I am building an ETL pipeline using primarily state machines, Athena, S3, and the Glue catalog. In general things work in the following way:
A table, partitioned by "version", exists in the Glue Catalog. The table represents the output destination of some ETL process.
A step function (managed by some other process) executes "INSERT INTO" athena queries. The step function supplies a "version" that is used as part of the "INSERT INTO" query so that new data can be appended into the table defined in (1). The table contains all "versions" - it's a historical table that grows over time.
My question is: What is a good way of exposing a view/table that allows someone (or something) to query only the latest "version" partition for a given historically partitioned table?
I've looked into other table types AWS offers, including Governed tables and Iceberg tables. Each seems to have some incompatibility with our existing or planned future architecture:
Governed tables do not support writes via athena insert queries. Only Glue ETL/Spark seems to be supported at the moment.
Iceberg tables do not support Lake Formation data filters (which we'd like to use in the future to control data access)
Iceberg tables also seem to have poor performance. Anecdotally, it can take several seconds to insert a very small handful of rows to a given iceberg table. I'd worry about future performance when we want to insert a million rows.
Related
Based on my research, the easiest and the most straight forward way to get metadata out of Glue's Data Catalog, is using Athena and querying the information_schema database. The article below has come up frequently in my research and is written by Amazon's team:
Querying AWS Glue Data Catalog
However, under the section titled Considerations and limitations the following is written:
Querying information_schema is most performant if you have a small to moderate amount of AWS Glue metadata. If you have a large amount of metadata, errors can occur.
Unfortunately, in this article, there do not seem to be any indications or suggestion regarding what constitutes as "large amount of metadata" and exactly what errors could occur when the metadata is large and one needs to query the metadata.
My question is, how to deal with the issue related to the ever growing size of data catalog's metadata so that one would never encounter errors when using Athena to query the metadata?
Is there a best practice for this? Or perhaps a better solution for getting the same metadata that querying the catalog using Athena provides without multiple or great many API calls (using boto3, Hive DDL etc)?
I talked to AWS Support and did some research on this. Here's what I gathered:
The information_schema is built at query execution time, there doesn't seem to be any caching.
If you access information_schema.tables, it will make separate calls for each schema you have to the Hive Metastore (Glue Data Catalog).
If you access information_schema.columns, it will make separate calls for each schema and each table in that schema you have to the Hive Metastore.
These queries are affected by the general service quotas. In this case, DML queries like your select must finish within 30 minutes.
If your Glue Data Catalog has many thousands of schemas, tables, and columns all of this may result in slow performance. As a rough guesstimate support told me that you should be fine as long as you have less than ~ 10000 tables, which should be the case for most people.
I have an existing Athena table (w/ hive-style partitions) that's using the Avro SerDe. When I first created the table, I declared the Athena schema as well as the Athena avro.schema.literal schema per AWS instructions. Everything has been working great.
I now wish to add new columns that will apply going forward but not be present on the old partitions. I tried a basic ADD COLUMNS command that claims to succeed but has no impact on SHOW CREATE TABLE. I then wondered if I needed to change the Avro schema declaration as well, which I attempted to do but discovered that ALTER TABLE SET SERDEPROPERTIES DDL is not supported in Athena.
AWS claims I should be able to add columns when using Avro, but at this point I'm unsure how to do it. Even if I'm willing to drop the table metadata and redeclare all of the partitions, I'm not sure how to do it right since the schema is different on the historical partitions.
Looking for high-level guidance on the steps to be taken. Documentation is scant and Athena seems to be lacking support for commands that are referenced in this same scenario in vanilla Hive world. Thanks for any insights.
We have an AWS EMR which includes a Hive backed by aurora metadata and data stored in s3. There are programs that create the database(s) and tables inside in Hive and populate data.
