loss the uniqueness feature
Allow filtering comes as an option here. But I keep reading that it is a bad practice, especially when dealing with millions of query.
I'm using the ScyllaDB, a compatible c++ version of Apache Cassandra.
In Cassandra, as you've probably already read, the queries derive the tables, not the other way around. So your situation where you want to query by a different filter would ideally entail you creating another Cassandra table. That's the optimal way. Partition keys are required in filters unless you provide the "allow filtering" "switch", but it isn't recommended as it will perform a DC (possibly cluster)-wide search, and you're still subjected to timeouts. You could consider using indexes or materialized views, which are basically cassandra maintained tables populated by the base table's changes. That would save you the troubles of having the application populate multiple tables (Cassandra would do it for you). We've had some luck with materialized views, but with either of these components, there can be side effects like any other cassandra table (inconsistencies, latencies, additional rules, etc.). I would say do a bit of research to determine the best approach, but most likely providing "allow filtering" isn't the best choice (especially for high volume and frequent queries or with tables containing high volumes of data). You could also investigate SOLR if that's an option, depending on what you're filtering.
Hope that helps.
-Jim
Related
Cassandra is positioned as scalable and fast database.
Why , I mean from technical details, above goals cannot be accomplished with secondary indexes?
Cassandra does indeed have secondary indexes. But secondary index usage doesn't work well with distributed databases, and it's because each node only holds a subset of the overall dataset.
I previously wrote an answer which discussed the underlying details of secondary index queries:
How do secondary indexes work in Cassandra?
While it should help give you some understanding of what's going on, that answer is written from the context of first querying by a partition key. This is an important distinction, as secondary index usage within a partition should perform well.
The problem is when querying only by a secondary index, that Cassandra cannot guarantee all of your data will be able to be served by a single node. When this happens, Cassandra designates a node as a coordinator, which in turn queries all other nodes for the specified indexed values.
Essentially, instead of performing sequential reads from a single node, secondary index usage forces Cassandra to perform random reads from all nodes. Now you don't have just disk seek time, but also network time complicating things.
The recommendation for Cassandra modeling, is to duplicate your data into new tables to support the desired query. This adds in some other complications with keeping data in-sync. But (when done correctly) it ensures that your queries can indeed be served by a single node. That's a tradeoff you need to make when building your model. You can have convenience or performance, but not both.
So yes cassandra does have secondary indexes and aaron's explaination does a great job of explaining why.
You see many people trying to solve this issue by writing their data to multiple tables. This is done so they can be sure that the data they need to answer the query that would traditionally rely on a secondary index is on the same node.
Some of the recent iterations of cassandra have this 'built in' via materialized views. I've not really used them since 3.0.11 but they are promising. The problems i had at the time were primarily adding them to tables with existing data and they had a suprisingly large amount of overhead on write (increased latency).
Using Cassandra as db:
Say we have this schema
primary_key((id1),id2,type) with index on type, because we want to query by id1 and id2.
Does query like
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE id1=xxx AND type='some type'
going to perform well?
I wonder if we have to create and manage another table for this situation?
The way you are planning to use secondary index is ideal (which is rare). Here is why:
you specify the partition key (id1) in your query. This ensures that
only the relevant partition (node) will be queried, instead of
hitting all the nodes in the cluster (which is not scalable)
You are (presumably) indexing an attribute of low cardinality (I can imagine you have maybe a few hundred types?), which is the sweet spot when using secondary indexes.
Overall, your data model should perform well and scale. Yet, if you look for optimal performances, I would suggest you use an additional table ((id1), type, id2).
Finale note: if you have a limited number of type, you might consider using solely ((id1), type, id2) as a single table. When querying by id1-id2, just issue a few parallel queries against the possible value of type.
The final decision needs to take into account your target latency, the disk usage (duplicating table with a different primary key is sometimes too expensive), and the frequency of each of your queries.
I need a big data storage solution for batch inserts of denormalized data which happen infrequently and queries on the inserted data which happen frequently.
I've gone through Cassandra and feel that its not that good for batch inserts, but an OK solution for querying. Also, it would be good if there was a mechanism to segregate data separately based on a data attribute.
As you mentioned Cassandra I will talk about it:
Can you insert in an unbatched way or is this impossed by the system? If you can insert unbatched, Cassandra will probably be able to handle it easily.
Batched inserts should also be handable by Cassandra nodes, but this won't distribute the load properly among all the nodes (NOTE: I'm talking about load balancing, not about data balance, which will be only depending on your partition key setup). If you are not very familiar with Cassandra you could tell us your data structure and your query types and we could suggest you how to use Cassandra's data model to fit it.
For the filtering part of the question, Cassandra has clustering keys and secondary indexes, that are basically like adding another column configuration to the clustering key so that you have both for querying.
I need a NoSQL database that will run on Windows Azure that works well for the following parameters. Right now Azure Table Storage, HBase and Cassandra seems to be the most promising options.
1 billion entities
up to 100 reads per second, though caching will mostly make it much less
around 10 - 50 writes per second
Strong consistency would be a plus, so perhaps HBase would be better than Cassandra in that regard.
Querying will often be done on a secondary in-memory database with various indexes in addition to ElasticSearch or Windows Azure Search for fulltext search and perhaps some filtering.
Azure Table Storage looks like it could be nice, but from what I can tell, the big difference between Azure Table Storage and HBase is that HBase supports updating and reading values for a single property instead of the whole entity at once. I guess there must be some disadvantages to HBase however, but I'm not sure what they would be in this case.
I also think crate.io looks like it could be interesting, but I wonder if there might be unforseen problems.
Anyone have any other ideas of the advantages and disadvantages of the different databases in this case, and if any of them are really unsuited for some reason?
I currently work with Cassandra and I might help with a few pros and cons.
Requirements
Cassandra can easily handle those 3 requirements. It was designed to have fast reads and writes. In fact, Cassandra is blazing fast with writes, mostly because you can write without doing a read.
Also, Cassandra keeps some of its data in memory, so you could even avoid the secondary database.
Consistency
In Cassandra you choose the consistency in each query you make, therefore you can have consistent data if you want to. Normally you use:
ONE - Only one node has to get or accept the change. This means fast reads/writes, but low consistency (You can have other machine delivering the older information while consistency was not achieved).
QUORUM - 51% of your nodes must get or accept the change. This means not as fast reads and writes, but you get FULL consistency IF you use it in BOTH reads and writes. That's because if more than half of your nodes have your data after you inserted/updated/deleted, then, when reading from more than half your nodes, at least one node will have the most recent information, which would be the one to be delivered.
Both this options are the ones recommended because they avoid single points of failure. If all machines had to accept, if one node was down or busy, you wouldn't be able to query.
Pros
Cassandra is the solution for performance, linear scalability and avoid single points of failure (You can have machines down, the others will take the work). And it does most of its management work automatically. You don't need to manage the data distribution, replication, etc.
Cons
The downsides of Cassandra are in the modeling and queries.
With a relational database you model around the entities and the relationships between them. Normally you don't really care about what queries will be made and you work to normalize it.
With Cassandra the strategy is different. You model the tables to serve the queries. And that happens because you can't join and you can't filter the data any way you want (only by its primary key).
So if you have a database for a company with grocery stores and you want to make a query that returns all products of a certain store (Ex.: New York City), and another query to return all products of a certain department (Ex.: Computers), you would have two tables "ProductsByStore" and "ProductsByDepartment" with the same data, but organized differently to serve the query.
Materialized Views can help with this, avoiding the need to change in multiple tables, but it is to show how things work differently with Cassandra.
Denormalization is also common in Cassandra for the same reason: Performance.
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.