I'm trying to understand the difference between these two and the scenarios in which you would prefer to use one over the other.
My specific use case is using cassandra as an event ingestion system backed by an analytics engine that interprets the event.
My model includes
event id (the partition key)
event time (a clustering column)
event type (i'm not sure whether to use clustering column or secondary index)
I figure the most common read scenario will be to get the events over a time range hence event time is the clustering column. A less frequent read scenario might involve further filtering the event query by event type.
A secondary index is pretty similar to what we know from regular relational databases. If you have a query with a where clause that uses column values that are not part of the primary key, lookup would be slow because a full row search has to be performed. Secondary indexes make it possible to service such queries efficiently. Secondary indexes are stored as extra tables, and just store extra data to make it easy to find your way in the main table.
So that's a good ol' index, which we already know about. So far, there's nothing new to cassandra and its distributed nature.
Partitioning and clustering is all about deciding how rows from the main table are spread among the nodes. This is unique to cassandara since it determines the distribution of data. So, the primary key consists of at least one column. The first column in the primary key is used as the partition key. The partition key is used to decide which node to store a row. If the primary key has additional columns, the columns are used to cluster the data on a given node - the data is stored in lexicographic order on a node by clustering columns.
This question has more specifics on clustering columns: Clustering Keys in Cassandra
So an index on a given column X makes the lookup X --> primary key efficient. The partition key (first column in the primary key) determines which node a row is stored on. Clustering columns (additional columns in the primary key) determine which order rows are stored in on their assigned node.
So your intuition sounds about right - the event ID is presumably guaranteed unique, so is great for building a primary key. Event time is a great way to order rows on disk on a given node.
If you never needed to lookup data by event type, eg, never had a query like SELECT * FROM Events WHERE Type = Warning, then you have no need for your additional indexes, but your demands for partitioning don't change. Indexes make it easy to serve queries with different predicates. Since you mentioned that you indeed were planning on performing queries like that, you do in fact likely want an index on your EventType column.
Check out the cassandra documentation: http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.0/cql/ddl/ddl_compound_keys_c.html
Cassandra uses the first column name in the primary key definition as the partition key.
...
In the case of the playlists table, the song_order is the clustering column. The data for each partition is clustered by the remaining column or columns of the primary key definition. On a physical node, when rows for a partition key are stored in order based on the clustering columns
Related
I have a table that stores events
CREATE TABLE active_events (
event_id VARCHAR,
number VARCHAR,
....
start_time TIMESTAMP,
PRIMARY KEY (event_id, number)
);
Now, I want to select an event with the highest start_time. It is possible? I've tried to create a secondary index, but no success.
This is a query I've created
select * from active_call order by start_time limit 1
But the error says ORDER BY is only supported when the partition key is restricted by an EQ or an IN.
Should I create some kind of materialized view? What should I do to execute my query?
This is an anti-pattern in Cassandra. To order the data you need to read all data and find the highest value. And this will require scanning of data on multiple nodes, and will be very long.
Materialized view also won't help much as order for data only exists inside an individual partition, so you will need to put all your data into a single partition that could be huge and data would be imbalanced.
I can only think of following workaround:
Have an additional table that will have all columns of the original table, but with a fake partition key and no clustering columns
You do inserts into that table in parallel to normal inserts, but use a fixed value for that fake partition key, and explicitly setting a timestamp for a record equal to start_time (don't forget to multiple by 1000 as timestamp uses microseconds). In this case it will guaranteed to be the value with the highest timestamp as Cassandra won't override it with other data with lower timestamp.
But this doesn't solve a problem with data skew, and all traffic will be handled by fixed number of nodes equal to RF.
Another alternative - use another database.
This type of query isn't valid in big data because it requires a full table scan and doesn't scale. It works in traditional relational databases because the dataset is smaller. Imagine you had billions of partitions each with thousands of rows spread across hundreds of nodes. A full table scan in a large cluster will take a very long time if it was allowed.
The error:
ORDER BY is only supported when the partition key is restricted by an EQ or an IN
gets returned because you can only sort the results provided (a) the query is restricted to a partition key, and (b) the rows are ordered by a clustering column. You cannot sort the results based on a column that is not part of the clustering key. Cheers!
I got a lot of data regarding stock prices and I want to try Apache Cassandra out for this purpose. But I'm not quite familiar with the primary/ partition/ clustering keys.
