I'm choosing the proper Tools for BI/OLAP and need understand whether Snowflake or Druid is more suitable for my goals.
Currently I'm using Snowflake as my Data Warehouse, and it serves both
raw data queries (with massive dataset responses)
aggregated results
In order to achieve performance of the second type, I'm creating additional aggregation tables, which acts as an OLAP cube.
My data is time-based.
However, this method demands additional work, as well as data duplication and static query requirements.
Therefore, I'm considering to adopt apache Druid, which will provide solution for the aggregation.
Is Druid capable of replacing Snowflake for the raw dataset, assuming the the queries will always be bound by the time range, and that I can use scan-queries? Or must I keep both DBs?
Related
Most of the reasons for using a graph database seem to be that relational databases are slow when making graph like queries.
However, if I am using GraphQL with a data loader, all my queries are flattened and combined using the data loader, so you end up making simpler SELECT * FROM X type queries instead of doing any heavy joins. I might even be using a No-SQL database which is usually pretty fast at these kinds of flat queries.
If this is the case, is there a use case for Graph databases anymore when combined with GraphQL? Neo4j seems to be promoting GraphQL. I'd like to understand the advantages if any.
GraphQL doesn't negate the need for graph databases at all, the connection is very powerful and makes GraphQL more performant and powerful.
You mentioned:
However, if I am using GraphQL with a data loader, all my queries are flattened and combined using the data loader, so you end up making simpler SELECT * FROM X type queries instead of doing any heavy joins.
This is a curious point, because if you do a lot of SELECT * FROM X and the data is connected by a graph loader, you're still doing the joins, you're just doing them in software outside of the database, at another layer, by another means. If even that software layer isn't joining anything, then what you gain by not doing joins in the database you're losing by executing many queries against the database, plus the overhead of the additional layer. Look into the performance profile of sequencing a series of those individual "easy selects". By not doing those joins, you may have lost 30 years value of computer science research...rather than letting the RDMBS optimize the query execution path, the software layer above it is forcing a particular path by choosing which selects to execute in which order, at which time.
It stands to reason that if you don't have to go through any layer of formalism transformation (relational -> graph) you're going to be in a better position. Because that formalism translation is a cost you must pay every time, every query, no exceptions. This is sort of equivalent to the obvious observation that XML databases are going to be better at executing XPath expressions than relational databases that have some XPath abstraction on top. The computer science of this is straightforward; purpose-built data structures for the task typically outperform generic data structures adapted to a new task.
I recommend Jim Webber's article on the motivations for a native graph database if you want to go deeper on why the storage format and query processing approach matters.
What if it's not a native graph database? If you have a graph abstraction on top of an RDBMS, and then you use GraphQL to do graph queries against that, then you've shifted where and how the graph traversal happens, but you still can't get around the fact that the underlying data structure (tables) isn't optimized for that, and you're incurring extra overhead in translation.
So for all of these reasons, a native graph database + GraphQL is going to be the most performant option, and as a result I'd conclude that GraphQL doesn't make graph databases unnecessary, it's the opposite, it shows where they shine.
They're like chocolate and peanut butter. Both great, but really fantastic together. :)
Yes GraphQL allows you to make some kind of graph queries, you can start from one entity, and then explore its neighborhood, and so on.
But, if you need performances in graph queries, you need to have a native graph database.
With GraphQL you give a lot of power to the end-user. He can make a deep GraphQL query.
If you have an SQL database, you will have two choices:
to compute a big SQL query with a lot of joins (really bad idea)
make a lot of SQL queries to retrieve the neighborhood of the neighborhood, ...
If you have a native graph database, it will be just one query with good performance! It's a graph traversal, and native graph database are made for this.
Moreover, if you use GraphQL, you consider your data model as a graph. So to store it as graph seems obvious and gives you less headache :)
I recommend you to read this post: The Motivation for Native Graph Databases
Answer for Graph Loader
With Graph loader you will do a lot of small queries (it's the second choice on my above answer) but wait no, ... there is a cache record.
Graph loaders just do batch and cache.
For comparaison:
you need to add another library and implement the logic (more code)
you need to manage the cache. There is a lot of documentation about this topic. (more memory and complexity)
due to SELECT * in loaders, you will always get more data than needed Example: I only want the id and name of a user not his email, birthday, ... (less performant)
...
