I need a NoSQL database that will run on Windows Azure that works well for the following parameters. Right now Azure Table Storage, HBase and Cassandra seems to be the most promising options.
1 billion entities
up to 100 reads per second, though caching will mostly make it much less
around 10 - 50 writes per second
Strong consistency would be a plus, so perhaps HBase would be better than Cassandra in that regard.
Querying will often be done on a secondary in-memory database with various indexes in addition to ElasticSearch or Windows Azure Search for fulltext search and perhaps some filtering.
Azure Table Storage looks like it could be nice, but from what I can tell, the big difference between Azure Table Storage and HBase is that HBase supports updating and reading values for a single property instead of the whole entity at once. I guess there must be some disadvantages to HBase however, but I'm not sure what they would be in this case.
I also think crate.io looks like it could be interesting, but I wonder if there might be unforseen problems.
Anyone have any other ideas of the advantages and disadvantages of the different databases in this case, and if any of them are really unsuited for some reason?
I currently work with Cassandra and I might help with a few pros and cons.
Requirements
Cassandra can easily handle those 3 requirements. It was designed to have fast reads and writes. In fact, Cassandra is blazing fast with writes, mostly because you can write without doing a read.
Also, Cassandra keeps some of its data in memory, so you could even avoid the secondary database.
Consistency
In Cassandra you choose the consistency in each query you make, therefore you can have consistent data if you want to. Normally you use:
ONE - Only one node has to get or accept the change. This means fast reads/writes, but low consistency (You can have other machine delivering the older information while consistency was not achieved).
QUORUM - 51% of your nodes must get or accept the change. This means not as fast reads and writes, but you get FULL consistency IF you use it in BOTH reads and writes. That's because if more than half of your nodes have your data after you inserted/updated/deleted, then, when reading from more than half your nodes, at least one node will have the most recent information, which would be the one to be delivered.
Both this options are the ones recommended because they avoid single points of failure. If all machines had to accept, if one node was down or busy, you wouldn't be able to query.
Pros
Cassandra is the solution for performance, linear scalability and avoid single points of failure (You can have machines down, the others will take the work). And it does most of its management work automatically. You don't need to manage the data distribution, replication, etc.
Cons
The downsides of Cassandra are in the modeling and queries.
With a relational database you model around the entities and the relationships between them. Normally you don't really care about what queries will be made and you work to normalize it.
With Cassandra the strategy is different. You model the tables to serve the queries. And that happens because you can't join and you can't filter the data any way you want (only by its primary key).
So if you have a database for a company with grocery stores and you want to make a query that returns all products of a certain store (Ex.: New York City), and another query to return all products of a certain department (Ex.: Computers), you would have two tables "ProductsByStore" and "ProductsByDepartment" with the same data, but organized differently to serve the query.
Materialized Views can help with this, avoiding the need to change in multiple tables, but it is to show how things work differently with Cassandra.
Denormalization is also common in Cassandra for the same reason: Performance.
Related
Cassandra is positioned as scalable and fast database.
Why , I mean from technical details, above goals cannot be accomplished with secondary indexes?
Cassandra does indeed have secondary indexes. But secondary index usage doesn't work well with distributed databases, and it's because each node only holds a subset of the overall dataset.
I previously wrote an answer which discussed the underlying details of secondary index queries:
How do secondary indexes work in Cassandra?
While it should help give you some understanding of what's going on, that answer is written from the context of first querying by a partition key. This is an important distinction, as secondary index usage within a partition should perform well.
The problem is when querying only by a secondary index, that Cassandra cannot guarantee all of your data will be able to be served by a single node. When this happens, Cassandra designates a node as a coordinator, which in turn queries all other nodes for the specified indexed values.
Essentially, instead of performing sequential reads from a single node, secondary index usage forces Cassandra to perform random reads from all nodes. Now you don't have just disk seek time, but also network time complicating things.
