I am trying to build a real-time stock application.
Every seconds I can get some data from web service like below:
[{"amount":"20","date":1386832664,"price":"183.8","tid":5354831,"type":"sell"},{"amount":"22","date":1386832664,"price":"183.61","tid":5354833,"type":"buy"}]
tid is the ticket ID for stock buying and selling;
date is the second from 1970.1.1;
price/amount is at what price and how many stock traded.
Reuirement
My requirement is show user highest/lowest price at every minute/5 minutes/hour/day in real-time; show user the sum of amount in every minute/5 minutes/hour/day in real-time.
Question
My question is how to store the data to redis, so that I can easily and quickly get highest/lowest trade from DB for different periods.
My design is something like below:
[date]:[tid]:amount
[date]:[tid]:price
[date]:[tid]:type
I am new in redis. If the design is this is that means I need to use sorted set, will there any performance issue? Or is there any other way to get highest/lowest price for different periods.
Looking forward for your suggestion and design.
My suggestion is to store min/max/total for all intervals you are interested in and update it for current ones with every arriving data point. To avoid network latency when reading previous data for comparison, you can do it entirely inside Redis server using Lua scripting.
One key per data point (or, even worse, per data point field) is going to consume too much memory. For the best results, you should group it into small lists/hashes (see http://redis.io/topics/memory-optimization). Redis only allows one level of nesting in its data structures: if you data has multiple fields and you want to store more than one item per key, you need to somehow encode it yourself. Fortunately, standard Redis Lua environment includes msgpack support which is very a efficient binary JSON-like format. JSON entries in your example encoded with msgpack "as is" will be 52-53 bytes long. I suggest grouping by time so that you have 100-1000 entries per key. Suppose one-minute interval fits this requirement. Then the keying scheme would be like this:
YYmmddHHMMSS — a hash from tid to msgpack-encoded data points for the given minute.
5m:YYmmddHHMM, 1h:YYmmddHH, 1d:YYmmdd — window data hashes which contain min, max, sum fields.
Let's look at a sample Lua script that will accept one data point and update all keys as necessary. Due to the way Redis scripting works we need to explicitly pass the names of all keys that will be accessed by the script, i.e. the live data and all three window keys. Redis Lua has also JSON parsing library available, so for the sake of simplicity let's assume we just pass it JSON dictionary. That means that we have to parse data twice: on the application side and on the Redis side, but the performance effects of it are not clear.
local function update_window(winkey, price, amount)
local windata = redis.call('HGETALL', winkey)
if price > tonumber(windata.max or 0) then
redis.call('HSET', winkey, 'max', price)
end
if price < tonumber(windata.min or 1e12) then
redis.call('HSET', winkey, 'min', price)
end
redis.call('HSET', winkey, 'sum', (windata.sum or 0) + amount)
end
local currkey, fiveminkey, hourkey, daykey = unpack(KEYS)
local data = cjson.decode(ARGV[1])
local packed = cmsgpack.pack(data)
local tid = data.tid
redis.call('HSET', currkey, tid, packed)
local price = tonumber(data.price)
local amount = tonumber(data.amount)
update_window(fiveminkey, price, amount)
update_window(hourkey, price, amount)
update_window(daykey, price, amount)
This setup can do thousands of updates per second, not very hungry on memory, and window data can be retrieved instantly.
UPDATE: On the memory part, 50-60 bytes per point is still a lot if you want to store more a few millions. With this kind of data I think you can get as low as 2-3 bytes per point using custom binary format, delta encoding, and subsequent compression of chunks using something like snappy. It depends on your requirements, whether it's worth doing this.
Related
I am planning to consider Redis for storing large amount of data in cache. Currently I store them in my own cache written in java. My use case is below.
I get 15 minutes data from a source and i need to aggregate the data hourly. So for a given object A every hour I will get 4 values and I need to aggregate them to one value the formula I will use will max / min / sum.
