I'm facing a dilemma that my small knowledge of Cassandra doesn't allow me to solve.
I have a index table used to retrieve data from an item (a notification) using an external id. However, the data contained in that table (in that case the status of the notification) is modified so I need to update the index table as well. Here is the tables design:
TABLE notification_by_external_id (
external_id text,
partition_key_date text,
id uuid,
status text,
...
PRIMARY KEY (external_id, partition_key_date, id)
);
TABLE notification (
partition_key_date text,
status text,
id uuid,
...
PRIMARY KEY (partition_key_date, status, id)
);
The problem is that when I want to update the notification status (and hence the notification_by_external_id table), I don't have access to the external ID.
So far I came up to 2 solutions, none of which seems optimal, and I can't decide which one to go with.
Solution 1
Create an index on notification_by_external_id.id, but this will obviously be a high cardinality column. There can be several external IDs for each notifications, but we're talking about something around 5-10 to one top.
Solution 2
Create a table
TABLE external_id_notification (
notification_id uuid,
external_id text
PRIMARY KEY (notification_id, external_id)
);
but that would mean making one extra read operation (and of course maintain another table) which I understood is also a bad practice.
The thing to understand about secondary indexes is, that their scalability issue is not with the number of rows in the table, but with the amount of nodes in your cluster. A select on an index column means that every single node will have to process it and respond to it, just that it itself will be able to process the select efficiently.
Use secondary indexes for administrative purposes (i.e. you on cqlsh) only. Do not use it for productive purposes.
That being said. You could duplicate all the information into your external_id_notification table. That would alleviate the need for an extra read operation. I know that relational databases taught you, that duplicate data is bad (what if it differs?), and that you should always normalize. But you are not on a relational database. Denormalization is a thing, and on Cassandra, you should always go for that, unless you absolutely cannot.
Related
I have 5 Tables:
users_by_id
users_by_username
users_by_email
users_by_likes
users_by_followers
I have to write 5 Statements every time if a user registered. Is that not expensive or bad ?
INSERT INTO users_by_id (...) values (..)
INSERT INTO users_by_email (...) values (..)
INSERT INTO users_by_username (...) values (..)
INSERT INTO users_by_likes (...) values (..)
INSERT INTO users_by_followers (...) values (..)
The second question: Maybe I update users_by_id I have to write 5 Update statments. Is there another solution? Or is that not this bad ?
Cassandra advocates denormalization of your data and creating data model according to your queries. You will have to write your data model such that it satisfies all the queries with good performance. For performance (due to its architecture and design) Cassandra asks for writing and reading using partition key.
It is not expensive to write 5 insertions for same set of data in 5 different tables. Your reads will perform better and as data size increases to web scale, you will thank your decision of creating 5 tables and writing to them.
You can explore materialized views (Materialized View and Datastax Link for Materialized View but remember it is an experimental feature. So you have to understand it properly and also identify open issues with materialized views.
I would recommend you study Cassandra data model that will make things easier to grasp.
Cassandra is designed to be write intensive database so do not hesitate to duplicate your data. One should always design tables for the read queries. If one table satisfies one query, it is a fine design.
Answer to your second question, you should design your tables such a way that you do not have to update table. Always think about inserting new values.
For example, below table design
CREATE TABLE user_by_email (
email text,
timestamp timestamp,
name text,
fullname text,
userId text,
PRIMARY KEY (email,timestamp)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (timestamp DESC);
INSERT INTO user_by_email (email, DateTime.Now ........)
In this design, you should get the latest inserted value. Additionally , this design keeps change history for that key.
Think about, how many times we have to update values like user id, email, username? rarely.
I'm having trouble figuring out how to maintain attribute updates across multiple tables to ensure data consistency.
