I am trying to learn cassandra. One thing I am not clear is how to ask Cassandra to distribute various tables. ie say I have time series data coming into table t1,t2,t3
T1 is heavily loaded ( ratio is 2000: 2:4 for num of rows).
I want the data of T1 for a given day to be not on the same machine as T2 or T3; so my queries are equally distributed ie not put too much load on one machine.
Also as the data gets older, its queried less, how can I take into account this factor.
regards
Cassandra is automatically distributed, you do not have a direct control on how the data gets distributed. In most cases, by default it makes use of an md5 on the row key and depending on that selects which nodes (computers) will be used to save the data.
What you are talking about would be more of a planning for a standard SQL database. However, if you generate extremely large amount of statistical data that is only to be used by some backend processes and users, you could have a separate cluster of 2 or 3 nodes. That way your other tables would not be affected by those statistics.
However, the true power of Cassandra is to be used with one large cluster. If it slows down, add nodes to it and do the necessary repair to spread the data properly. That's it... pretty much.
As for the way a table is used, you can use all the parameters defined on a table to tweak its setup. If you mainly do writes to a table, then you can tweak the parameters to get faster writes and slower reads. The other way around is also available: one write, many reads. And also many writes and many reads. To tweak those settings, in most cases you will need to have your software running and gather various stats and make changes as time passes.
Update:
There is actually a solution, thinking about it, just... I never use that mode so I did not think about it.
When you use a cluster which supports sorted rows, you can use a specific row name and the data will then go to a specific node. Again, you do not directly have control over what goes where, but if you really really want to do it that way, that's probably the solution you are looking for.
In this case, the row name would start with a number such as 0x0001 for T1 data, and 0x0100 and 0x0200 for T2 and T3. Since you do not know where the data really goes and how Cassandra decides to use it, it is rather complicated to obtain the right results here. And if you change your cluster (i.e. add nodes) then all your assumptions of where the data goes may very well go to the toilet! (and that's not speaking of upgrading to a new version of Cassandra...)
Related
I have a single structured row as input with write rate of 10K per seconds. Each row has 20 columns. Some queries should be answered on these inputs. Because most of the queries needs different WHERE, GROUP BY or ORDER BY, The final data model ended up like this:
primary key for table of query1 : ((column1,column2),column3,column4)
primary key for table of query2 : ((column3,column4),column2,column1)
and so on
I am aware of the limit in number of tables in Cassandra data model (200 is warning and 500 would fail)
Because for every input row I should do an insert in every table, the final write per seconds became big * big data!:
writes per seconds = 10K (input)
* number of tables (queries)
* replication factor
The main question: am I on the right path? Is it normal to have a table for every query even when the input rate is already so high?
Shouldn't I use something like spark or hadoop instead of relying on bare datamodel? Or event Hbase instead of Cassandra?
It could be that Elassandra would resolve your problem.
The query system is quite different from CQL, but the duplication for indexing would automatically be managed by Elassandra on the backend. All the columns of one table will be indexed so the Elasticsearch part of Elassandra can be used with the REST API to query anything you'd like.
In one of my tests, I pushed a huge amount of data to an Elassandra database (8Gb) going non-stop and I never timed out. Also the search engine remained ready pretty much the whole time. More or less what you are talking about. The docs says that it takes 5 to 10 seconds for newly added data to become available in the Elassandra indexes. I guess it will somewhat depend on your installation, but I think that's more than enough speed for most applications.
The use of Elassandra may sound a bit hairy at first, but once in place, it's incredible how fast you can find results. It includes incredible (powerful) WHERE for sure. The GROUP BY is a bit difficult to put in place. The ORDER BY is simple enough, however, when (re-)ordering you lose on speed... Something to keep in mind. On my tests, though, even the ORDER BY equivalents was very fast.
My table is a time series one. The queries are going to process the latest entries and TTL expire them after successful processing. If they are not successfully processed, TTL will not set.
The only query I plan to run on this is to select all entries for a given entry_type. They will be processed and records corresponding to processed entries will be expired.
This way every time I run this query I will get all records in the table that are not processed and processing will be done. Is this a reasonable approach?
Would using a listenablefuture with my own executor add any value to this considering that the thread doing the select is just processing.
I am concerned about the TTL and tombstones. But if I use clustering key of timeuuid type is this ok?
You are right one important thing getting in your way will be tombstones. By Default you will keep them around for 10 days. Depending on your access patter this might cause significant problems. You can lower this by setting the directly on the table or change it in the cassandra yaml file. Then it will be valid for all the newly created table gc_grace_seconds
http://docs.datastax.com/en/cql/3.1/cql/cql_reference/tabProp.html
It is very important that you make sure you are running the repair on whole cluster once within this period. So if you lower this setting to let's say 2 days, then within two days you have to have one full repair done on the cluster. This is very important because processed data will reaper. I saw this happening multiple times, and is never pleasant especially if you are using cassandra as a queue and it seems to me that you might be using it in your solution. I'll try to give some tips at the end of the answer.
I'm slightly worried about you setting the ttl dynamically depending on result. What would be the point of inserting the ttl-ed data that was successful and keeping forever the data that wasn't. I guess some sort of audit or something similar. Again this is a queue pattern, try to avoid this if possible. Also one thing to keep in mind is that you will almost always insert the data once in the beginning and then once again with the ttl should your processing be o.k.
