I've read some MSDN articles about Azure Table Storage and some techniques/strategies on PartitionKeys selection and how that can benefit performance on scalable solutions.
One thing that had my attention were stress tests, something that was mentioned here.
But I couldn't find many examples of them.
How to perform these tests then and under which situations?
Stress testing is trying out a system at normal (and extreme) load(s) to figure out its limitations. The idea is to create conditions similar to the intended production system, then perform various actions which are similar to the actions that will be performed by your application, measuring their performance.
By stress testing Azure Tables, you'll be able to make sure that it'll be able to support the load generated by your application. It'll also allow you to play with different partitioning strategies and see their effect on performance.
To perform such a stress test, design a partitioning/keying strategy, then fill an Azure Table with a typical amount of data for your application. Then perform insertions, updates, queries and other actions as fast as possible and see if the performance meets your demands.
Related
I have a requirement where I need to choose between Mapping Data Flow vs SQL Stored Procedures in an ADF pipeline to implement some business scenarios. The data volume is not too huge now but might get larger at a later stage.
The business logic are at times complex where I will have to join multiple tables, write sub queries, use windows functions, nested case statements, etc.
All of my business requirements could be easily implemented through a SP but there is a slight inclination towards mapping data flow considering that it runs spark underneath and can scale up as required.
Does ADF Mapping data flow has an upper hand over SQL Stored Procedures when used in an ADF pipeline?
Some of the concerns that I have with the mapping data flow are as below.
Time taken to implement complex logic using data flows is much more
than a stored procedure
The execution time for a mapping data flow is
much higher considering the time it takes to spin up the spark
cluster.
Now, if I decide to use SQL SPs in the pipeline, what could be the disadvantages?
Would there be issues with the scalability if the data volume grows rapidly at some point in time?
This is kind of an opinion question which doesn't tend to do well on stackoverflow, but the fact you're comparing Mapping Data Flows with stored procs tells me that you have Azure SQL Database (or similar) and Azure Data Factory (ADF) in your architecture.
If you think about the fact Mapping Data Flows is backed by Spark clusters, and you already have Azure SQL DB, then what you really have is two types of compute. So why have both? There's nothing better than SQL at doing joins, nested queries etc. Azure SQL DB can easily be scaled up and down (eg via its REST API) - that seemed to be one of your points.
Having said that, Mapping Data Flows is powerful and offers a nice low-code experience. So if your requirement is to have low-code with powerful transforms then it could be a good choice. Just bear in mind that if your data is already in a database and you're using Mapping Data Flows, that what you're doing is taking data out of SQL, up into a Spark cluster, processing it, then pushing it back down. This seems like duplication to me, and I reserve Mapping Data Flows (and Databricks notebooks) for things I cannot already do in SQL, eg advanced analytics, hard maths, complex string manipulation might be good candidates. Another use case might be work offloading, where you deliberately want to offload work from your db. Just remember the cost implication of having two types of compute running at the same time.
I also saw an example recently where someone had implemented a slowly changing dimension type 2 (SCD2) using Mapping Data Flows but had used 20+ different MDF components to do it. This is low-code in name only to me, with high complexity, hard to maintain and debug. The same process can be done with a single MERGE statement in SQL.
So my personal view is, use Mapping Data Flows for things that you can't already do with SQL, particularly when you already have SQL databases in your architecture. I personally prefer an ELT pattern, using ADF for orchestration (not MDF) which I regard as easier to maintain.
Some other questions you might ask are:
what skills do your team have? SQL is a fairly common skill. MDF is still low-code but niche.
what skills do your support team have? Are you going to train them on MDF when you hand this over?
how would you rate the complexity and maintainability of the two approaches, given the above?
HTH
One disadvantage with using SP's in your pipeline, is that your SP will run directly against the database server. So if you have any other queries/transactions or jobs running against the DB at the same time that your SP is executing you may experience longer run times for each (depending on query complexity, records read, etc.). This issue could compound as data volume grows.
We have decided to use SP's in our organization instead of Mapping Data Flows. The cluster spin up time was an issue for us as we scaled up. To address the issue I mentioned previously with SP's, we stagger our workload, and schedule jobs to run during off-peak hours.
I have a requirement to write upto 500k records daily to Azure SQL DB using an ADF pipeline.
I had simple calculations as part of the data transformation that can performed in a SQL Stored procedure activity. I've also observed Databricks Notebooks being used commonly, esp. due to benefits of scalability going forward. But there is an overhead activity of placing files in another location after transformation, managing authentication etc. and I want to avoid any over-engineering unless absolutely required.