The recommendation for Cassandra modeling, is to duplicate your data into new tables to support the desired query. This adds in some other complications with keeping data in-sync. But (when done correctly) it ensures that your queries can indeed be served by a single node. That's a tradeoff you need to make when building your model. You can have convenience or performance, but not both.
So yes cassandra does have secondary indexes and aaron's explaination does a great job of explaining why.
You see many people trying to solve this issue by writing their data to multiple tables. This is done so they can be sure that the data they need to answer the query that would traditionally rely on a secondary index is on the same node.
Some of the recent iterations of cassandra have this 'built in' via materialized views. I've not really used them since 3.0.11 but they are promising. The problems i had at the time were primarily adding them to tables with existing data and they had a suprisingly large amount of overhead on write (increased latency).
I am reading about NoSQL DBs (Specifically Cassandra) and It says that Cassandra is faster for writing and queries are fast as well. Schema design is done more based on queries than based on data. For example, You have queries like in this example
then I have a question, Suppose I design the RDBMS schema similar to Cassandra's way and I ensure that no joins are required for queries. Will I get any significant performance gains still by using Cassandra(NoSql DBs)?
Cannot have an exact answer but few points,
JOIN is just of the many things - Cassandra stores the data physically based on the partition keys and hence making the read by partition as fast as possible.
On the performance side - its not about the performance at the beginning but keeping the performance consistent over a period of time. Say for example you have a time series like requirement where data is inserted every second, RDBMS performance will usually degrade as the data grows and not easy to keep up the index and stats up to date etc, while cassandra will fit better for a time series pattern and as the data grows its easy to scale up by adding nodes.
On the write performance - Cassandra's write workflow itself is different and is designed in a way to take up faster (the complicated process like merging sstabls, compaction etc happens in the background without affecting the actual write).
In short - you need to review the business case and make decision.
How can I export data, over a period of time (like hourly or daily) or updated records from a Cassandra database? It seems like using an index with a date field might work, but I definitely get timeouts in my cqlsh when I try that by hand, so I'm concerned that it's not reliable to do that.
If that's not the right way, then how do people get their data out of Cassandra and into a traditional database (for analysis, querying with JOINs, etc..)? It's not a java shop, so using Spark is non-trivial (and we don't want to change our whole system to use Spark instead of cassandra directly). Do I have to read sstables and try to keep track of them that way? Is there a way to say "get me all records affected after point in time X" or "get me all changes after timestamp X" or something similar?
It looks like Cassandra is really awesome at rapidly reading and writing individual records, but beyond that Cassandra seems to not be the right tool if you want to pull its data into anything else for analysis or warehousing or querying...
Spark is the most typical to do exactly that (as you say). It does it efficiently and is used often so pretty reliable. Cassandra is not really designed for OLAP workloads but things like spark connector help bridge the gap. DataStax Enterprise might have some more options available to you but I am not sure their current offerings.
You can still just query and page through the whole data set with normal CQL queries, its just not as fast. You can even use ALLOW FILTERING just be wary as its very expensive and can impact your cluster (creating a separate dc for the workload and using LOCOL_CL queries against it helps). You will probably also in that scenario add a < token() and > token() to the where clause to split up the query and prevent too much work on any one coordinator. Organizing your data so that this query is more efficient would be strongly recommended (ie if doing time slices, put things in a partition bucketed by time and clustering key timeuuids so its sequential read for each part of time).
Kinda cheesy sounding but the CSV dump from cqlsh is actually fast and might work for you if your data set is small enough.
I would not recommend going to the sstables directly unless you are familiar with internals and using hadoop or spark.
I am using Apache Cassandra to store mostly time series data. And I am grouping the data and aggregating/counting it based on some conditions. At the moment I am doing this in a Java 8 application, but with the release of Cassandra 3.0 and the User Defined Functions, I have been asking myself if extracting the grouping and aggregation/counting logic to Cassandra is a good idea. To my understanding this functionallity is something like the stored procedures in SQL.
My concern is if this will impact the computation performance and the overall performance of the database. I am also not sure if there are other issues with it and if this new feature is something like the secondary indexes in Cassandra - you can do them, but it is not recommended at all.