For example, suppose I have many-to-many relationship between actors and fans. A fan can support many actors, and an actor have many fans. I make several tables to support my queries
CREATE TABLE fans (
fan_id uuid,
fan_attr_1 int,
fan_attr_2 int
PRIMARY KEY ((fan_id))
)
CREATE TABLE actors (
actor_id uuid,
actor_attr_1 int,
actor_attr_2 int
PRIMARY KEY ((actor_id))
)
CREATE TABLE actors_by_fan (
fan_id uuid,
actor_id uuid,
actor_attr_1 int,
actor_attr_2 int
PRIMARY KEY (fan_id, actor_id)
)
CREATE TABLE fans_by_actor (
actor_id uuid,
fan_id uuid,
fan_attr_1 int,
fan_attr_2 int
PRIMARY KEY (actor_id, fan_id)
)
Let's say I'm a fan and I'm on my settings page and I want to change my fan_attr_1 to a different value.
On the fans table I can update my attribute just fine since the application knows my fan_id and can key on that.
However I cannot change my fan_attr_1 on the fans_by_actor without first querying for the actor_ids tied to the fan.
This problem occurs for any time you want to update any attribute of either fans or actors.
I've tried looking online for people experiencing similar problems, but I couldn't find them. For example, in Datastax's Data Modeling course they use the examples with actors and videos in a many to many relationship where they have tables actors_by_video and videos_by_actor. The course, like the other online resources I've consulted, discussed modeling tables after queries, but haven't dug into how to maintain data integrity. In the actors_by_video table, what would happen if I want to change an actor's attribute? Wouldn't have have to go through every row of actors_by_video to find the partitions that contain the actor and update the attribute? That sounds very inefficient. The other option is to look for the video id's beforehand, but I read elsewhere that reads before writes are an antipattern in Cassandra.
What would be the best approach for tackling this problem either from a data modeling standpoint or from a CQL standpoint?
EDIT:
- Fixed sentence stubs
- Added context and prior research
Data Modeling
Cassandra is not an Relational Database and there are certain basic rules need to be followed on DataModeling, at high-level the following goals need to be followed for our data model.
1) Spread data evenly around the cluster
2) Minimize the number of partitions read
Moreover we should go for a single big table rather than breaking it into multiple tables and adding relationship between the tables. In this approach duplication of records will occur. Duplication of records is not a costlier operation since it takes only a little more Disk Space rather than CPU, memory, disk IOPs, or network.
Please note that there is a size restriction on column key names and values. The maximum column key (and row key) size is 64KB. The maximum column value size is 2 GB. But becuase there is no streaming and the whole value is fetched in heap memory when requested, limit the size to only a few MBs.
More Info:
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/basic-rules-of-cassandra-data-modeling
http://www.ebaytechblog.com/2012/07/16/cassandra-data-modeling-best-practices-part-1/
http://www.ebaytechblog.com/2012/08/14/cassandra-data-modeling-best-practices-part-2/
https://docs.datastax.com/en/cql/3.1/cql/cql_reference/refLimits.html
CQL
Maintaining Consistency across tables can be done using Batch or Materialized Views. Materialized views is available from version 3.0
Please see
How to ensure data consistency in Cassandra on different tables?
My preference would be to change the data model and design it
accordingly for our queries and if possible make it as a single big table.
Hope it Helps!
Materialized Views are probably the best choice:
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW actors_by_fan
AS SELECT fan_id, actor_id, actor_attr_1, actor_attr_2
FROM fans
PRIMARY KEY (fan_id, actor_id);
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW fans_by_actor
AS SELECT actor_id, fan_id, fan_attr_1, fan_attr_2
FROM actors
PRIMARY KEY (actor_id, fan_id);
In versions prior to 3.0, create secondary indices and evaluate if their performance is acceptable. Later, after upgrading to 3.x, just drop the secondary indexes and create materialized views.
The way you solve these kind of problems is to manually update all the changed records.
Since you can't use materialized views, in order to update fan_attr_1 on your data you need to:
Update the fan table by issuing UPDATE fan ... WHERE fan_id = xxx.
Select all the actor_ids from the actors_by_fan by issuing SELECT actor_id ... WHERE fan_id = xxx.
Update all the corresponding rows in the fans_by_actor table by issuing UPDATE fans_by_actor ... WHERE actor_id IN (...), or alternatively loop over the actor_ids and run each update async.
