Let's say I have this column family called People which has tens of thousands of rows, each with two columns: name and country.
Now let's say I want to query for all people living in China and I want the results to be sorted alphabetically on names.
The obvious approach would be to get all rows with the country China using secondary indices, and then sort the returned rows on client side. However if there are many people living in China, then this approach won't be feasible.
Also, I want to paginate the rows. Again, if I simply sort all rows on client side, then pagination is trivial. But what if getting that many rows and sorting them are too expensive?
What's the best way to do this?
Related
I'm on Spark 1.6 right now, and I'm wondering:
Say I have data that links departments to business units to managers to salespeople to customers. It's one table for each of these stored in parquet and read into a dataframe.
Lets say I need a few things within this relationship, like
customers by manager, customers by department and salespeople by department
Lets also say that customers can be associated with multiple business units within a department,
e.g. linking them all and grouping by department would result in multiple of the same customer associated with each department, potentially. So, this will also involve dropping duplicates.
I have a few questions:
Is spark optimized to where it's faster not to do intermediary dataframes, e.g. it would be faster to do department.join(bus
unit,...).join(manager...).join(salesman...).join(customer...).groupby(departmentID,customerID)
and do the same for department->manager->salesman, vs doing one big
one, vs doing dept->bus unit->manager->salesman to get salesman by
dept and then joining customer to that to get customer by dept?
Is it faster to just join all of these into one dataframe and then do all my operations on that, or make smaller ad-hoc ones, e.g. would
I want to do department->business unit->manager->salesperson->customer
and then groupby department and get customers, groupby department and
get salespeople, etc. or would I just want to make a dataframe
department->business unit->manager->salesperson to get salesperson by
department, then join that to customers to get customers by
department, etc.?
Is it faster if I did do a big, completely combined dataframe to just select from it the columns I need and then do it, e.g. dep->bus
unit->manager->salesperson->customer.select(department ID, department
name,customerID,customerName).groupby(department
ID).removeduplicates(department ID, customerID) or to just do the
groupby and remove duplicates on the main dataframe and then select
what I want out of it?
I am trying to model many-to-many relationships in Cassandra something like Item-User relationship. User can like many items and item can be bought by many users. Let us also assume that the order in which the "like" event occurs is not a concern and that the most used query is simply returning the "likes" based on item as well as the user.
There are a couple of posts dicussing data modeling
http://www.ebaytechblog.com/2012/07/16/cassandra-data-modeling-best-practices-part-1/
An alternative would be to store a collection of ItemID in the User table to denote the items liked by that user and do something similar in the Items table in CQL3.
Questions
Are there any hits in performance using the collection? I think they translate to composite columns? So the read pattern, caching and other factors should be similar?
Are collections less performant for write heavy applications? Is updating the collection frequently less performant?
There are a couple of advantages of using wide rows over collections that I can think of:
The number of elements allowed in a collection is 65535 (an unsigned short). If it's possible to have more than that many records in your collection, using wide rows is probably better as that limitation is much higher (2 billion cells (rows * columns) per partition).
When reading a collection column, the entire collection is read every time. Compare this to wide row where you can limit the number of rows being read in your query, or limit the criteria of your query based on clustering key (i.e. date > 2015-07-01).
For your particular use case I think modeling an 'items_by_user' table would be more ideal than a list<item> column on a 'users' table.
I just switched from Oracle to using Cassandra 2.0 with Datastax driver and I'm having difficulty structuring my model for this big data approach. I have a Persons table with UUID and serialized Persons. These Persons have lists of addresses, names, identifications, and DOBs. For each of these lists I have an additional table with a compound key on each value in the respective list and the additional person_UUID column. This model feels too relational to me, but I don't know how else to structure it so that I can have index(am able to search by) on address, name, identification, and DOB. If Cassandra supported indexes on lists I would have just the one Persons table containing indexed lists for each of these.
In my application we receive transactions, which can contain within them 0 or more of each of those address, name, identification, and DOB. The persons are scored based on which person matched which criteria. A single person with the highest score is matched to a transaction. Any additional address, name, identification, and DOB data from the transaction that was matched is then added to that person.
The problem I'm having is that this matching is taking too long and the processing is falling far behind. This is caused by having to loop through result sets performing additional queries since I can't make complex queries in Cassandra, and I don't have sufficient memory to just do a huge select all and filter in java. For instance, I would like to select all Persons having at least two names in common with the transaction (names can have their order scrambled, so there is no first, middle, last; that would just be three names) but this would require a 'group by' which Cassandra does not support, and if I just selected all having any of the names in common in order to filter in java the result set is too large and i run out of memory.
I'm currently searching by only Identifications and Addresses, which yield a smaller result set (although it could still be hundreds) and for each one in this result set I query to see if it also matches on names and/or DOB. Besides still being slow this does not meet the project's requirements as a match on Name and DOB alone would be sufficient to link a transaction to a person if no higher score is found.
I know in Cassandra you should model your tables by the queries you do, not by the relationships of the entities, but I don't know how to apply this while maintaining the ability to query individually by address, name, identification, and DOB.
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm very impressed by Cassandra but I haven't quite figured out how to make it work for me.
Tables:
Persons
[UUID | serialized_Person]
addresses
[address | person_UUID]
names
[name | person_UUID]
identifications
[identification | person_UUID]
DOBs
[DOB | person_UUID]
I did a lot more reading, and I'm now thinking I should change these tables around to the following:
Persons
[UUID | serialized_Person]
addresses
[address | Set of person_UUID]
names
[name | Set of person_UUID]
identifications
[identification | Set of person_UUID]
DOBs
[DOB | Set of person_UUID]
But I'm afraid of going beyond the max storage for a set(65,536 UUIDs) for some names and DOBs. Instead I think I'll have to do a dynamic column family with the column names as the Person_UUIDs, or is a row with over 65k columns very problematic as well? Thoughts?