Foe making key I plan to use like below
a) object id - long
b) time - long
c) property id - int (each object may have many property which I need to aggregate for each property separately)
So final key would look like;
objectid_time_propertyid
Every 15 minutes I may get around 50 to 60 Million keys , I need to fetch these keys every time convert the property value to double and apply the formula (max/min/sum etc.) then convert back to String and store back.
So I see for every key I have one read and one write and conversion in each case.
My questions are following.
Is is advisable to use redis for such use case , going forward I may aggregate hourly data to daily , daily to weekly and so on.
What would be performance of read and writes in cache (I did a sample test on Windows and 100K keys read and write took 30-40 seconds thats not great , but I did on windows and I finally need to run on linux.
I want to use persistence function of redis, what are pros and cons of it ?
If any one has real experience in usage of redis as memcache which requires frequent updation please give a suggestion.
Is is advisable to use redis for such use case , going forward I may aggregate hourly data to daily , daily to weekly and so on.
Advisable depends on who you ask, but I certainly feel Redis will be up to the job. If a single server isn't enough, your description suggests that the dataset can be easily sharded so a cluster will let you scale.
I would advise, however, that you store your data a little differently. First, every key in Redis has an overhead so the more of these, the more RAM you'll need. Therefore, instead of keeping a key per object-time-property, I recommend Hashes as a means for aggregating some values together. For example, you could use an object_id:timestamp key and store the property_id:value pairs under it.
Furthermore, instead of keeping the 4 discrete measurements for each object-property by timestamp and recomputing your aggregates, I suggest you keep just the aggregates and update these with new measurements. So, you'd basically have an object_id Hash, with the following structure:
object_id:hourtimestamp -> property_id1:max = x
property_id1:min = y
property id1:sum = z
When getting new data - d - for an object's property, just recompute the aggregates:
property_id1:max = max(x, d)
property_id1:min = min(y, d)
property_id1:sum = z + d
Repeat the same for every resolution needed, e.g. use object_id:daytimestamp to keep day-level aggregates.
Finally, don't forget expiring your keys after they are no longer required (i.e. set a 24 hours TTL for the hourly counters and so forth).
There are other possible approaches, mainly using Sorted Sets, that can be applicable to solve your querying needs (remember that storing the data is the easy part - getting it back is usually harder ;)).
What would be performance of read and writes in cache (I did a sample test on Windows and 100K keys read and write took 30-40 seconds thats not great , but I did on windows and I finally need to run on linux.
Redis, when running on my laptop on Linux in a VM, does an excess of 500K reads and writes per second. Performance is very dependent on how you use Redis' data types and API. Given your throughput of 60 million values over 15 minutes, or ~70K/sec writes of smallish data, Redis is more than equipped to handle that.
I want to use persistence function of redis, what are pros and cons of it ?
This is an extremely-well documented subject - please refer to http://redis.io/topics/persistence and http://oldblog.antirez.com/post/redis-persistence-demystified.html for starters.
I'm designing a Cassandra schema for a browser event collection system, and I was hoping to sanity check my approach. The system collects user events in the browser, like mouse movements, clicks, etc. The events are stored and processed to create heat maps of user activity on a web page. I've chosen Cassandra for persistence, since my use case is more write heavy than ready heavy: every 50 milliseconds, an ajax call dumps the aggregated events to my server, and into the database. I'm using node.js for the server, and the JSON events look something like this on the server:
{ uuid: dsf86ag487hadf97hadf97, type: 'MOVE', time: 12335234345, pageX: 334, pageY:566, .... }
As you can see each user has a unique uuid, associated with each of their events, generated on the browser, stored in a cookie. My read case will be some map-reduce job. Each top-level domain will be a keyspace, and I was planning using the uuid as my partition key. The main table will be the events table, where each row will be one event, using a composite primary key, consisting of the browser-generated uuid and a cassandra-generated timeuuid. The primary key must have a timeuuid component, since two events may have the same timestamp on certain browsers. The data types for event will be strings, ints, timestamps. The total data for a partition should not exceed a few hundred megabytes. So...Is this sane? What questions should I be asking myself? I recognize that this use case has many analogs in sensor data collection, etc, so please point me to existing examples. Thanks in advance.