As long as you have a small amount of actor_id in the step 2, say less than 20, you can group all the queries and maintain strong consistency between tables by running them in a single BATCH. You need to guarantee the consistency between tables in other way otherwise.
This can be as inefficient as it sounds, but I don't think there are other smarter solutions. By the way, you are issuing one read (the step 2) and multiple writes (step 1 and step 3). This won't be the end of the world, especially if you don't change attributes so often (eg every 10 milliseconds).
Cassandra data modeling respects "Denormalization and duplication of data is a fact of life with Cassandra". But one of the cons for demormalized data is making the updates very hard. For example, if I have three tables catering for different queries, selecting is fine. However, if in my app, I want to update a username and I need to update these three tables? The update on first table looks ok. How about the latter two? The upates are going to be very expensive? How should I handle this case?
CREATE TABLE users_by_username (
username text PRIMARY KEY,
email text,
age int
)
CREATE TABLE users_by_email (
email text PRIMARY KEY,
username text,
age int
)
CREATE TABLE groups (
groupname text,
username text,
email text,
age int,
hash_prefix int,
PRIMARY KEY ((groupname, hash_prefix), username)
)
This is a typical problem I see when people try to put relational model in Cassandra which is being updated through time. Cassandra is a great database and for what it does, it works wonders. There are many features that enable all kinds of different data models and you can cover almost all use cases. When you look at your use case the question is why would you use Cassandra for relational model?
If you really want to make Cassandra cover your use case you will have to do a lot of different operations on application level just to execute updates and keep your data in consistent state.
After watching a few youtube clips, it looks like Canssandra's update is a simple write to append a record to the commit log in the file system. Then the data is put to memtable in cassandra server and send acknowledge to the client straight away. So the update call finishes. This makes the updating fast to the clients.
The whole compaction process happens afterwards, including flushing, sequential writing and merging based on the timestamp.
I am making a website and I want to store all users posts in one table ordered by the time they post it. the cassandra data model that I made is this
CREATE TABLE Posts(
ID uuid,
title text,
insertedTime timestamp,
postHour int,
contentURL text,
userID text,
PRIMARY KEY (postHour, insertedTime)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (insertedTime DESC);
The question I'm facing is, when a user visits the posts page, it fetches the most recent ones by querying
SELECT * FROM Posts WHERE postHour = ?;
? = current hour
so far when the user scrolls down ajax requests are made to get more posts from the server. Javascript keeps track of postHour of the lastFetched item and sends back to the server along with the cassandra PagingState when requesting for new posts.
but this approach will query more than 1 partition when user scrolls down.
I want to know whether this model would perform without a problem, is there any other model that I can follow.
Someone please point me in the right direction.
Thank You.
That's a good start but a few pointers:
You'll probably need more than just the postHour as the partition key. I'm guessing you don't want to store all the posts regardless of the day together and then page through them. What you're probably are after here is:
PRIMARY KEY ((postYear, postMonth, postDay, postHour), insertedTime)
But there's still a problem. Your PRIMARY KEY has to uniquely identify a row (in this case a post). I'm going to guess it's possible, although not likely, that two users might make a post with the same insertedTime value. What you really need then is to add the ID to make sure they are unique:
PRIMARY KEY ((postYear, postMonth, postDay, postHour), insertedTime, ID)
At this point, I'd consider just combining your ID and insertedTime columns into a single ID column of type timeuuid. With those changes, your final table looks like:
CREATE TABLE Posts(
ID timeuuid,
postYear int,
postMonth int,
postDay int,
postHour int,
title text,
contentURL text,
userID text,
PRIMARY KEY ((postYear, postMonth, postDay, postHour), ID)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (ID DESC);
Whatever programming language you're using should have a way to generate a timeuuid from the inserted time and then extract that time from a timeuuid value if you want to show it in the UI or something. (Or you could use the CQL timeuuid functions for doing the converting.)