It looks like you can't have these dynamic column families in the new version of Cassandra, you have to alter the table to insert the new column with a specific name. I don't know how to store more than 64k values for a row then. With a perfect distribution I will run out of space for DOBs with 23 million persons, I'm expecting to have over 200 million persons. Maybe I have to just have multiple set columns?
DOBs
[DOB | Set of person_UUID_A | Set of person_UUID_B | Set of person_UUID_C]
and I just check size and alter table if size = 64k? Anything better I can do?
I guess it's just CQL3 that enforces this and that if I really wanted I can still do dynamic columns with the Cassandra 2.0?
Ugh, this page from Datastax doc seems to say I had it right the first way...:
When to use a collection
This answer is not very specific, but I'll come back and add to it when I get a chance.
First thing - don't serialize your Persons into a single column. This complicates searching and updating any person info. OTOH, there are people that know what they're saying that disagree with this view. ;)
Next, don't normalize your data. Disk space is cheap. So, don't be afraid to write the same data to two places. You code will need to make sure that the right thing is done.
Those items feed into this: If you want queries to be fast, consider what you need to make that query fast. That is, create a table just for that query. That may mean writing data to multiple tables for multiple queries. Pick a query, and build a table that holds exactly what you need for that query, indexed on whatever you have available for the lookup, such as an id.
So, if you need to query by address, build a table (really, a column family) indexed on address. If you need to support another query based on identification, index on that. Each table may contain duplicate data. This means when you add a new user, you may be writing the same data to more than one table. While this seems unnatural if relational databases are the only kind you've ever used, but you get benefits in return - namely, horizontal scalability thanks to the CAP Theorem.
Edit:
The two column families in that last example could just hold identifiers into another table. So, voilà you have made an index. OTOH, that means each query takes two reads. But, still will be a performance improvement in many cases.
Edit:
Attempting to explain the previous edit:
Say you have a users table/column family:
CREATE TABLE users (
id uuid PRIMARY KEY,
display_name text,
avatar text
);
And you want to find a user's avatar given a display name (a contrived example). Searching users will be slow. So, you could create a table/CF that serves as an index, let's call it users_by_name:
CREATE TABLE users_by_name (
display_name text PRIMARY KEY,
user_id uuid
}
The search on display_name is now done against users_by_name, and that gives you the user_id, which you use to issue a second query against users. In this case, user_id in users_by_name has the value of the primary key id in users. Both queries are fast.
Or, you could put avatar in users_by_name, and accomplish the same thing with one query by using more disk space.
CREATE TABLE users_by_name (
display_name text PRIMARY KEY,
avatar text
}
I have several documents which contain statistical data of performance of companies. There are about 60 different excel sheets representing different months and I want to collect data into one big table. Original tables looks something like this, but are bigger:
Each company takes two rows which represent their profit from the sales of the product and cost to manufacture the product.I need both of these numbers.
As I said, there are ~60 these tables and I want to extract information about Product2. I want to put everything into one table where columns would represent months and rows - profit and costs of each company. It could be easily done (I think) with INDEX function as all sheets are named similarly. The problem I faced is that at some periods of time other companies enter the market:
Some of them stay, some of them fail. I would like to collect information on all companies that exist today or ever existed, but newly found companies distort the list (in second picture we see, that company BA is in 4th row, not BB). As row of a company changes from time to time, using INDEX becomes problematic, because in some cases results of different companies get into one row. Adjusting them one by one seems very painful.
Maybe there is some quick and efficient method to solve such problem?
Any help or ideas would be appreciated.
One think you may want to try is linking the Excel spreadsheets as tables in Access. From there you can create a query that ties the tables together. As data changes in the spreadsheets, the query will reflect those changes.
I'm new to Cassandra, and I'm not familiar with super columns.
Consider this scenario: Suppose we have a some fields of a customer entity like
Name
Contact_no
address
and we can store all these values in a normal column. I want to arrange that when a person moves from one location to another location (the representative field could store the longitude and latitude) that values will be stored consecutively with respect to customer location. I think we can do this with super columns but I'm confused how to design the schema to accomplish this.
Please help me to create this schema and come to understand the concepts behind super columns.
supercolumns are really not recommended anymore...still used but more and more have switched to composite columns. For example playOrm uses this concept for indexing. If I am indexing an integer, and indexing row may look like this
rowkey = 10.pk56 10.pk39 11.pk50
Where the column name type is a composite integer and string in this case. These rows can be up to about 10 million columns though I have only run expirements up to 1 million my self. For example, playOrm's queries use these types of indexes to do a query that took 60 ms on 1,000,000 rows.
With playOrm, you can do scalable relational models in noSQL....you just need to figure out how to partition your data correctly as you can have as many partitions as you want in each table, but a partition should really not be over 10 million rows.
Back to the example though, if you have a table with columns numShares, price, username, age, you may wnat to index numShares and the above row would be that index so you could grab the index by key OR better yet, grab all column names with numShares > 20 and numShares < 50
Once you have those columns, you can then get the second half of the column name which is the primary key. The reason primary key is NOT a value is because as in the example above there is two rows pk56 and pk39 with the same 10 and you can't have two columns named 10, but you can have a 10.pk56 and 10.pk39.
later,
Dean