I've tested SQL Stored Proc and it's working quite well for ~50k records (not yet tested with higher volumes).
But I'd still like to know the general recommendation between the 2 options, esp. from experienced Azure or data engineers.
Thanks
I'm not sure there is enough information to make a solid recommendation. What is the source of the data? Why is ADF part of the solution? Is this 500K rows once per day or a constant stream? Are you loading to a Staging table then using SPROC to move and transform the data to another table?
Here are a couple thoughts:
If the data operation is SQL to SQL [meaning the same SQL instance for both source and sink], then use Stored Procedures. This allows you to stay close to the metal and will perform the best. An exception would be if the computational load is really complicated, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Generally speaking, the only reason to call Data Bricks from ADF is if you already have that expertise and the resources already exist to support it.
Since ADF is part of the story, there is a middle ground between your two scenarios - Data Flows. Data Flows are a low-code abstraction over Data Bricks. They are ideal for in-flight data transforms and perform very well at high loads. You do not author or deploy notebooks, nor do you have to manage the Data Bricks configuration. And they are first class citizens in ADF pipelines.
As an experienced (former) DBA, Data Engineer and data architect, I cannot see what Databricks adds in this situation. This piece of the architecture you might need to scale is the target for the INSERTs, ie Azure SQL Database which is ridiculously easy to scale either manually via the portal or via the REST API, if even required. Consider techniques such as loading into heaps and partition switching if you need to tune the insert.
The overhead of adding an additional component to your architecture and then taking your data through would have to be worth it, plus the additional cost of spinning up Spark clusters at the same time your db is running.
Databricks is a superb tool and has a number of great use cases, eg advanced data transforms (ie things you cannot do with SQL), machine learning, streaming and others. Have a look at this free resource for a few ideas:
https://databricks.com/p/ebook/the-big-book-of-data-science-use-cases
We are currently working on a design using Azure functions with Azure storage queue binding.
Each message in the queue represents a complete transaction. An Azure function will be bound to that queue so that the function will be triggered as soon as there is a new message in the queue.
The function will then commit the transaction in a SQL DB.
The first-cut implementation is also complete; and it's working fine. However, on retrospective, we are considering the following:
In a typical DAL, there are well-established design patterns using entity framework, repository patterns, etc. However, we didn't find a similar guidance/best practices when implementing DAL within a server-less code.
Therefore, my question is: should such patterns be implemented with Azure functions (this would be challenging :) ), or should the server-less code be kept as light as possible or this is not a use-case for azure functions, at all?
It doesn't take anything too special. We're using a routine set of library DLLs for all kinds of things -- database, interacting with other parts of Azure (like retrieving Key Vault secrets for connection strings), parsing file uploads, business rules, and so on. The libraries are targeting netstandard20 so we can more easily migrate to Functions v2 when the right triggers become available.
Mainly just design your libraries so they're highly modularized, so you can minimize how much you load to get the job done (assuming reuse in other areas of the system is important, which it usually is).
It would be easier if dependency injection was available today. See this for a few ways some of us have hacked it together until we get official DI support. (DI is on the roadmap for Functions, I believe the 3.0 release.)
At first I was a little worried about startup time with the library approach, but the underlying WebJobs stack itself is already pretty heavy, and Functions startup performance seems to vary wildly anyway (on the cheaper tiers, at least). During testing, one of our infrequently-executed Functions has varied from just ~300ms to a peak of about ~3800ms to parse the exact same test file, with all but ~55ms spent on startup).
should such patterns be implemented with Azure functions (this would
be challenging :) ), or should the server-less code be kept as light
as possible or this is not a use-case for azure functions, at all?
My answer is NO.
There should be patterns to follow, but the traditional repository patterns and CRUD operations do not seem to be valid in the cloud era.
Many strong concepts we were raised up to adhere to, became invalid these days.
Denormalizing the data base became something not only acceptable but preferable.
Now designing a pattern will depend on the database you selected for your solution and also depends of the type of your application and the type of your data.
This is a link for general guideline when you do Table Storage design Guidelines.
Is your application read-heavy or write-heavy ? The design will vary accordingly.
Are you using Azure Tables or Mongo? There are design decisions based on that. Indexing is important in Mongo while there is non in Azure table that you can do.
Sharding consideration.
Redundancy Consideration.
In modern development/Architecture many principles has changed, each Microservice has its own database that might be totally different that any other Microservices'.
