I've been given the task of modelling a simple in Cassandra. Coming from an almost solely SQL background, though, I'm having a bit of trouble figuring it out.
Basically, we have a list of feeds that we're listening to that update periodically. This can be in RSS, JSON, ATOM, XML, etc (depending on the feed).
What we want to do is periodically check for new items in each feed, convert the data into a few formats (i.e. JSON and RSS) and store that in a Cassandra store.
So, in an RBDMS, the structure would be something akin to:
Feed:
feedId
name
URL
FeedItem:
feedItemId
feedId
title
json
rss
created_time
I'm confused as to how to model that data in Cassandra to facilitate simple things such as getting x amount of items for a specific feed in descending created order (which is probably the most common query).
I've heard of one strategy that mentions having a composite key storing, in this example, the the created_time as a time-based UUID with the feed item ID but I'm still a little confused.
For example, lets say I have a series of rows whose key is basically the feedId. Inside each row, I store a range of columns as mentioned above. The question is, where does the actual data go (i.e. JSON, RSS, title)? Would I have to store all the data for that 'record' as the column value?
I think I'm confusing wide rows and narrow (short?) rows as I like the idea of the composite key but I also want to store other data with each record and I'm not sure how to meld the two together...
You can store everything in one column family. However If the data for each FeedItem is very large, you can split the data for each FeedItem into another column family.
For example, you can have 1 column familyfor Feed, and the columns of that key are FeedItem ids, something like,
Feeds # column family
FeedId1 #key
time-stamp-1-feed-item-id1 #columns have no value, or values are enough info
time-stamp-2-feed-item-id2 #to show summary info in a results list
The Feeds column allows you to quickly get the last N items from a feed, but querying for the last N items of a Feed doesn't require fetching all the data for each FeedItem, either nothing is fetched, or just a summary.
Then you can use another column family to store the actual FeedItem data,
FeedItems # column family
feed-item-id1 # key
rss # 1 column for each field of a FeedItem
title #
...
Using CQL should be easier to understand to you as per your SQL background.
Cassandra (and NoSQL in general) is very fast and you don't have real benefits from using a related table for feeds, and anyway you will not be capable of doing JOINs. Obviously you can still create two tables if that's comfortable for you, but you will have to manage linking data inside your application code.
You can use something like:
CREATE TABLE FeedItem (
feedItemId ascii PRIMARY KEY,
feedId ascii,
feedName ascii,
feedURL ascii,
title ascii,
json ascii,
rss ascii,
created_time ascii );
Here I used ascii fields for everything. You can choose to use different data types for feedItemId or created_time, and available data types can be found here, and depending on which languages and client you are using it can be transparent or require some more work to make them works.
You may want to add some secondary indexes. For example, if you want to search for feeds items from a specific feedId, something like:
SELECT * FROM FeedItem where feedId = '123';
To create the index:
CREATE INDEX FeedItem_feedId ON FeedItem (feedId);
Sorting / Ordering, alas, it's not something easy in Cassandra. Maybe reading here and here can give you some clues where to start looking for, and also that's really depending on the cassandra version you're going to use.
Related
Imagine a table with thousands of columns, where most data in the row record is null. One of the columns is an ID, and this ID is known upfront.
select id,SomeRandomColumn
from LotsOfColumnsTable
where id = 92e72b9e-7507-4c83-9207-c357df57b318;
SomeRandomColumn is one of thousands, and in most cases the only column with data. SomeRandomColumn is NOT known upfront as the one that contains data.
Is there a CQL query that can do something like this.
select {Only Columns with data}
from LotsOfColumnsTable
where id = 92e72b9e-7507-4c83-9207-c357df57b318;
I was thinking of putting in a "hint" column that points to the column with data, but that feels wrong unless there is a CQL query that looks something like this with one query;
select ColumnHint.{DataColumnName}
from LotsOfColumnsTable
where id = 92e72b9e-7507-4c83-9207-c357df57b318;
In MongoDB I would just have a collection and the document I got back would have a "Type" attribute describing the data. So perhaps my real question is how do I replicate what I can do with MondoDB in Cassandra. My Cassandra journey so far is to create UDT's for each unique document, followed by altering the table to add this new UDT as a column. My starter table looks like this where ColumnDataName is the hint;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS WideProductInstance (
Id uuid,
ColumnDataName text
PRIMARY KEY (Id)
);
Thanks
Is there a CQL query that can do something like this.
