I use Azure Table storage as a time series database. The database is constantly extended with more rows, (approximately 20 rows per second for each partition). Every day I create new partitions for the day's data so that all partition have a similar size and never get too big.
Until now everything worked flawlessly, when I wanted to retrieve data from a specific partition it would never take more than 2.5 secs for 1000 values and on average it would take 1 sec.
When I tried to query all the data of a partition though things got really really slow, towards the middle of the procedure each query would take 30-40 sec for 1000 values.
So I cancelled the procedure just to re start it for a smaller range. But now all queries take too long. From the beginning all queries need 15-30 secs. Can that mean that data got rearranged in a non efficient way and that's why I am seeing this dramatic decrease in performance? If yes is there a way to handle such a rearrangement?
I would definitely recommend you to go over the links Jason pointed above. You have not given too much detail about how you generate your partition keys but from sounds of it you are falling into several anti patterns. Including by applying Append (or Prepend) and too many entities in a single partition. I would recommend you to reduce your partition size and also put either a hash or a random prefix to your partition keys so they are not in lexicographical order.
Azure storage follows a range partitioning scheme in the background, so even if the partition keys you picked up are unique, if they are sequential they will fall into the same range and potentially be served by a single partition server, which would hamper the ability of azure storage service overall to load balance and scale out your storage requests.
The other aspect you should think is how you are reading the entities back, the best recommendation is point query with partition key and row key, worst is a full table scan with no PK and RK, there in the middle you have partition scan which in your case will also be pretty bad performance due to your partition size.
One of the challenges with time series data is that you can end up writing all your data to a single partition which prevents Table Storage from allocating additional resources to help you scale. Similarly for read operations you are constrained by potentially having all your data in a single partition which means you are limited to 2000 entities / second - whereas if you spread your data across multiple partitions you can parallelize the query and yield far greater scale.
Do you have Storage Analytics enabled? I would be interested to know if you are getting throttled at all or what other potential issues might be going on. Take a look at the Storage Monitoring, Diagnosing and Troubleshooting guide for more information.
If you still can't find the information you want please email AzTableFeedback#microsoft.com and we would be happy to follow up with you.
The Azure Storage Table Design Guide talks about general scalability guidance as well as patterns / anti-patterns (see the append only anti-pattern for a good overview) which is worth looking at.
Related
We would like to store a set of documents in Cosmos DB with a primary key of EventId. These records are evenly distributed across a number of customers. Clients need to access the latest records for a subset of customers as new documents are added. The documents are immutable, and need to be stored indefinitely.
How should we design our partition key and queries to avoid clients all hitting the same partitions and/or high RU usage?
If we use just CustomerId as the partition key, we would eventually run over the 10GB limit for a logical partition, and if we use EventId, then querying becomes inefficient (would result in a cross-partition query, and high RU usage, which we'd like to avoid).
Another idea would be to group documents into blocks. i.e. PartitionKey = int(EventId / PartitionSize). This would result in all clients hitting the latest partition(s), which presumably would result in poor performance and throttling.
If we use a combined PartitionKey of CustomerId and int(EventId / PartitionSize), then it's not clear to me how we would avoid a cross-partition query to retrieve the correct set of documents.
Edit:
Clarification of a couple of points:
Clients will access the events by specifying a list of CustomerId's, the last EventId they received, and a maximum number of records to retrieve.
For this reason, the use of EventId alone won't perform well, as it will result in a cross partition query (i.e. WHERE EventId > LastEventId).
The system will probably be writing on the order of 1GB a day, in 15 minute increments.
It's hard to know what the read volume will be, but I'd guess probably moderate, with maybe a few thousand clients polling the API at regular intervals.
So first thing first, logical partitions size limit has now been increased to 20GB, please see here.
You can use EventID as a partition as well, as you have limit of logical partition's size in GB but you have no limit on amount of logical partitions. So using EventID is fine, you will get a point to point read which is very fast if you query using the EventID. Now you mention using this way you will have to do cross-partition queries, can you explain how?
Few things to keep in mind though, Cosmos DB is not really meant for storing this kind of Log based data as it stores everything in SSDs so please calculate how much is your 1 document size and how many in a second would you have to store then how much in a day to how much in a month. You can use TTL to delete from Cosmos when done though and for long term storage store it in Azure BLOB Storage and for fast retrievals use Azure Search to query the data in BLOB by using CustomerID and EventID in your search query.