Also getting all entries might be a bit tricky. For very moderate load 10-100 req/s this might be reasonable but if you have thousands per second getting all the requests every time might not be a good idea. At least not if you put them into single partition.
Separating the workload is also good idea. So yes using listenable future seems totally legit.
Setting clustering key to be timeuuid is usually the case with time series thata and I totally agree with you on this one.
In reality as I mentioned earlier you have to to take into account you will be saving 10 days worth of data (unless you tweak it) no matter what you do, it doesn't matter if you ttl it. It's still going to be ther, and every time cassandra will scan the partition will have to read the ttl-ed columns. In short this is just pain. I would seriously consider actually using something as kafka if I were you because what you are describing simply looks to me like a queue.
If you still want to stick with cassandra then please consider using buckets (adding date info to partitioning key and having a composite partitioning key). Depending on the load you are expecting you will have to bucket by month, week, day, hour even minutes. In some cases you might even want to add artificial columns to reduce load on the cluster. But then again this might be out of scope of this question.
Be very careful when using cassandra as a queue, it's a known antipattern. You can do it, but there are a lot of variables and it extremely depends on the load you are using. I once consulted a team that sort of went down the path of cassandra as a queue. Since basically using cassandra there was a must I recommended them bucketing the data by day (did some calculations that proved this is o.k. time unit) and I also had a look at this solution https://github.com/paradoxical-io/cassieq basically there are a lot of good stuff in this repo when using cassandra as a queue, data models etc. Basically this team had zombie rows, slow reading because of the tombstones etc. etc.
Also the way you described it it might happen that you have "hot rows" basically since you would just have one wide partition where all your data would go some nodes in the cluster might not even be that good utilised. This can be avoided by artificial columns.
When using cassandra as a queue it's very easy to mess a lot of things up. (But it's possible for moderate workloads)
I built a Twitter clone, and the row that stores Justin Bieber’s profile (some very famous person with a lot of followers) is read incredibly often. The server that stores it seems to be overloaded. Can I buy a bigger server just for that row? By the way, it isn’t updated very often.
The short answer is that Cloud Spanner does not offer different server configurations, except to increase your number of nodes.
If you don't mind reading stale data, one way to increase read throughput is to use read-only, bounded-staleness transactions. This will ensure that your reads for these rows can be served from any replica of the split(s) that owns those rows.
If you wanted to go even further, you might consider a data modeling tradeoff that makes writes more expensive but reads cheaper. One way of doing that would be to manually shard that row (for example by creating N copies of it with different primary keys). When you want to read the row, a client can pick one to read at random. When you update it, just update all the copies atomically within a single transaction. Note that this approach is rarely used in practice, as very few workloads truly have the characteristics you are describing.
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.
Background
We have recently started a "Big Data" project where we want to track what users are doing with our product - how often they are logging in, which features they are clicking on, etc - your basic user analytics stuff. We still don't know exactly what questions we will be asking, but most of it will be "how often did X occur over the last Y months?" type of thing, so we started storing the data sooner rather than later thinking we can always migrate, re-shape etc when we need to but if we don't store it it is gone forever.
We are now looking at what sorts of questions we can ask. In a typical RDBMS, this stage would consist of slicing and dicing the data in many different dimensions, exporting to Excel, producing graphs, looking for trends etc - it seems that for Cassandra, this is rather difficult to do.
Currently we are using Apache Spark, and submitting Spark SQL jobs to slice and dice the data. This actually works really well, and we are getting the data we need, but it is rather cumbersome as there doesn't seem to be any native API for Spark that we can connect to from our workstations, so we are stuck using the spark-submit script and a Spark app that wraps some SQL from the command line and outputs to a file which we then have to read.
The question
In a table (or Column Family) with ~30 columns running on 3 nodes with RF 2, how bad would it be to add an INDEX to every non-PK column, so that we could simply query it using CQL across any column? Would there be a horrendous impact on the performance of writes? Would there be a large increase in disk space usage?
The other option I have been investigating is using Triggers, so that for each row inserted, we populated another handful of tables (essentially, custom secondary index tables) - is this a more acceptable approach? Does anyone have any experience of the performance impact of Triggers?
Impact of adding more indexes:
This really depends on your data structure, distribution and how you access it; you were right before when you compared this process to RDMS. For Cassandra, it's best to define your queries first and then build the data model.
These guys have a nice write-up on the performance impacts of secondary indexes:
https://pantheon.io/blog/cassandra-scale-problem-secondary-indexes
The main impact (from the post) is that secondary indexes are local to each node, so to satisfy a query by indexed value, each node has to query its own records to build the final result set (as opposed to a primary key query where it is known exactly which node needs to be quired). So there's not just an impact on writes, but on read performance as well.
In terms of working out the performance on your data model, I'd recommend using the cassandra-stress tool; you can combine it with a data modeler tool that Datastax have built, to quickly generate profile yamls:
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/data-modeler
For example, I ran the basic stress profile without and then with secondary indexes on the default table, and the "with indexes" batch of writes took a little over 40% longer to complete. There was also an increase in GC operations / duration etc.