I'm inspecting the output of sstabledump, to gain better understanding of the cassandra data model, and I have some questions
From the output of of sstabledump it seems that
a table is a list of partitions (split by partition key)
a partition is a list of rows (split according to clustering key)
a row is a map of key-value pairs, where the keys belong in a predefined list
Question 1: For each partition, as well as for each row inside a partition, there is a position key. What does this value correspond to? Physical storage details? And how exactly?
Question 2: Each row inside each partition has a type: row key-value pair. Could this type be anything else? If yes, what? If not
why have a value that is always the same?
why is cassandra is classified as wide-column and other similar terms? Looks more like a two-level row storage.
Partition key is the murmur3 hash of whatever you assigned as the primary key. Consistent hashing is used with that hash to determine which node in the cluster that partition belongs to and its replicas. Within each partition data is sorted by clustering key, and then by cell name within the row. The structure is used so redundant things like timestamps if inserted for a row at once is only inserted once as a vint delta sequence from the partitions to save space.
On disk the partitions are sorted in order of this hashed key. The output of the position key is just referring to where in the sstable's data file its located (decompressed byte offset). type can also identify in that spot as a static block, which is located at the beginning of each partition for any static cells or a ranged tombstone marker (beginning or end). Note that values are sometimes for sstabledump repeated in json for readability even if not physically written on disk (ie repeated timestamps).
You can have many of these rows inside a partition, a common datamodel for time series for example is to use timestamp as the clustering key which makes very wide partitions with millions of rows. Pre 3.0 as well the data storage was closer to big table's design. It was essentially a Map<byte[], SortedMap<byte[], Cell>> where the Comparator of the sorted map was changed based on schema. It did not differentiate rows and columns within a partition, and it lead to massive amounts redundant data and was redesigned to fit the query language better.
Some more references:
Explanation of motivation of 3.0 change by DataStax here
Blog post by TLP has a good detailed explanation of the new disk format
CASSANDRA-8099
Related
I understand that two tables with same partition columns and values have same token generated. Does that mean that all the cells of this partition in both tables are actually in the same partition ? How does Cassandra store data internally ?
Eg:
Create table table1 (emp_id int PRIMARY KEY, name text, role text);
Create table table2 (emp_id int PRIMARY KEY, name text, role text);
INSERT INTO table1(emp_id, name, role) VALUES (1, 'sahil', 'MTS');
INSERT INTO table2(emp_id, name, role) VALUES (1, 'sahil', 'MTS');
SELECT token(emp_id) from table1 where token(emp_id) = token(11596);
system.token(emp_id)
----------------------
**7447223576279188802**
SELECT token(emp_id) from table2 where token(emp_id) = token(1);
system.token(emp_id)
----------------------
**7447223576279188802**
For your example, because both tables have the same partition key, then when identical values are inserted, they will be mapped to the same token. It is on insert that the hash function to the PK is applied to determine what replica will get the data. If you use the Murmur3 partitioner (which is used by default) then you get a consistent token value, i.e. using the same PK and PK value, the result is the same. You can reference this page for understanding:
https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra-oss/3.x/cassandra/architecture/archDataDistributeHashing.html
Rows (items of data) that have the same table and the same partition key are said to be in the same partition. The most important consequence of being in the same partition is that data in the same partition is guaranteed to be co-located - handled by the same replica nodes and in ScyllaDB, even by the same CPU. This allows efficiently scanning a partition: All the partition's data can be read from a single node and Cassandra doesn't to go back and forth between replicas to read the various pieces of the partition and combine them. This is also what allows a node that handles the partition's full data to maintain it sorted by the clustering key: A process called compaction is merging different pieces of a sorted partition (these are sstables, or sorted string tables) into a bigger sorted partition.
When you have two different tables in the same keyspace, and use the same partition key in both, they are not stored physically on disk together - because each table has its own set of sstables (files on disk), so in that sense they are not "in the same partition". However, the co-location property which I mentioned earlier still holds (if the two tables are in the same keyspace): Two identically-keyed partitions in the two tables will be stored on exactly the same node. Why is this important/useful? Usually it isn't. One place where this knowledge can become useful is that it can be used in some situations to achieve atomic batch write to both tables at once, utilizing the fact that all replicas will see both writes together, whereas usually two writes to two tables go to different nodes at different times.
Let's say I have a table like this
CREATE TABLE request(
transaction_id text,
request_date timestamp,
data text,
PRIMARY KEY (transaction_id)
);
The transaction_id is unique, so as far as I understand each partition in this table would have one row only and I'm not sure if this situation causes a performance issue in the OS, maybe because Cassandra creates a file for each partition causing lots of files to manage for its hosting OS, as a note I'm not sure how Cassandra creates its files for its tables.