select {Only Columns with data}
from LotsOfColumnsTable
where id = 92e72b9e-7507-4c83-9207-c357df57b318;
No, you cannot do that. And it's pretty easy to explain. To be able to know that a column contains data, Cassandra will need to read it. And if it has to read the data, since the effort is already spent on disk, it will just return this data to the client.
The only saving you'll get if Cassandra was capable of filtering out null column is on the network bandwidth ...
I was thinking of putting in a "hint" column that points to the column with data, but that feels wrong unless there is a CQL query that looks something like this with one query;
Your idea is like storing in another table a list of all column that actually contains real data and not null. It sounds like a JOIN which is bad and not supported. And if you need to read this reference table before reading the original table, you'll have to read at many places and it's going to be expensive
So perhaps my real question is how do I replicate what I can do with MondoDB in Cassandra.
Don't try to replicate the same feature from Mongo to Cassandra. The two database have fundamentally different architecture. What you have to do is to reason about your functional use-case. "How do I want to fetch my data from Cassandra ?" and from this point design a proper data model. Cassandra data model is designed by query.
The best advice for you is to watch some Cassandra Data Model videos (it's free) at http://academy.datastax.com
I'm newbie design cassandra data model and I need some help to think out the box.
Basically I need a hierarchical table, something pretty standard when talking about Employee.
You have a employee, say Big Boss, that have a list of employee under him.
Something like:
create table employee(id timeuuid, name text, employees list<employee>, primary key(id));
So, is there a way to model a hierarchical model in Cassandra adding the table type itself, or even another approach?
When trying this line above it give me
Bad Request: line 1:61 no viable alternative at input 'employee'
EDITED
I was thinking about 2 possibilities:
Add an uuid instead and in my java application find each uuid Employee when bringing up the "boss".
Working with Map, where the uuid is the id itself and my text would be the entire Row, then in my java application get the maps, convert each "text" employee into a Employee entity and finally return the whole object;
It really depends on your queries...one particular model would only be good for a set of queries, but not others.
You can store ids, and look them up again at the client side. This means n extra queries for each "query". This may or may not be a problem, as queries that hit a partition are fast. Using a map from id to name is also an option. This means you do extra work and denormalise the names into the map values. That's also valid. A third option is to use a UDT (user defined type). You could then have a list or set or even map. In cassandra 2.1, you could index the map keys/ values as well, allowing for some quite flexible querying.
https://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.1/cql/cql_using/cqlUseUDT.html
One more approach could be to store a person's details as id, static columns for their attributes, and have "children" as columns in wide row format.
This could look like
create table person(
id int primary key,
name text static,
age int static,
employees map<int, employeeudt>
);
http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.1/cql/cql_reference/refStaticCol.html
Querying this will give you rows with the static properties repeated, but on disk, it's still held once. You can resolve the rest client side.
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 am building a web site that has a wish list. I want to store the wish list(s) in azure table storage, but also want the user to be able to sort their wish list, when viewing it, a number of different ways - date added, date added reversed, item name etc. I also want to implement paging which I believe I can implement by making use of the continuation token.
As I understand it, "order by" isn't implemented and the order that results are returned from table storage is based on the partition key and row key. Therefore if I want to implement the paging and sorting that I describe, is the best way to implement this by storing the wish list multiple times with different partition key / row key?
In this simple case, it is likely that the wish list won't be that large and I could in fact restrict the maximum number of items that can appear in the list, then get rid of paging and sort in memory. However, I have more complex cases that I also need to implement paging and sorting for.
On today’ s hardware having 1000’s of rows to hold, in a list, in memory and sort is easily supportable. What the real issue is, how possible is it for you to access the rows in table storage using the Keys and not having to do a table scan. Duplicating rows across multiple tables could get quite cumbersome to maintain.