After a while, these databases are no longer needed (say after 1 year). We want to delete those hive databases automatically after a set period. The usual way is to set a cron job that runs every month or so, to find the databases from an internal metadata table that are older than 1 year, and programmatically fire the queries in Hive which deletes it. But this has some drawbacks like Manually created tables are not being covered.
Is there any hive built-in feature that does the above?
Hive is actually just a metadata store that defines how data should be interpreted. It does not manage any of the underlying data. (This is a major difference between hive and a conventional database. And why hive can use multiple file backends(hdfs&S3) in the same hive instance.)
I'm going to guess you are using an s3 bucket for you data so you likely want to look into expiring objects. This will do exactly what you want. Delete data after a period of time. This will not disrupt hive.
If you are using partitions you may wish to do some additional cleanup.
MSCK REPAIR TABLE will help maintain the partitions in hive but is really slow in S3 and periodically can timeout. YMMV.
It's better to drop partitions:
ALTER TABLE bills DROP IF EXISTS PARTITION (mydate='2022-02') PURGE;
In Hive you can implement partitions retention (since Hive 3.1.0)
For example to drop partitions and their data after 7 days:
ALTER TABLE employees SET TBLPROPERTIES ('partition.retention.period'='7d');
There is not a hive internal tool that removes 'databases' according to a "retention period" in hive.
You have been doing this for a while so you are likely well aware of the risks of deleting metadata older than a year.
There are several ways to define retention on data, but none that I'm aware to remove metadata.
Things you could look at:
You could add a trigger to Aurora to delete tables directly from the hive metadata. (Hive tables have values for create time and they're last access time) you could create some logic to work at that level.
I am looking into different Big Data solutions and have not been able to find a clear answer or documentation on what might be the best approach and frameworks/services to use to address my Big Data use-case.
My Use-case:
I have a data producer that will be sending ~1-2 billion events to a
Kinesis Data Firehose delivery stream daily.
This data needs to be stored in some data lake / data warehouse, aggregated, and then
loaded into DynamoDB for our service to consume the aggregated data
in its business logic.
The DynamoDB table needs to be updated hourly. (hourly is not a hard requirement but we would like DynamoDB to be updated as soon as possible, at the longest intervals of daily updates if required)
The event schema is similar to: customerId, deviceId, countryCode, timestamp
The aggregated schema is similar to: customerId, deviceId, countryCode (the aggregation is on the customerId's/deviceId's MAX(countryCode) for each day over the last 29 days, and then the MAX(countryCode) overall over the last 29 days.
Only the CustomerIds/deviceIds that had their countryCode change from the last aggregation (from an hour ago) should be written to DynamoDB to keep required write capacity units low.
The raw data stored in the data lake / data warehouse needs to be deleted after 30 days.
My proposed solution:
Kinesis Data Firehose delivers the data to a Redshift staging table (by default using S3 as intermediate storage and then using the COPY command to load to Redshift)
An hourly Glue job that:
Drops the 30 day old time-series table and creates a new time-series table for today in Redshift if this is the first job run of a new day
Loads data from staging table to the appropriate time-series table
Creates a view on top of the last 29 days of time-series tables
Aggregates by customerId, deviceId, date, and MAX(CountryCode)
Then aggregates by customerId, deviceId, MAX(countryCode)
Writes the aggregated results to an S3 bucket
Checks the previous hourly Glue job's run aggregated results vs. the current runs aggregated results to find the customerIds/deviceIds that had their countryCode change
Writes the customerIds/deviceIds rows that had their countryCode change to DynamoDB
My questions:
Is Redshift the best storage choice here? I was also considering using S3 as storage and directly querying data from S3 using a Glue job, though I like the idea of a fully-managed data warehouse.
Since our data has a fixed retention period of 30 days, AWS documentation: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_best-practices-time-series-tables.html suggests to use time-series tables and running DROP TABLE on older data that needs to be deleted. Are there other approaches (outside of Redshift) that would make the data lifecycle management easier? Having the staging table, creating and loading into new time-series tables, dropping older time-series tables, updating the view to include the new time-series table and not the one that was dropped could be error prone.