As to your question about querying multiple partitions, yes, that's totally fine to do, but you could run into trouble if you're not careful. For example, what happens if there is a 48 hour period with no posts? Do you have to issue 48 queries that return empty results before finally getting some back on your 49th query? (That's probably going to be really slow and a crappy user experience.)
There are a couple things you could do to try and mitigate that:
Make your partitions less granular. For example, instead of doing posts by hour, make it posts by day, or posts by month. If you know that those partitions won't get too large (i.e. users won't make so many posts that the partition gets huge), that's probably the easiest solution.
Create a second table to keep track of which partitions actually have posts in them. For example, if you were to stick with posts by hour, you could create a table like this:
CREATE TABLE post_hours (
postYear int,
postMonth int,
postDay int,
postHour int,
PRIMARY KEY (postYear, postMonth, postDay, postHour)
);
You'd then insert into this table (using a Batch) anytime a user adds a new post. You can then query this table first before you query the Posts table to figure out which partitions have posts and should be queried (and thus avoid querying a whole bunch of empty partitions).
Please note that I am first time using NoSQL and pretty much every concept is new in this NoSQL world, being from RDBMS for long time!!
In one of my heavy used applications, I want to use NoSQL for some part of the data and move out from MySQL where transactions/Relational model doesn't make sense. What I would get is, CAP [Availability and Partition Tolerance].
The present data model is simple as this
ID (integer) | ENTITY_ID (integer) | ENTITY_TYPE (String) | ENTITY_DATA (Text) | CREATED_ON (Date) | VERSION (interger)|
We can safely assume that this part of application is similar to Logging of the Activity!
I would like to move this to NoSQL as per my requirements and separate from Performance Oriented MySQL DB.
Cassandra says, everything in it is simple Map<Key,Value> type! Thinking in terms of Map level,
I can use ENTITY_ID|ENTITY_TYPE|ENTITY_APP as key and store the rest of the data in values!
After reading through User Defined Types in Cassandra, can I use UserDefinedType as value which essentially leverage as One Key and multiple values! Otherwise, Use it as normal column level without UserDefinedType! One idea is to use the same model for different applications across systems where it would be simple logging/activity data can be pushed to the same, since the key varies from application to application and within application each entity will be unique!
No application/business function to access this data without Key, or in simple terms no requirement to get data randomly!
References: http://www.ebaytechblog.com/2012/07/16/cassandra-data-modeling-best-practices-part-1/
Let me explain the cassandra data model a bit (or at least, a part of it). You create tables like so:
create table event(
id uuid,
timestamp timeuuid,
some_column text,
some_column2 list<text>,
some_column3 map<text, text>,
some_column4 map<text, text>,
primary key (id, timestamp .... );
Note the primary key. There's multiple columns specified. The first column is the partition key. All "rows" in a partition are stored together. Inside a partition, data is ordered by the second, then third, then fourth... keys in the primary key. These are called clustering keys. To query, you almost always hit a partition (by specifying equality in the where clause). Any further filters in your query are then done on the selected partition. If you don't specify a partition key, you make a cluster wide query, which may be slow or most likely, time out. After hitting the partition, you can filter with matches on subsequent keys in order, with a range query on the last clustering key specified in your query. Anyway, that's all about querying.
In terms of structure, you have a few column types. Some primitives like text, int, etc., but also three collections - sets, lists and maps. Yes, maps. UDTs are typically more useful when used in collections. e.g. A Person may have a map of addresses: map. You would typically store info in columns if you needed to query on it, or index on it, or you know each row will have those columns. You're also free to use a map column which would let you store "arbitrary" key-value data; which is what it seems you're looking to do.
One thing to watch out for... your primary key is unique per records. If you do another insert with the same pk, you won't get an error, it'll simply overwrite the existing data. Everything in cassandra is an upsert. And you won't be able to change the value of any column that's in the primary key for any row.
You mentioned querying is not a factor. However, if you do find yourself needing to do aggregations, you should check out Apache Spark, which works very well with Cassandra (and also supports relational data sources....so you should be able to aggregate data across mysql and cassandra for analytics).
Lastly, if your data is time series log data, cassandra is a very very good choice.