In this scenario I can find a request by its transaction_id like
select data from request where transaction_id = 'abc';
If the previous assumption is correct, a different approach could be the next one?
CREATE TABLE request(
the_date date,
transaction_id text,
request_date timestamp,
data text,
PRIMARY KEY ((the_date), transaction_id)
);
The field the_date would change every next day, so the partitions in the table would be created for each day.
In this scenario I would have to have the_date data always available to the client so I can find a request using the next query
select data from request where the_date = '2020-09-23' and transaction_id = 'abc';
Thank you in advance for your kind help!
Cassandra doesn't create a separate file for each partition. One SSTable file may contain multiple partitions. Partitions that consist only of one row are often called "skinny rows" - they aren't very bad, but may cause some performance issues:
to access such partitions you still need to read a block with compressed data (by default it's 64Kb) that needs to be decompressed to read that data. If you're doing really random access, such blocks would be discarded from file cache and needs to be re-read from disk. In this case, it's maybe useful to decrease the block size
if you have a lot of such partitions per table per node - this may heavily increase the size of the bloom filter, because each partition has a separate entry in it. I saw some customers that had tens of gigabytes of memory allocated for bloom filter only because of the skinny partitions
so it's really depends on the amount of data, access patterns, etc. It could be good or bad, depends on that factors.
If you have date available, and want to use it as part partition key - that may also not advisable because if you're writing and reading a lot of data on that day, then only some nodes will handle that load - this is so-called "hot partitions".
You may implement so-called bucketing, when you infer partition key from the data. But this will depend on the data available. For example, if you have date + transaction ID as a string, you may create partition key as date + 1st character of that string - in this case you'll have N partition keys per day, that are distributed between nodes, eliminating the hot partition problem.
See the corresponding best practices doc from DataStax about that topic.
Let me not get into the different types of keys, but let me mention and shortly explain the two keys you use in your question.
PRIMARY KEY
A row MUST have a unique primary key (which identifies the row as what it is regarding equality). The primary key can be a collection of columns (as in your second example with (the_date), transaction_id) or just a single column (as in your first example with transaction_id). Nevertheless, as mentioned the important part is that for a row the primary key must be unique to identify the row.
PARTITION KEY
The partition key is actually determined based on the primary key. You can have composite partition key (you used the syntax for that in your second example, to enforce the (the_date) to be the partition key, this is actually not necessary since it would be by default the first column of the primary key).
Cassandra uses the hashed value of the (combined) partition key(s') values to determine on which node(s) the data is stored (or retrieved from when requesting data).
So the answer to your question is, it's totally ok to use the transaction_id as primary and partition key. And that is not bad practice, it's more or less pretty common practice if you have a unique identifier in your data which can be stored in one row and fulfills your needs regarding requests.
More Infos:
Hashing Explained: Consistent hashing
Defining a basic primary key
Defining a multi-column partition key
I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the partition keys & the partition key ranges in Cosmos DB. I understand generally that a partition key in cosmos db is a JSON property/path within each document that is used to evenly distribute data among multiple partitions to avoid any uneven "hot partitions" -- and partition key decides the physical placement of documents.
But its not clear to me what the partition key range is...is this just a range of literal partition keys starting from first to last grouped by each individual partition in the collection? I know the ranges can be found by performing a GET request to the endpoint https://{databaseaccount}.documents.azure.com/dbs/{db-id}/colls/{coll-id}/pkranges but just conceptionally want to be sure I understand. Also still not clear on how to granularly view the specific partition key that a specific document belongs to.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/cosmos-db/get-partition-key-ranges
You define property on your documents that you want to use as a partition key.
Cosmos db hashes value of that property for all documents in collection and maps different partition keys to different physical partitions.
Over time, your collection will grow and you might end up having, for example, 100 logical partition distributed over 5 physical partitions.
Partition key ranges are just collections of partition keys grouped by physical partitions they are mapped to.
So, in this example, you would get 5 pkranges with min/max partition key value for each.
Notice that pkranges might change because in future, as your collection grows, physical partitions will get split causing some partition keys to be moved to new physical partition causing part of the previous range to be moved to new location.
In my case I have a table structure like this:
table_1 {
entity_uuid text
,fk1_uuid text
,fk2_uuid text
,int_timestamp bigint
,cnt counter
,primary key (entity_uuid, fk1_uuid, fk2_uuid, int_timestamp)
}
The text columns are made up of random strings. However, only entity_uuid is truly random and evenly distributed. fk1_uuid and fk2_uuid have much lower cardinality and may be sparse (sometimes fk1_uuid=null or fk2_uuid=null).
In this case, I can either define only entity_uuid as the partition key or entity_uuid, fk1_uuid, fk2_uuid combination as the partition key.