The answer from FrobberOfBits is very good. There are many reasons to add (or avoid) using GraphQL, whether or not a graph database is involved. I wanted to add a small consideration against putting GraphQL in front of a graph. Of course, this is just one of what ought to be many other considerations involved with making a decision.
If the starting point is a relational database, then GraphQL (in front of that datbase) can provide a lot of flexibility to the caller – great for apps, clients, etc. to interact with data. But in order to do that, GraphQL needs to be aligned closely with the database behind it, and specifically the database schema. The database schema is sort of "projected out" to apps, clients, etc. in GraphQL.
However, if the starting point is a native graph database (Neo4j, etc.) there's a world of schema flexibility available to you because it's a graph. No more database migrations, schema updates, etc. If you have new things to model in the data, just go ahead and do it. This is a really, really powerful aspect of graphs. If you were to put GraphQL in front of a graph database, you also introduce the schema concept – GraphQL needs to be shown what is / isn't allowed in the data. While your graph database would allow you to continue evolving your data model as product needs change and evolve, your GraphQL interactions would need to be updated along the way to "know" about what new things are possible. So there's a cost of less flexibility, and something else to maintain over time.
It might be great to use a graph + GraphQL, or it might be great to just use a graph by itself. Of course, like all things, this is a question of trade-offs.
How does Apache Kudu compare with InfluxDB for IoT sensor data that requires fast analytics (e.g. robotics)?
Kudu has recently released v1.0 I have a few specific questions on how Kudu handles the following:
Sharding?
Data retention policies (keeping data for a specified number of data points, or time and aggregating/discarding data thereafter)?
Are there roll-up /aggregation functionality (e.g. converting 1s interval data into 1min interval data)?
Is there support for continuous queries (i.e. materialised views on data - query to view the 60 seconds on an ongoing basis)?
How is the data stored between disk and memory?
Can regular time series be induced from an irregular one (converting irregular event data into regular time intervals)?
Also are there any other distinct strengths and/or weaknesses between Kudu and InfluxDB?
Kudu is a much lower level datastore than InfluxDB. Its more like a distributed file system that provides a few database like features than a full fledged database. It currently relies on a query engine such as Impala for finding data stored in Kudu.
Kudu is also fairly young. It likely would be possible to build a time series database with kudu as the distributed store underneath it, but currently the closest implementation to that would be this proof of concept project.
As for the answers to your questions.
1) Kudu stores data in tablets and offers two ways of partitioning data: Range Partitions and Hash based Partitioning
2) Nope Although if the data was structured with range partitioning, dropping a tablet should be an efficient operation (similar to how InfluxDB drops whole shards when deleting data).
3) Query engines that work with Kudu are able to do this, such as impala or spark.
4) Impala does have some support for views
5) Data is stored in a columnar format similar to Parquet however Kudu's big selling point is that Kudu allows the columnar data to be mutable, which is something that is very difficult with current parquet files.
6) While I'm sure you could get spark or impala to do this, its not a built in feature.
Kudu is still a new project and it is not really designed to compete with InfluxDB but rather give a highly scalable and highly performant storage layer for a service like InfluxDB. The ability to append data to a parquet like data structure is really exciting though as it could eliminate the need for lambda architectures.
I am new to DW . When we should use the term Datamart and when we should use the term Datawarehousing . Please explain with example may be your own example or in terms of Adventureworks .
I'm don't work on MS SQL Server. But here's a generic example with a business use case.
Let me add another term to this. First off, there is a main transactional database which interacts with your application (assuming you have an application to interact with, obviously). The data gets written into the Master database (hopefully, you are using Master-Slave replication), and simultaneously gets copied into the salve. According to the business and reporting requirements, cleansing and ETL is performed on the application data and data is aggregated and stored in a denormalized form to improve reporting performance and reduce the number of joins. Complex pre-calculated data is readily available to the business user for reporting and analysis purposes. This is a dimensional database - which is a denormalized form of the main transactional database (most probably in 3NF).
But, as you may know, all businesses have different supporting systems which also bring in data in the form of spreadsheets, csvs and flatfiles. This data is usually for a single domain, such as, call center, collections so on and so forth. We can call every such separate domain data as data mart. The data from different domains is also operated upon by an ETL tool and is denormalized in its own fashion. When we combine all the datamarts and dimensional databases for solving reporting and analysis problem for business, we get a data warehouse.
