Is it beneficial to pull the data from Datawarehouse for analytical CRM application or it should be pulled from the source systems without the need of Datawarehouse??....Please help me answering.....
For CRM it is better to fetch the data from datawarehouse. Where a data transformations developed according to the buiness needs using various ETL tools, using this transofrmations you can integrate the CRM analytics for analysing the large chunk of data.
I guess the answer will lie in a few factors
what data you need,
the granularity of that data and,
the ease of extract
If you need data that you will need to access more than one source system, then you will have to do the joining of that data between them. One big strength of getting the data from a DWH, is that they tend to have data from a number of source systems and are well connected across these source systems with busienss rules being applied consistently across them.
A datawarehouse should have lowest granularity data, but sometimes, for pragmatic reasons, decisions may have been taken to partly summarise the data, thus you may not have the approproate granularity.
The big advantage of a DWH is that it is a simle dimensional model structure (for a kimball star schema any how), so as long as the first two are true, I would always get my data from the DWH.
g/l!
Sharing my thoughts on business case to pull from datawarehouse rather than directly from CRM system would be -
DWH can hold lot more indicators for Decision making and analysis at enterprise level across various systems than a single system like CRM. Therefore if you want to further your analysis on CRM data you can merge easily information from other system to perform better analytics/BI from DWH.
If you want to bring conformity across systems for seeing data of customer with single view. For example, you can have pipeline and sales information from CRM and then perform revenue calculation in another system for the same customer. Its possible that you want both sets of details in single place with same customer record linked to both measures.Then you might want to add Risk (Credit information) from external source into the same record in DWH. It brings true scability in terms of reporting and adhoc requests.
Remove the non-core work and dettach the CRM production system from BI and reporting (not talking of specific CRM reports). This has various advantages both terms of operations and convinence. You can google on this subject more to understand the benefits.
For now these are the only points that come to me. I will try adding more thoughts later.
P.S: I am more than happy to be corrected :-)
Related
We are building a data warehouse by consuming file feeds from different sources.
The file feeds are all denormalized/flattened (In the Transactions (fact) file, the Account attributes keeps repeating in all the records).
Also, the account information changes often (the feed gives an as-is version of the data).
What is the best practice in this situation. Should the data warehouse have a star schema model (with the Account information as a slowly changing dimension and a Transaction fact). Will re-normalizing make the ETL process complex?
In my company, whenever some input is denormalized, we normalize it and from there we proceed with loading our schemas (whatever your schema is).
The reason is that, being de-normalized, those inputs are difficult to check for inconsistencies (data quality). Apart from that, conforming all of your inputs to some standard allows your code to be more maintainable.
In our case, following the Kimball practices has been a total success, fact table, slow changing dimensions and all that jazz.
Hard to answer without such details as daily volume, latency threshold, resource availability, reporting requirements, platform and tool constraints, etc. A traditional ODS, where you import into and store a normalized structure before creating data marts from that, is great but not optimal for big data or real time analysis. A more modern approach, using a data lake in Hadoop or a virtualization layer, may not be feasible for your organization.
General Opinions:
1) re-normalizing does seem unnecessary from both a complexity and performance standpoint unless you have some ongoing use for the normalized data store.
2) Whether or not you build a traditional star schema or a graph or whatever should be governed by the reporting requirements and tools, not the source data format. Those sources will change, btw.
3) "Transaction" does not sound like a fact to me. A purchase transaction, e.g., could feed a sales fact, an accumulating snapshot for a sales cycle, a funnel conversion fact, etc.
4) I'm not sure whether "Account" is a customer, or a balance account such as a credit card, online payment service, bank account, etc. They imply different SCD types. In any case, Google will be sufficient to get plenty of information about building those dimensions.
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.
In a Rails app, I am wondering how to build a reporting solution. I heard that I should use a separated database for reporting purposes but knowing that I will need to store a huge amount of data, I have a lot of questions :
What kind of DBMS should I choose?
When should I store data in the reporting database?
Should the database schema of the production db and reporting db be identical?
I am storing basic data (information about users, about result of operations) and I will need for example to run a report to know how many user failed an operation during the previous month.
In now that it is a vague question, but any hint would be highly appreciated.
Thanks!
Work Backwards
Start from what the end-users want for reporting or how they want to/should visualize data. Once you have some concepts in mind, then start working backwards to how to achieve those goals. Starting with the assumption that it should be a replicated copy in an RBDMS excludes several reasonable possibilities.