Choosing a partition key
While recording the user ID may be important in some cases for distinguishing events from different users that may occur at the same time, the user ID is probably not the best choice for the partition key. That is, unless you are planning to analyze the behavior of specific users.
You are probably more concerned with how the heatmap changes over time and specifically which areas of the page were involved. These are probably better considerations for your partition key, though perhaps not stored as a timestamp nor as X/Y coordinates, which I'll get into later.
You will generally want to choose a partition key that has (1) a large distribution of values, to create even load across your cluster, and (2) is made up of values that are relatively "well known". By "well known", I mean something you either know in advance or something that can be computed easily and deterministically. For instance, you will have many users and will gather statistics over many days. While the the specific of days (encoded as, say, YYYY-MM-DD strings) can be easily determined based on a known start/end date range or query input, the set of all valid user IDs (assuming UUIDs or other non-incremental value, or hash) is much harder to determine without doing a scan of the entire cluster. Avoid doing partition key scans; aim for "exact" random access to your partitions.
Format of the partition key
The partition key is traditionally shown as a single column in many examples, but you can have a multi-column partition key. This can be useful when using date/time information as all or part of the key. You would aim to have as few unique values per column as possible, so that the set of values you need to enumerate is as small as possible, but as many values (or additional columns) as necessary to balance the I/O load and data distribution across the cluster.
For example, if you were to use a timestamp as your partition key, in 64-bit Java timestamp format, there are 1,000 possible partitions per second. Even though you can technically iterate over them, that may be more granular than you need or want. On the other side, if your partition key were simply the 4-digit year, then all of that year's events would go to the same partition (making it very large) and to the same set of replica nodes (hotspots, inefficient cluster use). By choosing a key that balances between these extremes, you can control the size of your partitions and also the number of partitions you must access in order to satisfy a query.
Also consider what you'll do when you ever want to delete old data. The easiest means (within a single column family/table) is to delete an entire partition as this helps avoid accumulating individual column tombstones. If you ever want to run an operation like "delete all data older than 2013" then you definitely don't want to bury the date deep down in the data and would rather have it as part of your partition key.
Choosing a row (clustering) key
Any additional columns in the primary key that are not part of the partition key become the row key within the partition, and the rows are clustered (ordered) by the sort order of the first of these columns.
That clustering/sorting is important, because it's generally the only native sorting you're going to get with Cassandra. Even if the partition key is down to the level of a specific hour or minute of a specific day, you might choose to cluster the rows by your millisecond timestamp or time UUID, to keep everything within that partition in chronological order.
You can still have additional columns, like your X/Y coordinates or user IDs, in your row keys -- in case it sounded like I was recommending that you put time (only) in both the partition and clustering keys.
Using X/Y coordinates
This part has nothing to do with Cassandra, but if you're heat-mapping the page, do be aware that people use different screens and devices at different resolutions. Unless you're doing pixel-perfect layout on your site (and hopefully you're using a fluid, responsive layout instead) then the X/Y coordinate of one user isn't going to match the X/Y coordinates from another user. They might not even match for the same user, if that user switches devices.
Consider mapping not by X/Y coordinate of the mouse, but perhaps the IDs of elements in the DOM. Have an ID for your "sidebar", "main menu", "main body div" and any specific elements you want to map. These would be string keys, not coordinate pairs, and while they'd still be triggered on mouse enter/leave/click the logged information doesn't depend or assume any particular screen geometry.
Perhaps you decide to include the element ID as part of the row or partition key, too.
I have a case where I need to record a user action in Cassandra, then later retrieve a sorted list of users with the highest number of that action in an arbitrary time period.