And this is a LOOKUP-type of table, meaning we don't plan to do any aggregations/slice-dice based on this table. And the rows will be rotated out since we will be inserting with TTL defined for each row.
Can someone enlighten me:
What is the downside of having too many partition keys with very few
rows in each? Is there a hit/cost on the storage engine level?
My understanding is the cluster keys are ALWAYS sorted. Does that mean having text columns in a cluster will always incur tree
balancing cost?
Well you can tell where my heart lies by now. However, when all rows in a partition all TTL-ed out, that partition still lives, or is there a way they will be removed by the DB engine as well?
Thanks,
Bing
The major and possibly most significant difference between having big partitions and small partitions is the ability to do range scans. If you want to be able to do scan queries like
SELECT * FROM table_1 where entity_id = x and fk1_uuid > something
Then you'll need to have the clustering column for performance, otherwise this query would be difficult (a multi-get at best, full table scan at worst.) I've never heard of any cases where having too many partitions is a drag on performance but having too wide a partition (ie lots of clustering column values) can cause issues when you get into the 1B+ cell range.
In terms of the cost of clustering, it is basically free at write time (in memory sort is very very fast) but you can incur costs at read time as partitions become spread amongst various SSTables. Small partitions which are written once will not occur the merge penalty since they will most likely only exist in 1 SSTable.
TTL'd partitions will be removed but be sure to read up on GC_GRACE_SECONDS to see how Cassandra actually deals with removing data.
TL;DR
Everything is dependent on your read/write pattern
No Range Scans? No need for clustering keys
Yes Range Scans? Clustering keys a must
Reading several papers and documents on internet, I found many contradictory information about the Cassandra data model. There are many which identify it as a column oriented database, other as a row-oriented and then who define it as a hybrid way of both.
According to what I know about how Cassandra stores file, it uses the *-Index.db file to access at the right position of the *-Data.db file where it is stored the bloom filter, column index and then the columns of the required row.
In my opinion, this is strictly row-oriented. Is there something I'm missing?
If you take a look at the Readme file at Apache Cassandra git repo, it says that,
Cassandra is a partitioned row store. Rows are organized into tables
with a required primary key.
Partitioning means that Cassandra can distribute your data across
multiple machines in an application-transparent matter. Cassandra will
automatically repartition as machines are added and removed from the
cluster.
Row store means that like relational databases, Cassandra organizes
data by rows and columns.
Column oriented or columnar databases are stored on disk column wise.
e.g: Table Bonuses table
ID Last First Bonus
1 Doe John 8000
2 Smith Jane 4000
3 Beck Sam 1000
In a row-oriented database management system, the data would be stored like this: 1,Doe,John,8000;2,Smith,Jane,4000;3,Beck,Sam,1000;
In a column-oriented database management system, the data would be stored like this:
1,2,3;Doe,Smith,Beck;John,Jane,Sam;8000,4000,1000;
Cassandra is basically a column-family store
Cassandra would store the above data as,
"Bonuses" : {
row1 : { "ID":1, "Last":"Doe", "First":"John", "Bonus":8000},
row2 : { "ID":2, "Last":"Smith", "First":"Jane", "Bonus":4000}
...
}
Also, the number of columns in each row doesn't have to be the same. One row can have 100 columns and the next row can have only 1 column.
Read this for more details.
Yes, the "column-oriented" terminology is a bit confusing.
The model in Cassandra is that rows contain columns. To access the smallest unit of data (a column) you have to specify first the row name (key), then the column name.
So in a columnfamily called Fruit you could have a structure like the following example (with 2 rows), where the fruit types are the row keys, and the columns each have a name and value.
apple -> colour weight price variety
"red" 100 40 "Cox"
orange -> colour weight price origin
"orange" 120 50 "Spain"
One difference from a table-based relational database is that one can omit columns (orange has no variety), or add arbitrary columns (orange has origin) at any time. You can still imagine the data above as a table, albeit a sparse one where many values might be empty.
However, a "column-oriented" model can also be used for lists and time series, where every column name is unique (and here we have just one row, but we could have thousands or millions of columns):
temperature -> 2012-09-01 2012-09-02 2012-09-03 ...
40 41 39 ...
which is quite different from a relational model, where one would have to model the entries of a time series as rows not columns. This type of usage is often referred to as "wide rows".
You both make good points and it can be confusing. In the example where
apple -> colour weight price variety
"red" 100 40 "Cox"
apple is the key value and the column is the data, which contains all 4 data items. From what was described it sounds like all 4 data items are stored together as a single object then parsed by the application to pull just the value required. Therefore from an IO perspective I need to read the entire object. IMHO this is inherently row (or object) based not column based.
