I am finding some difficulties in the data modeling of an application which may involve the use of counters.
The app is basically a messaging app. Messages are bounded for free users, hence the initial plan of using a counter column to keep track of the total count.
I've discovered that batches (logged or not) cannot contain operations on both standard tables and counter ones. How do I ensure correctness if I cannot batch the operation I am trying to perform and the counter update together? Is the counter type really needed if there's basically no race condition on the column, being that associated to each individual user?
My second idea would be to use a standard int column to use only inside batches. Is this a viable option?
Thank you
If you can absolutely guarantee that each user will produce only one update at time then you could rely on plain ints to perform the job.
The problem however is that you will need to perform a read-before-write anti-pattern. You could solve this as well, eg skipping the read part by caching your ints and performing in-memory updates followed by writes only. This is viable by coupling your system with a caching server (e.g. Redis).
And thinking about it, you should still need to read these counters at some point, because if the number of messages a free user can send is bound to some value then you need to perform a check when they login/try to send a new message/look at the dashboard/etc and block their action.
Another option (if you store the messages sent by each user somewhere and don't want to add complexity to your system) could be to directly count them with a SELECT COUNT... type query, even if this could be become pretty inefficient very soon in the Cassandra world.
Related
I am new to ES7 and trying to understand optimistic concurrency control.
I think I understand that when I get-request a document and send its _seq_no and _primary_term values in a later write-request to the same document, if the values differ, the write will be completely ignored.
But what happens to the document in the default case where I don't send the _seq_no and _primary_term values? Will the write go through even if it has older _seq_no and _primary_term values (therefore making the index inconsistent), or only be processed if the values are newer?
If the former, will the document eventually be consistent?
I'm trying to figure out if I need to send these values to get eventual consistency or if I get it for free without sending those values.
It's a great distributed system question. Let me break down the problem into sub-parts for readability and even before explain what is _seq_no and _primary_term as there isn't much explanation of those on the ES site.
_seq_no is the incremental counter which is assigned to ES document for each operation(update, delete, index), for example:- the first time you index a doc, it will have value 1, next update will have 2, next delete operation will have three and so on. Read operation doesn't update it.
_primary_term is the also an incremental counter, but change only when a replica shard is promoted as primary, due to network or any other failure, so if everything is excellent in your cluster it will not be changed, but in case of some failure and other replica promoted to primary then it would be increased.
Coming to the first question,
Q:- What happens to the document in the default case where I don't send the _seq_no and _primary_term values?
Ans:- you can have lost update issue, suppose you have a counter which you are updating, simultaneously 2 requests read the counter value to 1 and trying to increment by 1. now when you don't specify these above terms explicitly, then it's calculated by ES.
Now both the requests reach simultaneously to ES, then ES(primary shard) will process them one by one by increasing the sequence number, so at the end, your counter will have value 2, instead of 3. to make sure this doesn't happen, you pass these term values explicitly, and when ES tries to update them will see different sequence number and will reject your request.
To prevent such lost updates, use-cases, its always recommended sending explicit version number.
Q:- I'm trying to figure out if I need to send these values to get eventual consistency or if I get it for free without sending those values..
Answer:- These are related to concurrency control and nothing to deal with eventual consistency. In ES, write always happens to primary shards, but read can happen to any replicas(may contain obsolete data), which makes ES eventual consistent.
Important read
https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-sequence-ids-6-0
It seems to me that using IF would make the statement possibly fail if re-tried. Therefore, the statement is not idempotent. For instance, given the CQL below, if it fails because of a timeout or system problem and I retry it, then it may not work because another person may have updated the version between retries.
UPDATE users
SET name = 'foo', version = 4
WHERE userid = 1
IF version = 3
Best practices for updates in Cassandra are to make updates idempotent, yet the IF operator is in direct opposition to this. Am I missing something?
If your application is idempotent, then generally you wouldn't need to use the expensive IF clause, since all your clients would be trying to set the same value.
For example, suppose your clients were aggregating some values and writing the result to a roll up table. Each client would calculate the same total and write the same value, so it wouldn't matter if multiple clients wrote to it, or what order they wrote to it, since it would be the same value.
If what you are actually looking for is mutual exclusion, such as keeping a bank balance, then the IF clause could be used. You might read a row to get the current balance, then subtract some money and update the balance only if the balance hadn't changed since you read it. If another client was trying to add a deposit at the same time, then it would fail and would have to try again.
But another way to do that without mutual exclusion is to write each withdrawal and deposit as a separate clustered transaction row, and then calculate the balance as an idempotent result of applying all the transaction rows.
You can use the IF clause for idempotent writes, but it seems pointless. The first client to do the write would succeed and Cassandra would return the value "applied=True". And the next client to try the same write would get back "applied=False, version=4", indicating that the row had already been updated to version 4 so nothing was changed.
