Without partitioning there is 10GB limit on each collection in Azure in MongoDB(Used the drivers on top of DocumentDB) and I have a collection whose size is 50GB.
Currently I have divided data on basis of a field and stored them in 6 different collections.
Should I be doing the partitioning (Don't know how to do it) or there is a way to increase this size limit?
DocumentDB collection management really has nothing to do with MongoDB access protocol. Collections are either non-partitioned (10GB cap) or partitioned (250GB and beyond).
How you divide your data between collections is up to you. But keep these things in mind when deciding between multiple non-partitioned collections and a single partitioned collection:
The collection serves as a partition boundary, which includes stored procedures. If you need to work with content across collections, this could be an issue with your app, depending on its logic.
Non-partitioned collections have Request Unit (RU) scale from 400-10,000. Partitioned collections start at 10,100 2,500 RU. Depending on your app budget, this could impact your collection decision.
You cannot convert a collection from non-partitioned <--> partitioned. If you decide to change the collection type, you'll need to create a new collection and move data between collections.
Related
I am unable to find any documentation mentioning how are cosmos db indexes organized per the number of physical partitions. If i have my logical partition split into multiple physical partitions and assuming i am not including a partition key in the filter and have created an index on the field i am querying with.
What would the behavior be in terms of index. Does cosmos create an individual index per physical partition or a centrally maintained global index?
Can someone please explain what the behavior could be in such a case or point to some documentation in azure which explains how this would work.
A physical partition is simply a compute and storage node on which your data resides. A partition key within your WHERE clause routes the query to the partition where that data resides. Indexes reside within each partition and index the data for that partition only. Partitions are share nothing. In addition to routing, partition keys must also be included in your index policy when used in queries.
A query without a partition key in the filter will fan out to every partition within a container. At small scales (< 10K RU/s or < 50GB) this isn't much of an issue because the data is all located on a single physical partition. However, as the amount of storage and throughput grows, this query will likely become increasingly more expensive with greater latency. In short, the query will not scale. This is because as the size grows, so does the number of physical partitions that must be contacted to serve the same query.
More information here, Tuning query performance with Azure Cosmos DB and here, Indexing Overview
Perhaps this ms learn article provides the information you are looking for or this one for more details.
A Logical partition is mapped to only one physical partition;
Physical partitions are an internal implementation of the system and they are entirely managed by Azure Cosmos DB.
Azure Cosmos DB will automatically create new physical partitions by splitting existing ones
Kind regards
I'm setting up our first Azure Cosmos DB - I will be importing into the first collection, the data from a table in one of our SQL Server databases. In setting up the collection, I'm having trouble understanding the meaning and the requirements around the partition key, which I specifically have to name while setting up this initial collection.
I've read the documentation here: (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/documentdb-partition-data) and still am unsure how to proceed with the naming convention of this partition key.
Can someone help me understand how I should be thinking in naming this partition key? See the screenshot below for the field I'm trying to fill in.
In case it helps, the table I'm importing consists of 7 columns, including a unique primary key, a column of unstructured text, a column of URL's and several other secondary identifiers for that record's URL. Not sure if any of that information has any bearing on how I should name my Partition Key.
EDIT: I've added a screenshot of several records from the table from which I'm importing, per request from #Porschiey.
Honestly the video here* was a MAJOR help to understanding partitioning in CosmosDb.
But, in a nutshell:
The PartitionKey is a property that will exist on every single object that is best used to group similar objects together.
Good examples include Location (like City), Customer Id, Team, and more. Naturally, it wildly depends on your solution; so perhaps if you were to post what your object looks like we could recommend a good partition key.
EDIT: Should be noted that PartitionKey isn't required for collections under 10GB. (thanks David Makogon)
* The video used to live on this MS docs page entitled, "Partitioning and horizontal scaling in Azure Cosmos DB", but has since been removed. A direct link has been provided, above.
Partition key acts as a logical partition.
Now, what is a logical partition, you may ask? A logical partition may vary upon your requirements; suppose you have data that can be categorized on the basis of your customers, for this customer "Id" will act as a logical partition and info for the users will be placed according to their customer Id.
What effect does this have on the query?
While querying you would put your partition key as feed options and won't include it in your filter.
e.g: If your query was
SELECT * FROM T WHERE T.CustomerId= 'CustomerId';
It will be Now
var options = new FeedOptions{ PartitionKey = new PartitionKey(CustomerId)};
var query = _client.CreateDocumentQuery(CollectionUri,$"SELECT * FROM T",options).AsDocumentQuery();
I've put together a detailed article here Azure Cosmos DB. Partitioning.
What's logical partition?