Have you used user defined functions in Cassandra? Do you have any observations on the performance? What are the good and bad sides of this new functionality? Is it applicable in my use case?
You can compare it to using count() or avg() kind of aggregations. They can save you a lot of network traffic and object creation/GC by having the coordinator only send the result, but its easy to get carried away and make the coordinator do a lot of work. This extra work takes away from normal C* duties, and can just as likely increase GCs as reduce them.
If your aggregating 100 rows in a partition its probably fine and if your aggregating 10000 its probably not end of the world if its very rare. If your calling it once a second though its a problem. If your aggregating over 1000 I would be very careful.
If you absolutely need to do it and its a lot of data often, you may want to create dedicated proxy coordinators (-Djoin_ring=false) to bear the brunt of the load without impacting normal C* read/writes. At that point its just as easy to create dedicated workload DC for it or something (with RF=0 for your keyspace, and set application to be part of that DC with DCAwareRoundRobinPolicy). This also is the point where using Spark is probably the right thing to do.
This question is about NoSQL (for instance take cassandra).
Is it true that when you use a NoSQL database without data replication that you have no consistency concerns? Also not in the case of access concurrency?
What happens in case of a partition where the same row has been written in both partitions, possible multiple times? When the partition is gone, which written value is used?
Let's say you use N=5 W=3 R=3. This means you have guaranteed consistency right? How good is it to use this quorum? Having 3 nodes returning the data isn't that a big overhead?
Can you specify on a per query basis in cassandra whether you want the query to have guaranteed consistency? For instance you do an insert query and you want to enforce that all replica's complete the insert before the value is returned by a read operation?
If you have: employees{PK:employeeID, departmentId, employeeName, birthday} and department{PK:departmentID, departmentName} and you want to get the birthday of all employees with a specific department name. Two problems:
you can't ask for all the employees with a given birthday (because you can only query on the primary key)
You can't join the employee and the department column families because joins are impossible.
So what you can do is create a column family:
departmentBirthdays{PK:(departmentName, birthday), [employees-whos-birthday-it-is]}
In that case whenever an employee is fired/hired it has to be removed/added in the departmentBirthdays column family. Is this process something you have to do manually? So you have to manually create queries to update all redundant/denormalized data?
I'll answer this from the perspective of cassandra, coz that's what you seem to be looking at (hardly any two nosql stores are the same!).
For a single node, all operations are in sequence. Concurrency issues can be orthogonal though...your web client may have made a request, and then another, but due to network load, cassandra got the second one first. That may or may not be an issue. There are approaches around such problems, like immutable data. You can also leverage "lightweight transactions".
Cassandra uses last write wins to resolve conflicts. Based on you replication factor and consistency level for your query, this can work well.
Quurom for reads AND writes will give you consistency. There is an edge case..if the coordinator doesn't know a quorum node is down, it sends the write requests, then the write would complete when quorum is re-established. The client in this case would get a timeout and not a failure. The subsequent query may get the stale data, but any query after that will get latest data. This is an extreme edge case, and typically N=5, R=3, W3= will give you full consistency. Reading from three nodes isn't actually that much of an overhead. For a query with R=3, the client would make that request to the node it's connected to (the coordinator). The coordinator will query replicas in parallel (not sequenctially). It willmerge up the results with LWW to get the result (and issue read repairs etc. if needed). As the queries happen in parallel, the overhead is greatly reduced.
Yes.
This is a matter of data modelling. You describe one approach (though partitioning on birthday rather than dept might be better and result in more even distribution of partitions). Do you need the employee and department tables...are they needed for other queries? If not, maybe you just need one. If you denormalize, you'll need to maintain the data manually. In Cassandra 3.0, global indexes will allow you to query on an index without being inefficient (which is the case when using a secondary index without specifying the partition key today). Yes another option is to partition employeed by birthday and do two queries, and do the join in memory in the client. Cassandra queries hitting a partition are very fast, so doing two won't really be that expensive.