Is there a jooq dialect for VoltDB - jooq

Is there a dialect for voltdb? This will definitely help in producing dynamic sql for testing perposes.

Unfortunately, as of jOOQ 3.11, there isn't. The pending feature request is: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/1430

Related

How to handle backpressure on databases when using Apache Spark?

We are using Apache Spark for performing ETL for every 2 hours.
Sometimes Spark puts much pressure on databases when read/write operation is performed.
For Spark Streaming, I can see backpressure configuration on kafka.
Is there a way to handle this issue in batch processing?
Backpressure is actually just a fancy word to refer to setting up the max receiving rate. So actually it doesn't work the way you think it does.
What should be done here is actually on the reading end.
Now in classical JDBC usage, jdbc connectors have a fetchSize property for PreparedStatements. So basically you can consider configuring that fetchSize with regards of what is said in the following answers :
Spark JDBC fetchsize option
What does Statement.setFetchSize(nSize) method really do in SQL Server JDBC driver?
Unfortunately, this might not solve all of your performance issues with your RDBMS.
What you must know is that compared to the basic jdbc reader, which run on a single worker, when partitioning data using an integer column or using a sequence of predicates, loading data in a distributed mode but introduce a couple of problems. In your case, high number of concurrent reads can easily throttle the database.
To deal with this, I suggest the following :
If available, consider using specialized data sources over JDBC
connections.
Consider using specialized or generic bulk import/export tools like Postgres COPY or Apache Sqoop.
Be sure to understand performance implications of different JDBC data source
variants, especially when working with production database.
Consider using a separate replica for Spark jobs.
If you wish to know more about Reading data using the JDBC source, I suggest you read the following :
Spark SQL and Dataset API.
Disclaimer: I'm the co-author of that repo.

Apache OFBiz integration with Cassandra and Eventual Consistency

Apache OFBiz supposedly integrates with Apache Cassandra databases. But does it support the eventual consistency feature?
If yes can anyone point me in the direction of some documentation or some written content explaining how?
If no - does OFBiz integrate and support any other database with eventual consistency?
Thanks in advance,
Jakob
Even if the integration of OFBiz with a Cassandra database has been mentioned in a couple of occasions in the OFBiz mailing lists, I am not aware of any setup of OFBiz that can work properly without a relational database.
Even if there are JDBC drivers for Cassandra, I doubt Cassandra can provide all the relational database features required by OFBiz.
The integration of OFBiz with Cassandra or any other big data tool is achievable and it is done by pairing the relational database with another ad-hoc database for specific purposes.
Unfortunately I am not aware of any effort to implement OFBiz on a database that supports the Eventual consistency model.

For Cassandra kundera.client.lookup.class options

In order to configure kundera for Cassandra, I notice there are 3 possible options for kundera.client.lookup.class as below
com.impetus.client.cassandra.pelops.PelopsClientFactory
com.impetus.kundera.client.cassandra.dsdriver.DSClientFactory
com.impetus.client.cassandra.thrift.ThriftClientFactory
I am not sure of the Pros and Cons of the above 3 and hence not sure which one to use. Please help me decide
I suggest you to use com.impetus.client.cassandra.thrift.ThriftClientFactory. It is the implementation using just Cassandra's thrift api.
PelopsClient is not in active development.
DSClient is built over datastax driver of cassandra.
There is no real advantage of using either DSClient or ThriftClient.
After further research, I found the following
Don't use PelopsClient as its not in active development as mentioned by #karthik , but more importantly because of the issue reported here
Data Stax Driver is better than thrift client as it over comes few limitations of thrift and they use a different binary protocol specific to cassandra which gives a better performance. Refer Datastax java driver support for Cassandra using Kundera