Column based storage became popular for warehousing, because it offers extreme compression and reduced IO for full table scans (DW) but at the cost of increased IO for OLTP when you needed to pull every column (select *). Most queries don't need every column and due to compression the IO can be greatly reduced for full table scans for just a few columns. Let me provide an example
apple -> colour weight price variety
"red" 100 40 "Cox"
grape -> colour weight price variety
"red" 100 40 "Cox"
We have two different fruits, but both have a colour = red. If we store colour in a separate disk page (block) from weight, price and variety so the only thing stored is colour, then when we compress the page we can achieve extreme compression due to a lot of de-duplication. Instead of storing 100 rows (hypothetically) in a page, we can store 10,000 colour's. Now to read everything with the colour red it might be 1 IO instead of thousands of IO's which is really good for warehousing and analytics, but bad for OLTP if I need to update the entire row since the row might have hundreds of columns and a single update (or insert) could require hundreds of IO's.
Unless I'm missing something I wouldn't call this columnar based, I'd call it object based. It's still not clear on how objects are arranged on disk. Are multiple objects placed into the same disk page? Is there any way of ensuring objects with the same meta data go together? To the point that one fruit might contain different data than another fruit since its just meta data or xml or whatever you want to store in the object itself, is there a way to ensure certain matching fruit types are stored together to increase efficiency?
Larry
The most unambiguous term I have come across is wide-column store.
It is a kind of two-dimensional key-value store, where you use a row key and a column key to access data.
The main difference between this model and the relational ones (both row-oriented and column-oriented) is that the column information is part of the data.
This implies data can be sparse. That means different rows don't need to share the same column names nor number of columns. This enables semi-structured data or schema free tables.
You can think of wide-column stores as tables that can hold an unlimited number of columns, and thus are wide.
Here's a couple of links to back this up:
This mongodb article
This Datastax article mentions it too, although it classifies Cassandra as a key-value store.
This db-engines article
This 2013 article
Wikipedia
Column Family does not mean it is column-oriented. Cassandra is column family but not column-oriented. It stores the row with all its column families together.
Hbase is column family as well as stores column families in column-oriented fashion. Different column families are stored separately in a node or they can even reside in different node.
IMO that's the wrong term used for Cassandra. Instead, it is more appropriate to call it row-partition store. Let me provide you some details on it:
Primary Key, Partitioning Key, Clustering Columns, and Data Columns:
Every table must have a primary key with unique constraint.
Primary Key = Partition key + Clustering Columns
# Example
Primary Key: ((col1, col2), col3, col4) # primary key uniquely identifies a row
# we need to choose its components partition key
# and clustering columns so that each row can be
# uniquely identified
Partition Key: (col1, col2) # decides on which node to store the data
# partitioning key is mandatory, and it
# can be made up of one column or multiple
Clustering Columns: col3, col4 # decides arrangement within a partition
# clustering columns are optional
Partition key is the first component of Primary key. Its hashed value is used to determine the node to store the data. The partition key can be a compound key consisting of multiple columns. We want almost equal spreads of data, and we keep this in mind while choosing primary key.
Any fields listed after the Partition Key in Primary Key are called Clustering Columns. These store data in ascending order within the partition. The clustering column component also helps in making sure the primary key of each row is unique.
You can use as many clustering columns as you would like. You cannot use the clustering columns out of order in the SELECT statement. You may choose to omit using a clustering column in you SELECT statement. That's OK. Just remember to sue them in order when you are using the SELECT statement. But note that, in your CQL query, you can not try to access a column or a clustering column if you have not used the other defined clustering columns. For example, if primary key is (year, artist_name, album_name) and you want to use city column in your query's WHERE clause, then you can use it only if your WHERE clause makes use of all of the columns which are part of primary key.
Tokens:
Cassandra uses tokens to determine which node holds what data. A token is a 64-bit integer, and Cassandra assigns ranges of these tokens to nodes so that each possible token is owned by a node. Adding more nodes to the cluster or removing old ones leads to redistributing these token among nodes.
A row's partition key is used to calculate a token using a given partitioner (a hash function for computing the token of a partition key) to determine which node owns that row.
Cassandra is Row-partition store:
Row is the smallest unit that stores related data in Cassandra.
Don't think of Cassandra's column family (that is, table) as a RDBMS table, but think of it as a dict of a dict (here dict is data structure similar to Python's OrderedDict):
the outer dict is keyed by a row key (primary key): this determines which partition and which row in partition
the inner dict is keyed by a column key (data columns): this is data in dict with column names as keys
both dict are ordered (by key) and are sorted: the outer dict is sorted by primary key
This model allows you to omit columns or add arbitrary columns at any time, as it allows you to have different data columns for different rows.
Cassandra has a concept of column families(table), which originally comes from BigTable. Though, it is really misleading to call them column-oriented as you mentioned. Within each column family, they store all columns from a row together, along with a row key, and they do not use column compression. Thus, the Bigtable model is still mostly row-oriented.