My database columns would be:
Stock_Symbol
Price
Timestamp
My users will always filter for the Stock_Symbol (where stock_symbol=XX) and then they might filter for a certain time range (Greater/ Less than (equals)). There will be around 30.000 stock symbols.
Also, what is the big difference when using another "filter", e.g. exchange_id (only two stock exchanges are available).
Exchange_ID
Stock_Symbol
Price
Timestamp
So my users would first filter for the stock exchange (which is more or less a foreign key), then for the stock symbol (which is also more or less a foreign key). The data would be inserted/ written in this order as well.
How do I have to choose the keys?
The Quick Answer
Based on your use-case and predicted query pattern, I would recommend one of the following for your table:
PRIMARY KEY (Stock_Symbol, Timestamp)
The partition key is made of Stock_Symbol, and Timestamp is the only clustering column. This will allow WHERE to be used with those two fields. If either are to be filtered on, filtering on Stock_Symbol will be required in the query and must come as the first condition to WHERE.
Or, for the second case you listed:
PRIMARY KEY ((Exchange_ID, Stock_Symbol), Timestamp)
The partition key is composed of Exchange_ID and Stock_Symbol, and Timestamp is the only clustering column. This will allow WHERE to be used with those three fields. If any of those three are to be filtered on, filtering on both Exchange_ID and Stock_Symbol will be required in the query and must come in that order as the first two conditions to WHERE.
See the last section of this answer for a few other variations that could also be applied based on your needs.
Long Answer & Explanation
Primary Keys, Partition Keys, and Clustering Columns
Primary keys in Cassandra, similar to their role in relational databases, serve to identify records and index them in order to access them quickly. However, due to the distributed nature of records in Cassandra, they serve a secondary purpose of also determining which node that a given record should be stored on.
The primary key in a Cassandra table is further broken down into two parts - the Partition Key, which is mandatory and by default is the first column in the primary key, and optional clustering column(s), which are all fields that are in the primary key that are not a part of the partition key.
Here are some examples:
PRIMARY KEY (Exchange_ID)
Exchange_ID is the sole field in the primary key and is also the partition key. There are no additional clustering columns.
PRIMARY KEY (Exchange_ID, Timestamp, Stock_Symbol)
Exchange_ID, Timestamp, and Stock_Symbol together form a composite primary key. The partition key is Exchange_ID and Timestamp and Stock_Symbol are both clustering columns.
PRIMARY KEY ((Exchange_ID, Timestamp), Stock_Symbol)
Exchange_ID, Timestamp, and Stock_Symbol together form a composite primary key. The partition key is composed of both Exchange_ID and Timestamp. The extra parenthesis grouping Exchange_ID and Timestamp group them into a single composite partition key, and Stock_Symbol is a clustering column.
PRIMARY KEY ((Exchange_ID, Timestamp))
Exchange_ID and Timestamp together form a composite primary key. The partition key is composed of both Exchange_ID and Timestamp. There are no clustering columns.
But What Do They Do?
Internally, the partitioning key is used to calculate a token, which determines on which node a record is stored. The clustering columns are not used in determining which node to store the record on, but they are used in determining order of how records are laid out within the node - this is important when querying a range of records. Records whose clustering columns are similar in value will be stored close to each other on the same node; they "cluster" together.
Filtering in Cassandra
Due to the distributed nature of Cassandra, fields can only be filtered on if they are indexed. This can be accomplished in a few ways, usually by being a part of the primary key or by having a secondary index on the field. Secondary indexes can cause performance issues according to DataStax Documentation, so it is typically recommended to capture your use-cases using the primary key if possible.
Any field in the primary key can have a WHERE clause applied to it (unlike unindexed fields which cannot be filtered on in the general case), but there are some stipulations:
Order Matters - The primary key fields in the WHERE clause must be in the order that they are defined; if you have a primary key of (field1, field2, field3), you cannot do WHERE field2 = 'value', but rather you must include the preceding fields as well: WHERE field1 = 'value' AND field2 = 'value'.
The Entire Partition Key Must Be Present - If applying a WHERE clause to the primary key, the entire partition key must be given so that the cluster can determine what node in the cluster the requested data is located in; if you have a primary key of ((field1, field2), field3), you cannot do WHERE field1 = 'value', but rather you must include the full partition key: WHERE field1 = 'value' AND field2 = 'value'.