An alternate solution, would be to temporarily stage your rows into SQL Azure and apply an order by there. This may be effective if your result set is too large to work in memory. For best results the temporary table would need to have the necessary indexes.
Azure Storage keeps entities in lexicographical order, indexed by Partition Key as primary index and Row Key as secondary index. In general for your scenario it sounds like UserId would be a good fit for a partition key, so you have the Row Key to optimize for per each query.
If you want the user to see the wish lists latest on top, then you can use the log tail pattern where your row key will be the inverted Date Time Ticks of the DateTime when the wish list was entered by the user.
https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/storage/tables/table-storage-design-patterns#log-tail-pattern
If you want user to see their wish lists ordered by the item name you could have your item name as your row key, and so the entities will naturally sorted by azure.
When you are writing the data you may want to denormalize the data and do multiple writes with these different row key schemas. Since you will have the same partition key as user id, you can at that stage do a batch insert operation and not worry about consistency since azure table batch operations are atomic.
To differentiate the different rowkey schemas, you may want to prepend each with a const string value. Like your inverted ticks row key value for instance woul dbe something like "InvertedTicks_[InvertedDateTimeTicksOfTheWishList]" and your item names row key value would be "ItemName_[ItemNameOfTheWishList]"
Why not do all of this in .net using a List.
For this type of application I would have thought SQL Azure would have been more appropriate.
Something like this worked just fine for me:
List<TableEntityType> rawData =
(from c in ctx.CreateQuery<TableEntityType>("insysdata")
where ((c.PartitionKey == "PartitionKey") && (c.Field == fieldvalue))
select c).AsTableServiceQuery().ToList();
List<TableEntityType> sortedData = rawData.OrderBy(c => c.DateTime).ToList();
I have a Horse Racing Database that has the results for all handicap races for the 2010 flat season. The spreadsheet has now got too big and I want to convert it to a MySQL Databse. I have looked at many sites about normalizing data and database structures but I just can't work out what goes where, and what are PRIMARY KEYS,FOREIGN KEYS ETC I have over 30000 lines in the spreadsheet. the Column headings are :-
RACE_NO,DATE,COURSE,R_TIME,AGE,FURS,CLASS,PRIZE,RAN,Go,BHB,WA,AA,POS,DRW,BTN,HORSE,WGT,SP,TBTN,PPL,LGTHS,BHB,BHBADJ,BEYER
most of the columns are obvious, the following explains the less obvious BHB is the class of race,WA and AA are weight allowances for age and weight,TBTN is total distance beaten,PPL is Pounds per length, the last 4 are ratings.
I managed to export into MySQL as a flat file by saving the spreadsheet as a comma delimited file but I need to structure the
data into a normalized state with the proper KEYS.
I would appreciate any advice
many thyanks
Davey H
To do this in the past, I've done it in several steps...
Import your Excel spreadsheet into Microsoft Access
Import your Microsoft Access database into MySQL using the MySQL Workbench (previously MySQL GUI Tools + MySQL Migration Toolkit)
It's a bit disjointed, but it usually works pretty well and saves me time in the long run.
It's kind of an involved question, and it would be difficult to give you a precise answer without knowing a little bit more about your system, but I can try and give you a high level overview of how Relational Database Mangement Systems (RDBMS's) are structured.
A primary key is some identifier for a particular record - usually it is unique to that record. In this case, your RACE_NO column might be a suitable primary key. That way, you can identify every race by its unique number.
Foreign keys are numbers that describe the relationships between other objects/tables in your database. For example, you may want to create a table that lists all the different classes of races. Each record in that table would have a primary key, unique to that class. If you wanted to indicate in your "races" table which class each race was, you might have a column for each record called class_id. The value of that column would be populated with primary keys from the "classes" table. You can then use join operations to bring all the information together into one view.
For more on data structures and mysql, I suggest the W3C tutorials on SQL: http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_intro.asp
Before anything else, You need to define your data: You have to fit every column into a value space known to MySQL.
Numeric value
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/numeric-types.html
Textual value
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/string-type-overview.html
Date/Time value
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/date-and-time-type-overview.html