If you read along the guidelines that I provided, you will see what I mean.
Designing your Table service solution to be read efficient:
Design for querying in read-heavy applications. When you are designing your tables, think about the queries (especially the latency sensitive ones) that you will execute before you think about how you will update your entities. This typically results in an efficient and performant solution.
Specify both PartitionKey and RowKey in your queries. Point queries such as these are the most efficient table service queries.
Consider storing duplicate copies of entities. Table storage is cheap so consider storing the same entity multiple times (with different keys) to enable more efficient queries.
Consider denormalizing your data. Table storage is cheap so consider denormalizing your data. For example, store summary entities so that queries for aggregate data only need to access a single entity.
Use compound key values. The only keys you have are PartitionKey and RowKey. For example, use compound key values to enable alternate keyed access paths to entities.
Use query projection. You can reduce the amount of data that you transfer over the network by using queries that select just the fields you need.
Designing your Table service solution to be write efficient:
Do not create hot partitions. Choose keys that enable you to spread your requests across multiple partitions at any point of time.
Avoid spikes in traffic. Smooth the traffic over a reasonable period of time and avoid spikes in traffic.
Don't necessarily create a separate table for each type of entity. When you require atomic transactions across entity types, you can store these multiple entity types in the same partition in the same table.
Consider the maximum throughput you must achieve. You must be aware of the scalability targets for the Table service and ensure that your design will not cause you to exceed them.
Another good source is this link:
I've read a bit about microservices and the favored approach appears to be a separate database for each microservice. With regards to Azure's CosmosDB, would that mean a separate Table for each service? What's the best way to architect this?
There are a huge variety of factors to consider here which ultimately means there is no right answer to this question and it will be very specific to the nature of the application you're trying to build. As such, broad statements attempting to offer "general" advice and patterns should be taken with a huge grain of salt. With Cosmos a few of the many high level things to consider when making your decisions are as follows:
Partitioning: Cosmos collections support almost infinite scale based on the selection of an appropriate partition key. So, for example you could have a single collection and separate your services such that they each write to a distinct partition key. This would provide you with a form of service multi-tenancy which might be perfectly appropriate for your particular application. However, throughput is also scaled at the collection level so if certain services have much higher read and/or write requirements this may not work for you and could be an indication that that particular service should use it's own collection which can be scaled independently.
Cost: You're billed per collection with a minimum throughput requirement. Depending on the number and nature of your micro services this could result in exponentially higher costs for little gain.
Isolation: Again, depending on the nature of your application you might have a hard business requirement that data from different services be physically separate from each other which would force you to use separate collections.
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there is absolutely no right answer to this question. You need to weight the pros/cons very carefully in the context of the solution you are trying to build and select the approach that is right for you.
I need to create incremental reports in the table storage. I need to be able to update the same records from several different worker role instances (different roles with several instances each).
My reports consist mainly of values that I need to increment after I parse the raw data I initially stored.
The optimistic solution I found is to use a retry mechanism: Try to update the record. If you get a 412 result code (you don't have the latest ETAG value), retry. This solution becomes less efficient and more costly the more users you have and the more data you need to update simultaneously (my case exactly).
Another solution that comes to mind is to have only one instance of one worker role that can possibly update any given record. This is very problematic because this means that I will by-design create bottlenecks in my architecture, which is the opposite of the scale I want to reach with Azure.
If anyone here has some best practices in mind for such a use case, I would love to hear it.
Most cloud storages (Table Storage is one of those) do not offer scalable writes on a single entity/blob/whatever. There is no quick-fix for this limitation, as this limitation comes from the core tradeoff that have being made to create cloud storage in the first place.
Basically, a storage unit (entity/blob/whatever) can be updated about once every 20ms, and that's about it. Having a dedicated worker or not will not change anything to this aspect.
Instead, you need to address your task from from a different angle. For counters, the most usual approach is the use of sharded counters (link is for GAE, but you can implement an equivalent behavior on Azure).
Also, another way to ease the pain to go for an asynchronous architecture ala CQRS where the performance constraints you put on the update latency of entities is significantly relaxed.
I believe the approach needs re-architecture. In order to ensure scalability and limit amount of contention, you want to make sure that every write can work optimistically by providing unique Table/PartitionKey/RowKey
If you need those values for reports to be merged together, have a separate process/worker that will post-aggregated/merge the records for reporting purposes. You can use a queue or a timing mechanism to start aggregation/merging