Cosmos DB designed to scale horizontally based on the distribution of data between Physical Partitions (PP) (think of it as separately deployable underlaying self-sufficient node) and logical partition - bucket of documents with same characteristic (partition key) which is supposed to be stored fully on the same PP. So LP can't have part of the data on PP1 and another on PP2.
There are two main limitation on Physical Partitions:
Max throughput: 10k RUs
Max data size (sum of sizes of all LPs stored in this PP): 50GB
Logical partition has one - 20GB limit in size.
NOTE: Since initial releases of Cosmos DB size limits grown and I won't be surprised that soon size limitations might increase.
How to select right partition key for my container?
Based on the Microsoft recommendation for maintainable data growth you should select partition key with highest cardinality (like Id of the document or a composite field). For the main reason:
Spread request unit (RU) consumption and data storage evenly across all logical partitions. This ensures even RU consumption and storage distribution across your physical partitions.
It is critical to analyze application data consumption pattern when considering right partition key. In a very rare scenarios larger partitions might work though in the same time such solutions should implement data archiving to maintain DB size from a get-go (see example below explaining why). Otherwise you should be ready to increasing operational costs just to maintain same DB performance and potential PP data skew, unexpected "splits" and "hot" partitions.
Having very granular and small partitioning strategy will lead to an RU overhead (definitely not multiplication of RUs but rather couple additional RUs per request) in consumption of data distributed between number of physical partitions (PPs) but it will be neglectable comparing to issues occurring when data starts growing beyond 50-, 100-, 150GB.
Why large partitions are a terrible choice in most cases even though documentation says "select whatever works best for you"
Main reason is that Cosmos DB is designed to scale horizontally and provisioned throughput per PP is limited to the [total provisioned per container (or DB)] / [number of PP].
Once PP split occurs due to exceeding 50GB size your max throughput for existing PPs as well as two newly created PPs will be lower then it was before split.
So imagine following scenario (consider days as a measure of time between actions):
You've created container with provisioned 10k RUs and CustomerId partition key (which will generate one underlying PP1). Maximum throughput per PP is 10k/1 = 10k RUs
Gradually adding data to container you end-up with 3 big customers with C1[10GB], C2[20GB] and C3[10GB] of invoices
When another customer was onboarded to the system with C4[15GB] of data Cosmos DB will have to split PP1 data into two newly created PP2 (30GB) and PP3 (25GB). Maximum throughput per PP is 10k/2 = 5k RUs
Two more customers C5[10GB] C6[15GB] were added to the system and both ended-up in PP2 which lead to another split -> PP4 (20GB) and PP5 (35GB). Maximum throughput per PP is now 10k/3 = 3.333k RUs
IMPORTANT: As a result on [Day 2] C1 data was queried with up to 10k RUs
but on [Day 4] with only max to 3.333k RUs which directly impacts execution time of your query
This is a main thing to remember when designing partition keys in current version of Cosmos DB (12.03.21).
CosmosDB can be used to store any limit of data. How it does in the back end is using partition key. Is it the same as Primary key? - NO
Primary Key: Uniquely identifies the data
Partition key helps in sharding of data(For example one partition for city New York when city is a partition key).
Partitions have a limit of 10GB and the better we spread the data across partitions, the more we can use it. Though it will eventually need more connections to get data from all partitions. Example: Getting data from same partition in a query will be always faster then getting data from multiple partitions.
Partition Key is used for sharding, it acts as a logical partition for your data, and provides Cosmos DB with a natural boundary for distributing data across partitions.
You can read more about it here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/partition-data
Each partition on a table can store up to 10GB (and a single table can store as many document schema types as you like). You have to choose your partition key though such that all the documents that get stored against that key (so fall into that partition) are under that 10GB limit.
I'm thinking about this too right now - so should the partition key be a date range of some type? In that case, it would really depend on how much data is getting stored in a period of time.
You are defining a logical partition.
Underneath, physically the data is split into physical partitions by Azure.
Ideally a partitionKey should be a primary Key, or a field with high cardinality to ensure proper distribution, with the self generated id field within that partition also set to the primary key, that will help with documentFetchById much faster.
You cannot change a partitionKey once container is created.
Looking at the dataset, captureId is a good candidate for partitionKey, with id set manually to this field, and not an auto generated cosmos one.
There is documentation available from Microsoft about partition keys. According to me you need to check the queries or operations that you plan to perform with cosmos DB. Are they read-heavy or write-heavy? if read heavy it is ideal to choose a partition key in the where clause that will be used in the query, if it is a write heavy operation then look for a key which has high cardinality
Always point reads /writes are better since it consumes way less RU's than running other queries
In Azure Cosmos DB partinioned collection, does each partition has any size limit?
As per this old document, they have a size limit of 10 GB. Is that the same now also?