Can anyone suggest a way to store and retrieve this data in a pre-aggregated method?
Outside of Cassandra I would recommend using stream-summary or count min sketch you would be able to solve this with much less space and have immediate results. Just update and periodically serialize and persist it (assuming you don't need guaranteed accuracy)
In Cassandra you can keep a row per period of time like by hours and have a counter per user in that row, incrementing them on use. Then use a batch job to run through them and find the heavy hitters. You would be constrained to having the minimal queryable time be 1 hour and it wont be particularly cheap or fast to compute but it would work.
Generally it would be good treating these as a log of operation, every time there is an event store it and have batch jobs do analytics against it with hadoop or custom. If need it realtime id recommend the above approach of keeping stream summaries in memory.
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.
I have a Azure table where customers post messages, there may be millions of messages in a single table. I want to find the fastest way of getting the messages posted within the last 10 minutes (which is how often I refresh the web page). Since only the partition key is indexed I have played with the idea of using the date & time the message was posted as a partition key, for example a string as a ISO8601 date format like "2009-06-15T13:45:30.0900000"
Example pseudo code:
var message = "Hello word!";
var messagePartitionKey = DateTime.Now.ToString("o");
var messageEntity = new MessageEntity(messagePartitionKey, message);
dataSource.Insert(messageEntity);
, and then query for the messages posted within the last 10 minutes like this (untested pseudo code again):
// Get the date and time 10 minutes ago
var tenMinutesAgo = DateTime.Now.Subtract(new TimeSpan(0, 10, 0)).ToString("o");
// Query for the latest messages
var latestMessages = (from t in
context.Messages
where t.PartitionKey.CompareTo(tenMinutesAgo) <= 0
select t
)
But will this be taken well by the index? Or will it cause a full table scan? Anyone have a better idea of doing this? I know there is a timestamp on each table item, but it is not indexed so it will be too slow for my purpose.
I think you've got the right basic idea. The query you've designed should be about as efficient as you could hope for. But there are some improvements I could offer.
Rather than using DateTime.Now, use Date.UtcNow. From what I understand instances are set to use Utc time as their base anyway, but this just makes sure you're comparing apples with apples and you can reliable convert the time back into whatever timezone you want when displaying them.
Rather than storing the time as .ToString("o") turn the time into ticks and store that, you'll end up with less formatting problems (sometimes you'll get the timezone specification at the end, sometimes not). Also if you always want to see these messages sorted from most recent to oldest you can subtract the number of ticks from the max number of ticks e.g.
var messagePartitionKey = (DateTime.MaxValue.Ticks - _contactDate.Ticks).ToString("d19");
It would also be a good idea to specify a row key. While it is highly unlikely that two messages will be posted with exactly the same time, it's not impossible. If you don't have an obvious row key, then just set it to be a Guid.
The Primary key for Table is the combination of PartitionKey and RowKey(which forms a clustered index).
In your case, just go for RowKey instead of ParitionKey(provide a constant value for this).
You can also follow the Diagnostics approach, like for every ten minutes create a new Partition Key. But this approach is mainly for requirements like Archieving/Purging etc.,
I would suggest doing something similar to what Diagnostics API is doing with WADPerformanceCountersTable. There PartitionKey groups a number of timestamps into a single item. Ie: it rounds all timestamps into nearest few minutes (say, nearest 5 minutes). This way you do not have a limited amount of partition keys and yet are still able to do ranged queries on them.
So, for example, you can have a PartitionKey that maps to each timestamp that is rounded into 00:00, 00:05, 00:10, 00:15, etc.. and then converted to Ticks
From my understanding using partition key with exact equal "=" will be much faster than less than using "<" or "greater than ">.
Also make sure to put more efforts if we can get the unique combination of partition key and row key for your condition.
Also make sure that you do less unique combinations of partition keys values to avoid more partitions.