Assume that you have a major application, running on a website - which is your main business. You have all primary consumer interaction on that website. That will give you your primary dimensional database. For consumer support, you may have a separate solution, such as Avaya or Genesys implemented in your company - they will provide you the data on the same (or probably different server). You prepare ETLs to load that data onto your own server. You call the resultant data as data marts. And you combine all of these things to get a data warehouse. I know, I am being repetitive but that is on purpose.
I´ve been looking for a triple store for my project. In this project i want to store my data according to certain ontologies (OWL).
From my research i ended up with two tecnologies Neo4J and BigData that seems to fit well in this case.
I want to know if any of this two is more apropriated to use with RDF, RDFS, OWL and SPARQL Queries.
Neo4j can be used to store as entity-relationship-entity form. In case of Bigdata, you should not be upload your whole data into Neo4j because it will become very heavy and process will be very much slow. You should use complimentary db for storing actual data and store ids and some params into Neo4j for Graph traversal to perform sort of Graph Analytics. Neo4j is mainly build up for Graph Analytics that its power or you have to use Graph engine e.g GraphX (Spark).
Thanks,
You might want to try out the SparQL plugin for Neo4j, see here for a HTTP based test, and this Berlin Dataset Test for embedded usage.
Neo4J is a specific technology, while big data is more a generic term. I think what you're asking about OLAP and OLTP. As data gets bigger, there are differences between use cases for RDF style graph databases, which are often used for OLAP (On-line Analytical Processing) style analytics. In short, OLAP is designed for analytics that look across an big data set, while OLTP is more aimed at INSERT/DELETEs (on potentially big data).
OLAP-based traversals tend to process the entire graph, while OLTP based traversals tend to process smaller data sets by starting with one or a handful of vertices and traversing from there.
For example, let’s say you wanted to calculate the average age of friends of one particular user. Great use case for OLTP, since the query data set is small. However, if you wanted to calculate the average age of everyone on the database, OLAP is the preferred technology.
OLAP is optimal for deep analysis of a lot of data, while OLTP is better suited for fast running queries and a lot of INSERTs. If you’re trying to achieve a SLA where the analytics must complete within a certain timeframe, consider the type of analytics and which one is better suited. Or maybe you need both.
Can anyone point me to a reference or provide a high level overview of how companies like Facebook, Yahoo, Google, etc al perform the large scale (e.g. multi-TB range) log analysis that they do for operations and especially web analytics?
Focusing on web analytics in particular, I'm interested in two closely-related aspects: query performance and data storage.
I know that the general approach is to use map reduce to distribute each query over a cluster (e.g. using Hadoop). However, what's the most efficient storage format to use? This is log data, so we can assume each event has a time stamp, and that in general the data is structured and not sparse. Most web analytics queries involve analyzing slices of data between two arbitrary timestamps and retrieving aggregate statistics or anomalies in that data.
Would a column-oriented DB like Big Table (or HBase) be an efficient way to store, and more importantly, query such data? Does the fact that you're selecting a subset of rows (based on timestamp) work against the basic premise of this type of storage? Would it be better to store it as unstructured data, eg. a reverse index?
Unfortunately there is no one size fits all answer.
I am currently using Cascading, Hadoop, S3, and Aster Data to process 100's Gigs a day through a staged pipeline inside of AWS.
Aster Data is used for the queries and reporting since it provides a SQL interface to the massive data sets cleaned and parsed by Cascading processes on Hadoop. Using the Cascading JDBC interfaces, loading Aster Data is quite a trivial process.
Keep in mind tools like HBase and Hypertable are Key/Value stores, so don't do ad-hoc queries and joins without the help of a MapReduce/Cascading app to perform the joins out of band, which is a very useful pattern.
in full disclosure, I am a developer on the Cascading project.
http://www.asterdata.com/
http://www.cascading.org/
The book Hadoop: The definitive Guide by O'Reilly has a chapter which discusses how hadoop is used at two real-world companies.
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9780596521974/ch14
Have a look at the paper Interpreting the Data: Parallel Analysis with Sawzall by Google. This is a paper on the tool Google uses for log analysis.