This question is more about linerizability(ordering) than idempotency I think. This query uses Paxos to try to determine the state of the system before applying a change. If the state of the system is identical then the query can be retried many times without a change in the results. This provides a weak form of ordering (and is expensive) unlike most Cassandra writes. Generally you should only use CAS operations if you are attempting to record state of a system (rather than a history or log)
Do not use many of these queries if you can help it, the guidelines suggest having only a small percentage of your queries rely on this behavior.
Ok so a simple task such as generating a sequential number has caused us an issue in the cloud.
Where you have more than one server it gets harder and harder to guarantee that the allocated number between servers are not clashing.
We are using Azure servers if it helps.
We thought about using the app cache but you cannot guarantee it will be updated between servers.
We are limited to using:
a SQL table with an identity column
or
some peer to peer method between servers
or
use a blob store and utalise the locks to store the nost upto date number. (this could have scaling issues)
I just wondered of anyone has an idea of a solution to resolve this?
Surely its a simple problem and must have been solved by now.
If you can live with a use-case where sometimes the numbers you get from this central location are not always sequential (but guaranteed to be unique) I would suggest considering the following pattern. I've helped an large e-commerce client implement this since they needed unique int PK's to synchronize back to premise:
Create a queue and create a small always-running process that populates this queue with sequential integers (this process should remember which number it generated last and keep replenishing the pool with more numbers once the queue gets close to be empty)
Now, you can have your code first poll the next number from the queue, delete it from the queue and then attempt to save it into the SQL Azure database. In case of failure, all you'll have is a "hole" in your sequential numbers. In scenarios with frequent inserts, you may be saving things out of order to the database (two processes poll from queue, one polls first but saves last, the PK's saved to the database are not sequential anymore)
The biggest downside is that you now have to maintain/monitor a process that replenishes the pool of PK's.
After read this, I would not trust on identity column.
I think the best way is before insert, get the last stored id and increment it by one. (programatically). Another option is create a trigger, but it could be a mass if you'll receive a lot of concurrent requests on DB or if your table have millions of records.
create trigger trigger_name
on table_name
after insert
as
declare #seq int
set #seq = (select max(id) + 1 from table_name)
update table_name
set table_name.id = #seq
from table_name
inner join inserted
on table_name.id = inserted.id
More info:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/ee336242.aspx
If you're worried about scaling the number generation when using blobs, then you can use the SnowMaker library which is available on GitHub and Nuget. It gets around the scale problem by retrieving blocks of ids into a local cache. This guarantees that the Ids are unique, but not necessarily sequential if you have more than one server. I'm not sure if that would achieve what you're after.
Suppose I store a list of events in a Cassandra row, implemented with composite columns:
{
event:123 => 'something happened'
event:234 => 'something else happened'
}
It's almost fine by me, and, as far as I understand, that's a common pattern. Comparing to having a single column event with the jsonized list, that scales better since it's easy to add a new item to the list without reading it first and then writing back.
However, now I need to implement these two requirements:
I don't want to add a new event if the last added one is the same,
I want to keep only N last events.
Is there any standard way of doing that with the best possible performance? (Any storage schema changes are ok).
Checking whether or not things already exist, or checking how many that exist and removing extra items, are both read-modify-write operations, and they don't fit very well with the constraints of Cassandra.
One way of keeping only the N last events is to make sure they are ordered so that you can do a range query and read the N last (for example prefixing the column key with a timestamp/TimeUUID). This wouldn't remove the outdated events, that you need to do as a separate process, but by doing it this way the code that queries the data will only see the last N, which is the real requirement if I interpret things correctly. The garbage collection of old events is just an optimization to avoid keeping things that will never be needed again.
If the requirement isn't a strict N events, but events that are not older than T you can of course use the TTL feature, but I assume that it's not an option for you.
The first requirement is trickier. You can do a read before ever write and check if you have an item, but that would be slow, and unless you do some kind of locking outside of Cassandra there is no guarantee that two writers won't do both do a read and then both do a write, so that neither sees the other's write. Maybe that's not a problem for you, but there's no good way around it. Cassandra doesn't do CAS.
The way I've handled similar situations when using Cassandra is to keep a cache in the application nodes of what has been written, and check that before writing. You then need to make sure that each application node sees all events for the same row, and that events for the same row aren't distributed over multiple application nodes. One way of doing that is to have a message queue system in front of your application nodes, and divide the event stream over several queues by the same key as you use as row key in the database.
I execute batch update which modifies few rows within few column families. In case of TimedOutException some data could be modified, but possibly not whole set....
In order to implement compensating transaction, I would need to know what data (rows) was modified - is there a way to find this out? Does exception contain this information?
Thanks,
Maciej
Creating a system that can scale out means taking some trade-offs - one of these is facilitating "idempotent" operations in your application.
This means that you would either:
assume that the data was written somewhere and that the node will
eventually become consistent
fire the entire contents of the write again, perhaps sleeping a given amount of time or
at a less restrictive consistency level
A good description of this approach can be found in section 6 of Pat Helland's "Building on Quicksand" paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1788