How should we design our partition key and queries to avoid clients all hitting the same partitions and/or high RU usage?
I faced a similar issue some time back and a PartitionKey with customerId + datekey e.g. cust1_20200920 worked well for me.
I created the date key as 20200920 (YYYYMMDD), but you can choose to ignore the date part or even the month (cust1_202009 /cust1_2020), based on your query requirement.
Also, IMO, if there are multiple known PartitionKeys at a query time it's kind of a good thing. For example, if you keep YYYYMM as the PartitionKey and want to get data for 4 months, you can run 4 queries in parallel and combine the data. Which is faster if you have many clients and these Partition Keys are distributed among multiple physical partitions.
On a separate note, Cosmos Db has recently introduced an analytical store for the transactional data which can be useful for your use case.
More about it here - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/analytical-store-introduction
One approach is using multiple Cosmos containers as "hot/cold" tiers with different partitioning. We could use two containers:
Recent: all writes and all queries for recent items go here. Partitioned by CustomerId.
Archive: all items are copied here for long term storage and access. Partitioned by CustomerId + timespan (e.g. partition per calendar month)
The Recent container would provide single partition queries by customer. Data growth per partition would be limited either by setting reasonable TTL during creation, or using a separate maintenance job (perhaps Azure Function on timer) to delete items when they are no longer candidates for recent-item queries.
A Change Feed processor, implemented by an Azure Function or otherwise, would trigger on each creation in Recent and make a copy into Archive. This copy would have partition key combining the customer ID and date range as appropriate to limit the partition size.
This scheme should provide efficient recent-item queries from Recent and safe long-term storage in Archive, with reasonable Archive query efficiency given a desired date range. The main downside is two writes for each item (one for each container) -- but that's the tradeoff for efficient polling. Whether this tradeoff is worthwhile is probably best determined by simulating the load and observing performance.
I would like to optimise my Azure Cosmos DB SQL API queries for consumed RUs (in part in order to reduce the frequency of 429 responses).
Specifically I thought that including the partition key in WHERE clauses would decrease consumed RUs (e.g. I read https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/optimize-cost-queries and https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/partitioning-overview which made me think this).
However, when I run
SELECT TOP 1 *
FROM c
WHERE c.Field = "some value"
AND c.PartitionKeyField = "1234"
ORDER BY c.TimeStampField DESC
It consumes 6 RUs.
Whereas without the partition key, e.g.
SELECT TOP 1 *
FROM c
WHERE c.Field = "some value"
ORDER BY c.TimeStampField DESC
It consumes 5.76 RUs - i.e. cheaper.
(whilst there is some variation in the above numbers depending on the exact document selected, the second query is always cheaper, and I have tested against both the smallest and largest partitions.)
My database currently has around 400,000 documents and 29 partitions (both are expected to grow). Largest partition has around 150,000 documents (unlikely to grow further than this).
The above results indicate to me that I should not pass the partition key in the WHERE clause for this query. Please could someone explain why this is so as from the documentation I thought the opposite should be true?
There might a few reasons and it depends on which index the query engine decides to use or if there is an index at all.
First thing I can say is that there is likely not much data in this container because queries without a partition key get progressively more expensive the larger the container, especially when they span physical partitions.
The first one could be more expensive if there is no index on the partition key and did a scan on it after filtering by the c.field.
It could also be more expensive depending on whether there is a composite index and whether it used it.
Really though you cannot take query metrics for small containers and extrapolate. The only way to measure is to put enough data into the container. Also the amount here is so small that it's not worth optimizing over. I would put the amount of data into this container you expect to have once in production and re-run your queries.
Lastly, with regards to measuring and optimizing, pareto principle applies. You'll go nuts chasing down every optimization. Find your high concurrency queries and focus on those.
Hope this is helpful.
I need to capture time-series sensor data in Cassandra. The best practices for handling time-series data in DynamoDB is as follow:
Create one table per time period, provisioned with write capacity less than 1,000 write capacity units (WCUs).
Before the end of each time period, prebuild the table for the next period.
As soon as a table is no longer being written to, reduce its provisioned write capacity. Also reduce the provisioned read capacity of earlier tables as they age, and archive or delete the ones whose contents will rarely or never be needed.
