Have a table with about 20 million rows in Cassandra.
The table is ordered by a primary_key column, which is a string. We are using 'ByteOrderedPartitioner', so the rows are ordered by the primary_key and not a hash of the primary_key column.
What is a good way to get the very last record in the table?
Thanks so much!
If for "very last record" you mean the one ordered as last I don't think you can do it like a "GET", you have to scan rows. The best you can do, afaik, is select a good range to scan (good start key) according to your primary key.
From datastax docs:
"Using the ordered partitioner allows ordered scans by primary key.
This means you can scan rows as though you were moving a cursor
through a traditional index. For example, if your application has user
names as the row key, you can scan rows for users whose names fall
between Jake and Joe. This type of query is not possible using
randomly partitioned row keys because the keys are stored in the order
of their MD5 hash (not sequentially)."
If you find better solution let me know.
Regards,
Carlo
Related
I want to have a table in Cassandra that has a partition key say column 'A', and a column say 'B' which is of 'set' type and can have up to 10000 elements in the set.
But when i retrieve a row from this table then the whole set is retrieved at once and because of that the JVM heap increases rapidly. So should i stick to this schema or go with other schema where 'A' is partition key and i make dynamic columns for each element in the set in my other schema say 'B1', 'B2' ..... 'B10,000'where each of this column is a clustering key.
Which schema is suited best and will give the optimal performance please recommend.
NOTE: cqlsh 5.0.1v
Based off of what you've described, and the documentation I've read, I would not create a collection with 10k elements. Instead I would have two tables, one with everything but the collection, and then use the primary key values of the first table, as the partition key columns of the second table; adding the element name (or whatever you can use to identify an individual element) as a clustering column.
So for a given query, if you wanted everything for a particular primary key value (including all elements), you'd query the first table with the primary key, grab whatever you need, then hit the second table as well, looping/fetching through all elements.
If the query only provides a filter on the partition key (not the primary key - i.e. retrieving multiple rows) , the first query would have to retrieve all columns that make up the primary key for each row, and then query the second table looping for all elements - nested loop here - one loop for each primary key record retrieved from the first table, and a second loop to grab all elements for each pk record.
Probably the best way to go with this. That's how I would probably tackle this.
Does that make sense?
-Jim
Can someone give and show me how the data is layed out when you design your tables for wide vs. skinny rows.
I'm not sure I fully grasp how the data is spread out with a "wide" row.
Is there a difference in how you can fetch the data or will it be the same i.e. if it is ordered it doesn't matter if the data is vertical (skinny) or horizontally (wide) organized.
Update
Is a table considered with if the primary key consists of more than one column?
Or table will have wide rows only if the partition key is a composite partition key?
Wide... Skinny... Terms that make your head explode... I prefer to oversimplify the thing as such:
All the tables have wide rows
You simply need to take care of how wide the rows gets
This allows me to think this as follow (mangling a bit the C* terminology):
Number of RECORDS in a partition
1 <--------------------------------------- ... 2Billion
^ ^
Skinny rows wide rows
The lesser records in a partition, the skinner is the "partition", and vice-versa.
When designing for C* I always keep in mind a couple of things:
I want to use "skinny partitions" when my data can be fetched with one query and it is fully contained in one record of one partition. Typical example is something along SELECT * FROM table WHERE username = 'xmas79'; where the table has a primary key in the form of PRIMARY KEY (username)that let me get all the data belonging to a particular username.
I want to use "wide rows" when my data can be fetched with one query and it is fully contained on multiple records of one partition. Typical examples are range queries like SELECT * FROM table WHERE sensor = 'pressure' AND time >= '2016-09-22';, where the table has a primary key in the form of PRIMARY KEY (sensor, time).
So, first approach for one shot queries, second approach for range queries. Beware that this second approach have the (major) drawback that you can keep adding data to the partition, and it will get wider and wider, hurting performances.
In order to control how wide your partitions are, you need to add something to the partition key. In the sensor example above, if your don't violate your requirements of course, you can "group" some measurements by date, eg you split the measures in a day-by-day groups, making the primary key like PRIMARY KEY ((sensor, day), time), where the partition key was transformed to (sensor, day). By this approach, you have full (well, let's say good at least) control on the wideness of your partitions.
You only need to find a good compromise between your query capabilities and the desired performance.
I suggest these three readings for further investigation on the details:
Wide Rows in Cassandra CQL
Does CQL support dynamic columns / wide rows?
CQL3 for Cassandra experts
Beware that in the 1. there's a mistake in the second to last picture: the primary key should be
PRIMARY KEY ((user_id, tweet_id))
with double parenthesis around the columns instead of one.
I am not good in English!
There is a table in Cassandra 3.5 which all columns of a row don't come at same time. Unique of table is some columns that are unique in a row together, but some of them are null at first. I can not set them the primary key because of null value. I have identify a column with name id and type uuid in Cassandra.
How can I have a unique key with that columns together in Cassandra?
Is my data model true?
How can I solve this problem?
You can't. It's not a relational DB. Use clustering and/or partitioning keys to add an unique constraint.
See this answer
To store unique values, create a separate table having your unique value as a key. Check if it exists by requesting this table before inserting a row. But beware, even doing this, you cannot ensure it will be unique in your final table if you have two concurrent inserts.
Basically, I would recommend using Cassandra as it really is: A data store. And find a way to implement your business logic where it belongs: in your code.
I'm so confused.
When to use them and how to determine which one to use?
If a column is index/primary key/row key, could it be duplicated?
I want to create a column family to store some many-to-many info, for example, one column is the given name and the other is surname. One given name can related to many surnames, and one surname could have different given names.
I need to query surnames by a given name, and the given names by a specified surname too.
How to create the table?
Thanks!
Cassandra is a NoSQL database, and as such has no such concept of many-to-many relationships. Ideally a table should not have anything other than a primary key. In your case the right way to model it in Cassandra is to create two tables, one with name as the primary key and the other with surname as the primary key
When you need to query by either key, you need to query the table that has that key as the primary key
EDIT:
From the Cassandra docs:
Cassandra's built-in indexes are best on a table having many rows that
contain the indexed value. The more unique values that exist in a
particular column, the more overhead you will have, on average, to
query and maintain the index. For example, suppose you had a races
table with a billion entries for cyclists in hundreds of races and
wanted to look up rank by the cyclist. Many cyclists' ranks will share
the same column value for race year. The race_year column is a good
candidate for an index.
Do not use an index in these situations:
On high-cardinality columns for a query of a huge volume of records for a small number of results.
In tables that use a counter column On a frequently updated or deleted column.
To look for a row in a large partition unless narrowly queried.
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