Making a Real-time Interface
If users are looking to aggregate values (counts, averages, etc.) on the fly (per web request), it would be worthwhile looking into replicating the master down to a reporting database if the SQL performance is acceptable (and stays acceptable if you were to double the input data). SQL engines usually do a great job aggregation and scale pretty far. This would also give you the capability to join data results together and return complex results as the users request it.
Just remember, replication isn't easy or without it's own set of problems.
This'll start to show signs of weakness in the hundreds of millions of rows range with normalized data, in my experience. At some point, inserts fight with selects on the same table enough that both become exceptionally slow (remember, replication is still a stream of inserts). Alternatively, indexes become so large that storage I/O is required for rekeying, so overall table performance diminishes.
Batching
On the other hand, if reporting falls under the scheme of sending standardized reports out with little interaction, I wouldn't necessarily recommend backing to an RBDMS. In this case, results are combined, aggregated, joined, etc. once. Paying the overhead of RBDMS indexing and storage bloat isn't worth it.
Batch engines like Hadoop will scale horizontally (many smaller machines instead of a few huge machines) so processing larger volumes of data is economical.
Batch to RBDMS or K/V Store
This is also a useful path if a lot of computation is needed to make the records more meaningful to a reporting engine. Alternatively, records could be denormalized before storing them in the reporting storage engine. The denormalized or simple results would then be shipped to a key/value store or RBDMS to make reporting easier and achieve higher performance at the cost of latency, compute, and possibly storage.
Personal Advice
Don't over-design it to start with. The decisions you make on the initial implementation will probably all change at some point. However, design it with the current and near-term problems in mind. Also, benchmarks done by others are not terribly useful if your usage model isn't exactly the same as theirs; benchmark your usage model.
I would recommend to to use some pre-build reporting services than to manually write out if you need a large set of reports.
You might want to look at Tableau http://www.tableausoftware.com/ and other available.
Database .. Yes it should be a separate seems safer , plus reporting is generally for old and consolidated data.. you live data might be too large to perform analysis on.
Database type -- > have to choose based on the reporting services used , though I think mongo is not supported by any of the reporting services , mysql is preferred.
If there are only one or two reports you could just build them on rails
I am developing a web-based application using Rails. I am debating between using a Graph Database, such as InfoGrid, or a Document Database, such as MongoDB.
My application will need to store both small sets of data, such as a URL, and very large sets of data, such as Virtual Machines. This data will be tied to a single user.
I am interested in learning about peoples experiences with either Graph or Document databases and why they would use either of the options.
Thank you
I don't feel enough experienced with both worlds to properly and fully answer your question, however I'm using a document database for some time and here are some personal hints.
The document databases are based on a concept of key,value, and static views and are pretty cool for finding a set of documents that have a particular value.
They don't conceptualize the relations between documents.
So if your software have to provide advanced "queries" where selection criteria act on several 'types of document' or if you simply need to perform a selection using several elements, the [key,value] concept is not appropriate.
There are also a number of other cases where document databases are inappropriate : presenting large datasets in "paged" tables, sortable on several columns is one of the cases where the performances are low and disk space usage is huge.
So in many cases you'll have to perform "server side" processing in order to pick up the pieces, and with rails, or any other ruby based framework, you might run into performance issues.
The graph database are based on the concept of tripplestore, meaning that they also conceptualize the relations between the entities.
The graph can be traversed using the relations (and entity roles), and might be more convenient when performing searches across relation-structured data.
As I have no experience with graph database, I'm not aware if the graph database can be easily queried/traversed with several criterias, however if an advised reader has such an information I'd really appreciate any examples of such queries/traversals.
I'm currently reading about InfoGrid and trying to figure if such databases could by handy in order to perform complex requests on a very large set of data, relations included ....
From what I can read, the InfoGrah should be considered as a "data federator" able to search/mine the data from several sources (Stores) wich can also be a NoSQL database such as Mongo.
Wich means that you could use a mongo store for updates and InfoGraph for data searching, and maybe spare a lot of cpu and disk when it comes to complex searches inside a nosql database.
Of course it might seem a little "overkill" if your app simply stores a large set of huge binary files in a database and all you need is to perform simple key queries and to retrieve the result. In that cas a nosql database such as mongo or couch would probably be handy.
Hope some of this helps ;)
When connecting related documents by edges, will you get a shallow or a deep graph? I think the answer to that question is important when deciding between graphdbs and documentdbs. See Square Pegs and Round Holes in the NOSQL World by Jim Webber for thoughts along these lines.
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.