Now I am wondering how I can implement the same concept in Cassandra! Is there any way to manually configure write/read capacity in Cassandra as well?
This really depends on your own requirements that you need to discuss with development, etc.
There are several ways to handle time-series data in Cassandra:
Have one table for everything. As Chris mentioned, just include the time component into partition key, like a day, and store data per sensor/day. If the data won't be updated, and you know in advance how long they will be kept, so you can set TTL to data, then you can use TimeWindowCompactionStrategy. Advantage of this approach is that you have only one table and don't need to maintain multiple tables - that's make easier for development and maintenance.
The same approach as you described - create a separate table for period of time, like a month, and write data into them. In this case you can effectively drop the whole table when data "expires". Using this approach you can update data if necessary, and don't require to set TTL on data. But this requires more work for development and ops teams as you need to reach multiple tables. Also, take into account that there are some limits on the number of tables in the cluster - it's recommended not to have more than 200 tables as every table requires a memory to keep metadata, etc. Although, some things, like, a bloom filter, could be tuned to occupy less memory for tables that are rarely read.
For cassandra just make a single table but include some time period in the partition key (so the partitions do not grow indefinitely and get too large). No table maintenance and read/write capacity is really more dependent on workload and schema, size of cluster etc but shouldn't really need to be worried about except for sizing the cluster.
I have some software which collects data over a large period of time, approx 200 readings per second. It uses an SQL database for this. I am looking to use Azure to move a lot of my old "archived" data to.
The software uses a multi-tenant type architecture, so I am planning to use one Azure Table per Tenant. Each tenant is perhaps monitoring 10-20 different metrics, so I am planning to use the Metric ID (int) as the Partition Key.
Since each metric will only have one reading per minute (max), I am planning to use DateTime.Ticks.ToString("d19") as my RowKey.
I am lacking a little understanding as to how this will scale however; so was hoping somebody might be able to clear this up:
For performance Azure will/might split my table by partitionkey in order to keep things nice and quick. This would result in one partition per metric in this case.
However, my rowkey could potentially represent data over approx 5 years, so I estimate approx 2.5 million rows.
Is Azure clever enough to then split based on rowkey as well, or am I designing in a future bottleneck? I know normally not to prematurely optimise, but with something like Azure that doesn't seem as sensible as normal!
Looking for an Azure expert to let me know if I am on the right line or whether I should be partitioning my data into more tables too.
Few comments:
Apart from storing the data, you may also want to look into how you would want to retrieve the data as that may change your design considerably. Some of the questions you might want to ask yourself:
When I retrieve the data, will I always be retrieving the data for a particular metric and for a date/time range?
Or I need to retrieve the data for all metrics for a particular date/time range? If this is the case then you're looking at full table scan. Obviously you could avoid this by doing multiple queries (one query / PartitionKey)
Do I need to see the most latest results first or I don't really care. If it's former, then your RowKey strategy should be something like (DateTime.MaxValue.Ticks - DateTime.UtcNow.Ticks).ToString("d19").
Also since PartitionKey is a string value, you may want to convert int value to a string value with some "0" prepadding so that all your ids appear in order otherwise you'll get 1, 10, 11, .., 19, 2, ...etc.
To the best of my knowledge, Windows Azure partitions the data based on PartitionKey only and not the RowKey. Within a Partition, RowKey serves as unique key. Windows Azure will try and keep data with the same PartitionKey in the same node but since each node is a physical device (and thus has size limitation), the data may flow to another node as well.
You may want to read this blog post from Windows Azure Storage Team: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazurestorage/archive/2010/11/06/how-to-get-most-out-of-windows-azure-tables.aspx.
UPDATE
Based on your comments below and some information from above, let's try and do some math. This is based on the latest scalability targets published here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazurestorage/archive/2012/11/04/windows-azure-s-flat-network-storage-and-2012-scalability-targets.aspx. The documentation states that:
Single Table Partition– a table partition are all of the entities in a
table with the same partition key value, and usually tables have many
partitions. The throughput target for a single table partition is:
Up to 2,000 entities per second
Note, this is for a single partition, and not a single table. Therefore, a table with good partitioning, can process up to the
20,000 entities/second, which is the overall account target described
above.