Applied to Your Use-Case
With the above info in mind, you can take the analysis of how users will query the database, as you've done, and use that information to design your data model, or more specifically in this case, the primary key of your table.
You mentioned that you will have about 30k unique values for Stock_Symbol and further that it will always be included in WHERE cluases. That sounds initially like a resonable candidate for a partition key, as long as queries will include only a single value that they are searching for in Stock_Symbol (e.g. WHERE Stock_Symbol = 'value' as opposed to WHERE Stock_Symbol < 'value'). If a query is intended to return multiple records with multiple values in Stock_Symbol, there is a danger that the cluster will need to retrieve data from multiple nodes, which may result in performance penalties.
Further, if your users wish to filter on Timestamp, it should also be a part of the primary key, though wanting to filter on a range indicates to me that it probably shouldn't be a part of the partition key, so it would be a good candidate for a clustering column.
This brings me to my recommendation:
PRIMARY KEY (Stock_Symbol, Timestamp)
If it were important to distribute data based on both the Stock_Symbol and the Timestamp, you could introduce a pre-calculated time-bucketed field that is based on the time but with less cardinality, such as Day_Of_Week or Month or something like that:
PRIMARY KEY ((Stock_Symbol, Day_Of_Week), Timestamp)
If you wanted to introduce another field to filtering, such as Exchange_ID, it could be a part of the partition key, which would mandate it being included in filters, or it could be a part of the clustering column, which would mean that it wouldn't be required unless subsequent fields in the primary key needed to be filtered on. As you mentioned that users will always filter by Exchange_ID and then by Stock_Symbol, it might make sense to do:
PRIMARY KEY ((Exchange_ID, Stock_Symbol), Timestamp)
Or to make it non-mandatory:
PRIMARY KEY (Stock_Symbol, Exchange_ID, Timestamp)
Let's say I have a table like this
CREATE TABLE request(
transaction_id text,
request_date timestamp,
data text,
PRIMARY KEY (transaction_id)
);
The transaction_id is unique, so as far as I understand each partition in this table would have one row only and I'm not sure if this situation causes a performance issue in the OS, maybe because Cassandra creates a file for each partition causing lots of files to manage for its hosting OS, as a note I'm not sure how Cassandra creates its files for its tables.
In this scenario I can find a request by its transaction_id like
select data from request where transaction_id = 'abc';
If the previous assumption is correct, a different approach could be the next one?
CREATE TABLE request(
the_date date,
transaction_id text,
request_date timestamp,
data text,
PRIMARY KEY ((the_date), transaction_id)
);
The field the_date would change every next day, so the partitions in the table would be created for each day.
In this scenario I would have to have the_date data always available to the client so I can find a request using the next query
select data from request where the_date = '2020-09-23' and transaction_id = 'abc';
Thank you in advance for your kind help!
Cassandra doesn't create a separate file for each partition. One SSTable file may contain multiple partitions. Partitions that consist only of one row are often called "skinny rows" - they aren't very bad, but may cause some performance issues:
to access such partitions you still need to read a block with compressed data (by default it's 64Kb) that needs to be decompressed to read that data. If you're doing really random access, such blocks would be discarded from file cache and needs to be re-read from disk. In this case, it's maybe useful to decrease the block size
if you have a lot of such partitions per table per node - this may heavily increase the size of the bloom filter, because each partition has a separate entry in it. I saw some customers that had tens of gigabytes of memory allocated for bloom filter only because of the skinny partitions
so it's really depends on the amount of data, access patterns, etc. It could be good or bad, depends on that factors.
If you have date available, and want to use it as part partition key - that may also not advisable because if you're writing and reading a lot of data on that day, then only some nodes will handle that load - this is so-called "hot partitions".
You may implement so-called bucketing, when you infer partition key from the data. But this will depend on the data available. For example, if you have date + transaction ID as a string, you may create partition key as date + 1st character of that string - in this case you'll have N partition keys per day, that are distributed between nodes, eliminating the hot partition problem.
See the corresponding best practices doc from DataStax about that topic.
Let me not get into the different types of keys, but let me mention and shortly explain the two keys you use in your question.
PRIMARY KEY
A row MUST have a unique primary key (which identifies the row as what it is regarding equality). The primary key can be a collection of columns (as in your second example with (the_date), transaction_id) or just a single column (as in your first example with transaction_id). Nevertheless, as mentioned the important part is that for a row the primary key must be unique to identify the row.