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/blog/10-things-to-know-about-documentdb-partitioned-collections/
Regards,
Karthikeyan V.
A partitioned collection has individual 10GB partition spaces. For a given partition key, you cannot exceed 10GB of data. This has not changed.
You'll need to pick a partition key which distributes your data across many partitions, vs creating "hot" partitions which could fill up (where you'd then get an error when attempting to write content).
There are two type of collection
Single Partition Collection (10GB and 10,000 RU/s)
Partitioned Collection (250 GB and 250,000 RU/s)- you can increase the limit as needed after contacting azure team.
For partitioned collection you mush have to specify a partition key based on your query filter for better read performance and if you will not mention it will be by default single partition collection.
Note: Collection is a logical space and it can span across multiple node(hence quorum) in background based on the RU and other param, in short it's a PAAS and the infra handling is automated behind the screen, you will not have much control over it.
More info here:
Partitioning and horizontal scaling in Azure Cosmos DB
We are using DocumentDB on azure. We have a single database with 7 collection, each having maximum 15 records. It does not require much storage.
Only a few developers are using this DB instance. So traffic is also below average.
Still this server is using 67,600 RUs per day. There must be some problem with DocumentDB settings. So, I'm looking for direction to analyse exactly how these RUs are charged and how to reduce it?
There's no problem with DocumentDB settings. You provisioned 7 collections. By default, via the portal, each collection is assigned 1000 RU (which you have at your disposal, regardless whether you use 0 RU or all 1000 RU). The minimum RU setting for a non-partitioned collection is 400.
EDIT - I misread - if you're at 67,000 RU, then you have likely provisioned several partitioned collections (which start at 10,100 RU). For initial dev/test, with only 15 documents, you've grossly over-allocated capacity.
Since you provisioned seven collections (which are likely partitioned, based on your RU sizing), you have a ~70,000 RU deployment. Regardless what you actually consume (you're essentially reserving capacity).
I have no idea what your app needs are, and whether you need 7 collections for some specific reason. But... objectively speaking, there is no rule that says you need to separate different document types into different collections. You can easily store heterogeneous data within a single collection. How you query for specific types is really up to you, but it's trivial to add something like a type property to each document).
Note, since I now believe you're using partitioned collections: You cannot convert these to non-partitioned collections; you'll need to create new non-partitioned collections and move your data from your partitioned collections. (given that you have 15 total documents, this should be trivial).
Note that a single non-partitioned collection may be scaled down to 400 RU. If you then combine your 7 collections into 1 collection, you should be able to reduce your consumption from ~70,000 => 400. (at least during dev/test).
EDIT As of February 2017, the minimum RU for partitioned collections dropped to 2,500 (from the original 10,100 minimum). In December 2017, it dropped again, to 1,000.
It's common for people new to DocumentDB to think of a collection similar to a table in SQL or even what MongoDB calls a "collection". However, DocumentDB is designed differently. It's best to use a single partitioned collection to store all document types and partition on something like geography, tenant, or user. You'll distinguish document types with a type = <MyType> field or I actually prefer to use myType = true approach so I can model inheritance and mixins.
This means, you'll only need to pay for a single partitioned collection. A single partitioned collection may still end up costing you more than table storage, but if you want DocumentDB's near infinite scalability later on, then I highly recommend you start out the way I'm describing.
One more note about David's suggestion to go with non-partitioned collections. That was the only option when DocumentDB first launched but it's now recommended to use partitioned collections. I suspect that non-partitioned collection option may be phased out at some point. You interact with them slightly differently and as David pointed out, there is currently no conversion assistance (especially if you use multiple non-partitioned collections) so transitioning later from non-partitioned collections to a partitioned collection is not hard but it's not as simple as changing your partition type and will cost you development effort. It'll cost you a little more to have a single partitioned collection than a single non-partitioned collection, but it's worth it to save transition costs later, IMHO and it'll cost you less to have a single partitioned collection than it costs to have seven non-partitioned ones.
Is there any way to convert partition collection to non-partition collection in azure Document Db and vice-versa?
You cannot convert a collection between partitioned and non-partitioned. Partition keys are defined when partitioned collections are created and cannot be added (or removed) later.
To shift from non-partitioned to partitioned (or from partitioned to non-partitioned), you'll need to copy the data between two collections (this is called out specifically in the DocumentDB guidance published here).
Please note that the non-partitioned collections have a limit on storage and throughput. If you are ok with limiting to 10 GB and restrict the throughput within 10000 RUPS, then you could copy the data back to non-partitioned collection.
You could alternatively start with a partitioned collection with minimal throughput. This way if your scale needs change, your partitioning is in place.
Feel free to contact Azure support if you want the default limits to be adjusted - https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/documentdb-increase-limits/