Now you mentioned that you've 10 - 20 different metric points and for for each metric point you'll write a maximum of 1 record per minute that means you would be writing a maximum of 20 entities / minute / table which is well under the scalability target of 2000 entities / second.
Now the question remains of reading. Assuming a user would read a maximum of 24 hours worth of data (i.e. 24 * 60 = 1440 points) per partition. Now assuming that the user gets the data for all 20 metrics for 1 day, then each user (thus each table) will fetch a maximum 28,800 data points. The question that is left for you I guess is how many requests like this you can get per second to meet that threshold. If you could somehow extrapolate this information, I think you can reach some conclusion about the scalability of your architecture.
I would also recommend watching this video as well: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/4-004.
Hope this helps.
Everyone warns not to query against anything other than RowKey or PartitionKey in Azure Table Storage (ATS), lest you be forced to table scan. For a while, this has paralyzed me into trying to come up with exactly the right PK and RK and creating pseudo-secondary indexes in other tables when I needed to query something else.
However, it occurs to me that I would commonly table scan in SQL Server when I thought appropriate.
So the question becomes, how fast can I table scan an Azure Table. Is this a constant in entities/second or does it depend on record size, etc. Are there some rules of thumb as to how many records is too many to table scan if you want a responsive application?
The issue of a table scan has to do with crossing the partition boundaries. The level of performance you are guaranteed is explicity set at the partition level. therefore, when you run a full table scan, its a) not very efficient, b) doesn't have any guarantee of performance. This is because the partitions themselves are set on seperate storage nodes, and when you run a cross partition scan, you're consuming potentially massive amounts of resources (tieing up multiple nodes simultaneously).
I believe, that the effect of crossing these boundaries also results in continuation tokens, which require additional round-trips to storage to retrieve the results. This results then in reducing performance, as well as an increase in transaction counts (and subsequently cost).
If the number of partitions/nodes you're crossing is fairly small, you likely won't notice any issues.
But please don't quote me on this. I'm not an expert on Azure Storage. Its actually the area of Azure I'm the least knowledgeable about. :P
I think Brent is 100% on the money, but if you still feel you want to try it, I can only suggest to run some tests to find out yourself. Try include the partitionKey in your queries to prevent crossing partitions because at the end of the day that's the performance killer.
Azure tables are not optimized for table scans. Scanning the table might be acceptable for a long-running background job, but I wouldn't do it when a quick response is needed. With a table of any reasonable size you will have to handle continuation tokens as the query reaches a partition boundary or obtains 1k results.
The Azure storage team has a great post which explains the scalability targets. The throughput target for a single table partition is 500 entities/sec. The overall target for a storage account is 5,000 transactions/sec.
The answer is Pagination. Use the top_size -- max number of results or records in result -- in conjunction with next_partition_key and next_row_key the continuation tokens. That makes a significant even factorial difference in performance. For one, your results are statistically more likely to come from a single partition. Plain results show that sets are grouped by the partition continuation key and not the row continue key.
In other words, you also need to think about your UI or system output. Don't bother returning more than 10 to 20 results max 50. The user probably wont utilize or examine any more.
Sounds foolish. Do a Google search for "dog" and notice that the search returns only 10 items. No more. The next records are avail for you if you bother to hit 'continue'. Research has proven that almost no user ventures beyond that first page.
the select (returning a subset of the key-values) may make a difference; for example, use select = "PartitionKey,RowKey" or 'Name' whatever minimum you need.
"I believe, that the effect of crossing these boundaries also results
in continuation tokens, which require additional round-trips to
storage to retrieve the results. This results then in reducing
performance, as well as an increase in transaction counts (and
subsequently cost)."
...is slightly incorrect. the continuation token is used not because of crossing boundaries but because azure tables permit no more than 1000 results; therefore the two continuation tokens are used for the next set. default top_size is essentially 1000.
For your viewing pleasure, here's the description for queries entities from the azure python api. others are much the same.
'''
Get entities in a table; includes the $filter and $select options.
table_name: Table to query.
filter:
Optional. Filter as described at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/dd894031.aspx
select: Optional. Property names to select from the entities.
top: Optional. Maximum number of entities to return.
next_partition_key:
Optional. When top is used, the next partition key is stored in
result.x_ms_continuation['NextPartitionKey']
next_row_key:
Optional. When top is used, the next partition key is stored in
result.x_ms_continuation['NextRowKey']
'''