PARTITION KEY
The partition key is actually determined based on the primary key. You can have composite partition key (you used the syntax for that in your second example, to enforce the (the_date) to be the partition key, this is actually not necessary since it would be by default the first column of the primary key).
Cassandra uses the hashed value of the (combined) partition key(s') values to determine on which node(s) the data is stored (or retrieved from when requesting data).
So the answer to your question is, it's totally ok to use the transaction_id as primary and partition key. And that is not bad practice, it's more or less pretty common practice if you have a unique identifier in your data which can be stored in one row and fulfills your needs regarding requests.
More Infos:
Hashing Explained: Consistent hashing
Defining a basic primary key
Defining a multi-column partition key
I modeled my Cassandra in a way that i have couple of tables with the same partition key - Uuid.
Each table has it's partition key and others column representing data for specific query i would like to ask.
For example - 1 table have Uuid and column regarding it's status (no other clustering keys in this table) and table 2 will contain the same Uuid (Also without clustering keys) but with different columns representing the data for this Uuid.
Is it the right modeling? Is it wrong to duplicate the same partition key around tables in order to group each table to hold relevant column for specific use case? or it preferred to use only 1 table and query them and taking the relevant data for the specific use case in the code?
There's nothing wrong with this modeling. Whether it is better, or worse, than the obvious alternative of having just one table with both pieces of data, depends on your workload:
For example, if you commonly need to read both status and data columns of the same uuid, then these reads will be more efficient if both things are in the same table, which only needs to be looked up once. If you always read just one but not both, then reads will be more efficient from separate tables. Also, if this workload is not read-mostly but rather write-mostly, then writing to just one table instead of two will be more efficient.
I am new to NoSQL database and have just started using apache Cassandra. I created a simple table "emp" with primary key on "empno" column. This is a simple table as we always get in Oracle's default scott schema.
Now I loaded data using the COPY command and issued query Select * from emp order by empno but I was surprised that CQL did not allow Order by on empno column (which is PK). Also when I used Where condition, it did not allow any inequality operations on empno column (it said only EQ or IN conditions are allowed). It also did not allowed Where and Order by on any other column, as they were not used in PK, and did not have an index.
Can someone please help me what should I do if I want to keep empno unique in the table and want a query results in Sorted order of empno?
(My version is:
cqlsh:demodb> show version
[cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.2.0 | CQL spec 3.3.0 | Native protocol v4]
)
There are two parts to a PRIMARY KEY in Cassandra:
partition key(s)
clustering key(s)
PRIMARY KEY (partitionKey1,clusteringKey1,clusteringKey2)
or
PRIMARY KEY ((partitionKey1,partitionKey2),clusteringKey1,clusteringKey2)
The partition key determines which node(s) your data is stored on. The clustering key determines the order of the data within your partition key.
In CQL, the ORDER BY clause is really only used to reverse the defined sort direction of your clustering order. As for the columns themselves, you can only specify the columns defined (and in that exact order...no skipping) in your CLUSTERING ORDER BY clause at table creation time. So you cannot pick arbitrary columns to order your result set at query-time.
Cassandra achieves performance by using the clustering keys to sort your data on-disk, thereby only returning ordered rows in a single read (no random reads). This is why you must take a query-based modeling approach (often duplicating your data into multiple query tables) with Cassandra. Know your queries ahead of time, and build your tables to serve them.
Select * from emp order by empno;
First of all, you need a WHERE clause. It's ok to query without it, if you're working with a relational database. With Cassandra, you should do your best to avoid unbound SELECT queries. Besides, Cassandra can only enforce a sort order within a partition, so querying without a WHERE clause won't return data in the order you want, anyway.
Secondly, as I mentioned above, you need to define clustering keys. If you want to order your result set by empno, then you must find another column to define as your partition key. Try something like this:
CREATE TABLE emp_by_dept (
empno text,
dept text,
name text,
PRIMARY KEY (dept,empno)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (empno ASC);
Now, I can query employees by department, and they will be returned to me ordered by empno:
SELECT * FROM emp_by_dept WHERE dept='IT';
But to be clear, you will not be able to query every row in your table, and have it ordered by a single column. The only way to get meaningful order into your result sets, is first partition your data in a way that makes sense to your business case. Running an unbound SELECT will return all of your rows (assuming that the query doesn't time-out while trying to query every node in your cluster), but result set ordering can only be enforced within a partition. So you have to restrict by partition key in order for that to make any sense.