Spring Cassandra vs. Astyanax performance

I am trying to evaluate the performance of Astyanax and Spring Cassandra. However I did write up a program to measure insertion and read time. It turned out that with large data Astyanax showed up to 600 times faster insertion rate than Spring Cassandra. I believe Spring Cassandra uses datastax driver to communicate with Cassandra though Astyanax uses thrift. Can anyone who have much knowledge about Cassandra client APIs give me more information on their performance analysis? Is anything appearing wrong in my analysis?
Astyanax and the Thrift protocol are deprecated in Cassandra. Netflix, who contributed Astyanax, has ceased all new development in favor of the Datastax Java driver.
SDC* uses the Datastax Java Driver, which uses the latest protocol, and is very fast in the production emvironments I have deployed into.
Without your test, it is impossible to tell you why you are seeing what you are seeing.
Are you testing reads or writes?
Are you using the spring-data-cassandra or spring-cql module?
Are you explicitly setting the ConsistencyLevel in your SDC* tests?
Which methods of the template or repository are you using for your test.
We can perform 10K writes per second PER NODE in a C* cluster using the DS java driver.

Differences betweeen Hector Cassandra and JDBC

I'm currently starting a project that use Cassandra Apache. So I'm interesting in accessing to my database cassandra from Java. For that, I'm using Hector Cassandra. However, I've some doubts about what's the differences between the access via Hector or JDBC Cassandra (specifically this: https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/cassandra-jdbc/).
I believe the following (although I not sure if I'm right):
one difference between both could be that are API of different level (I consider that Hector Cassandra is an API of higher-level than JDBC Cassandra)?
in JDBC Cassandra is used CQL for accessing/modifying the database, while Hector Cassandra don't use CQL (only use the methods provided for that).
I'll be thankful if someone can help me and tell me if I'm right/wrong in the previous lines and more differences between both (Hector and JDBC Cassandra).
Thank in advance!
Official Cassandra Java Driver (https://github.com/datastax/java-driver) is probably the best (IMHO, the only) choice for a new project for several reasons:
New features
All other Cassandra clients (Hector, Astyanax, etc) are based on legacy Thrift RPC protocol. RPC "One response per one request" model has severe limitations, for example it doesn't allow processing several requests at the same time in a single connection or streaming large ResultSets.
So, DataStax developed a new protocol that doesn't have RPC limitations. Thrift API won't be getting new features, it's only kept for backward-compatibility. In contrast, Java Driver is actively developed to incorporate the new features of Cassandra 2.0, like conditional updates, batching prepared statements, etc. The overview of new features is here: http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/cql-in-cassandra-2-0
Convenience
In early Cassandra days (0.7) in our company we have used in-house low-level Thrift client. Later on we have used Hector, Pelops and Astyanax in various projects. I can say that the clients based on Java Driver look the most simple and clean to me.
Performance
We have made some performance testing of Cassandra Java Driver vs other clients. In most scenarios the performance is roughly the same. However, there are certain situations when Cassandra Java Driver significantly outperforms other clients due to its asynchronous nature.
Btw, there's a couple of related questions with excellent answers:
Advantages of using cql over thrift
Cassandra Client Java API's
EDIT: When I wrote this, I wasn't aware that Achilles (https://github.com/doanduyhai/Achilles) mentioned in another answer has CQL implementation that works via Java Driver. For the same of completeness I must say that Achilles' DAO on top of CQL might be (or might became one day) viable alternative to plain CQL via Java Driver.
#mol
Why do you restrict to Hector and cassandra-jdbc if you're starting a new project ?
There are many other interesting choices:
Astyanax as Martin mentioned (Thrift & CQL3)
FireBrand (Thrift via Hector)
Achilles I've just developed (CQL3 & Cassandra 2.0 via Java driver core)
Java Driver Core for plain CQL3
Hector is indeed a higher-level API. Internally it will use Cassandra's Thrift API to execute its functions. It will not convert them to equivalent CQL calls. But its API also provides access to CQL. In this case it will pass the CQL (via Thrift) to Cassandra's APIs for CQL.
CQL in Cassandra is a SQL-like language that works via the Cassandra APIs. So it does not provide any additional capability in the use of Cassandra than the APIs but does make it easier at times to use. If you are considering using Hector I would also look at Astyanax which is a newer take on a high-level Java API to Cassandra.
Since you are starting a new project, it is best to start with CQL as Java native driver:
http://www.datastax.com/documentation/developer/java-driver/1.0/webhelp/index.html#common/drivers/introduction/introArchOverview_c.html
Per DataStax, it is 10-15% faster than Thrift APIs, as it uses Binary Protocol.

Resources