My apologies for self-promoting, but last year I wrote an article for DataStax called We Shall Have Order!, in which I addressed how to solve these types of problems. Give it a read and see if it helps.
Edit for additional questions:
From your answer I concluded 2 things about Cassandra:
(1) There is no
way of getting a result set which is only order by a column that has
been defined as Unique.
(2) When we define a PK
(partition-key+clustering-key), then the results will always be order
by Clustering columns within any fixed partition key (we must restrict
to one partition-key value), that means there is no need of ORDER BY
clause, since it cannot ever change the order of rows (the order in
which rows are actually stored), i.e. Order By is useless.
1) All PRIMARY KEYs in Cassandra are unique. There's no way to order your result set by your partition key. In my example, I order by empno (after partitioning by dept). – Aaron 1 hour ago
2) Stopping short of saying that ORDER BY is useless, I'll say that its only real use is to switch your sort direction between ASC and DESC.
I created an index on "empno" column of "emp" table, it is still not
allowing ORDER BY empno. So, what Indexes are for? are they only for
searching records for specific value of index key?
You cannot order a result set by an indexed column. Secondary indexes are (not the same as their relational counterparts) really only useful for edge-case, analytics-based queries. They don't scale, so the general recommendation is not to use secondary indexes.
Ok, that simply means that one table cannot be used for getting
different result sets with different conditions and different sorting
order.
Correct.
Hence for each new requirement, we need to create a new table.
IT means if we have a billion rows in a table (say Sales table), and
we need sum of sales (1) Product-wise, (2) Region-wise, then we will
duplicate all those billion rows in 2 tables with one in clustering
order of Product, the other in clustering order of Region,. and even
if we need to sum sales per Salesman_id, then we build a 3rd table,
again putting all those billion rows? is it sensible?
It's really up to you to decide how sensible it is. But lack of query flexibility is a drawback of Cassandra. To get around it you can keep creating query tables (I.E., trading disk for performance). But if it gets to a point where it becomes ungainly or difficult to manage, then it's time to think about whether or not Cassandra is really the right solution.
EDIT 20160321
Hi Aaron, you said above "Stopping short of saying that ORDER BY is useless, I'll say that its only real use is to switch your sort direction between ASC and DESC."
But i found even that is not correct. Cassandra only allows ORDER by in the same direction as we define in the "CLUSTERING ORDER BY" caluse of CREATE TABLE. If in that clause we define ASC, it allows only order by ASC, and vice versa.
Without seeing an error message, it's hard to know what to tell you on that one. Although I have heard of queries with ORDER BY failing when you have too many rows stored in a partition.
ORDER BY also functions a little odd if you specify multiple columns to sort by. If I have two clustering columns defined, I can use ORDER BY on the first column indiscriminately. But as soon as I add the second column to the ORDER BY clause, my query only works if I specify both sort directions the same (as the CLUSTERING ORDER BY definition) or both different. If I mix and match, I get this:
InvalidRequest: code=2200 [Invalid query] message="Unsupported order by relation"
I think that has to do with how the data is stored on-disk. Otherwise Cassandra would have more work to do in preparing result sets. Whereas if it requires everything to either to match or mirror the direction(s) specified in the CLUSTERING ORDER BY, it can just relay a sequential read from disk. So it's probably best to only use a single column in your ORDER BY clause, for more predictable results.
Adding a redux answer as the accepted one is quite long.
Order by is currently only supported on the clustered columns of the PRIMARY KEY
and when the partition key is restricted by an Equality or an IN operator in where clause.
That is if you have your primary key defined like this :
PRIMARY KEY ((a,b),c,d)
Then you will be able to use the ORDER BY when & only when your query has :
a where clause with all the primary key restricted either by an equality operator (=) or an IN operator such as :
SELECT * FROM emp WHERE a = 1 AND b = 'India' ORDER BY c,d;
SELECT * FROM emp WHERE a = 1 AND b = 'India' ORDER BY c;
These two query are the only valid ones.
Also this query would not work :
SELECT * FROM emp WHERE a = 1 AND b = 'India' ORDER BY d,c;
because order by currently only support the ordering of columns following their declared order in the PRIMARY KEY that is in primary key definition c has been declared before d and the query violates the ordering by placing d first.