What would be an optimal way to find the the rows (customerId/deviceId combinations) that had their countryCode change since the last aggregation? I was thinking the Glue job could create a table from the previous runs aggregated results S3 file and another table from the current runs aggregated results S3 file, run some variation of a FULL OUTER JOIN to find the rows that have different countryCodes. Is there a better approach here that I'm not aware of?
I am a newbie when it comes to Big Data and Big Data solutions so any and all input is appreciated!
tldr: Use step functions, not Glue. Use Redshift Spectrum with data in S3. Otherwise you overall structure looks on track.
You are on the right track IMHO but there are a few things that could be better. Redshift is great for sifting through tons of data and performing analytics on it. However I'm not sure you want to COPY the data into Redshift if all you are doing is building aggregates to be loaded into DDB. Do you have other analytic workloads being done that will justify storing the data in Redshift? Are there heavy transforms being done between the staging table and the time series event tables? If not you may want to make the time series tables external - read directly from S3 using Redshift Spectrum. This could be a big win as the initial data grouping and aggregating is done in the Spectrum layer in S3. This way the raw data doesn't have to be moved.
Next I would advise not using Glue unless you have a need (transform) that cannot easily be done elsewhere. I find Glue to require some expertise to get to do what you want and it sounds like you would just be using it for a data movement orchestrator. If this impression is correct you will be better off with a step function or even a data pipeline. (I've wasted way too much time trying to get Glue to do simple things. It's a powerful tool but make sure you'll get value from the time you will spend on it.)
If you are only using Redshift to do these aggregations and you go the Spectrum route above you will want to get as small a cluster as you can get away with. Redshift can be pricy and if you don't use its power, not cost effective. In this case you can run the cluster only as needed but Redshift boot up times are not fast and the smallest clusters are not expensive. So this is a possibility but only in the right circumstances. Depending on how difficult the aggregation is that you are doing you might want to look at Athena. If you are just running a few aggregating queries per hour then this could be the most cost effective approach.
Checking against the last hour's aggregations is just a matter of comparing the new aggregates against the old which are in S3. This is easily done with Redshift Spectrum or Athena as they can makes files (or sets of files) the source for a table. Then it is just running the queries.
In my opinion Glue is an ETL tool that can do high power transforms. It can do a lot of things but is not my first (or second) choice. It is touchy, requires a lot of configuration to do more than the basics, and requires expertise that many data groups don't have. If you are a Glue expert, knock you self out; If not, I would avoid.
As for data management, yes you don't want to be deleting tons of rows from the beginning of tables in Redshift. It creates a lot of data reorganization work. So storing your data in "month" tables and using a view is the right way to go in Redshift. Dropping tables doesn't create this housekeeping. That said if you organize you data in S3 in "month" folders then unneeded removing months of data can just be deleting these folders.
As for finding changing country codes this should be easy to do in SQL. Since you are comparing aggregate data to aggregate data this shouldn't be expensive either. Again Redshift Spectrum or Athena are tools that allow you to do this on S3 data.
As for being a big data newbie, not a worry, we all started there. The biggest difference from other areas is how important it is to move the data the fewest number of times. It sounds like you understand this when you say "Is Redshift the best storage choice here?". You seem to be recognizing the importance of where the data resides wrt the compute elements which is on target. If you need the horsepower of Redshift and will be accessing the data over and over again then the Redshift is the best option - The data is moved once to a place where the analytics need to run. However, Redshift is an expensive storage solution - it's not what it is meant to do. Redshift Spectrum is very interesting in that the initial aggregations of data is done in S3 and much reduced partial results are sent to Redshift for completion. S3 is a much cheaper storage solution and if your workload can be pattern-matched to Spectrum's capabilities this can be a clear winner.
I want to be clear that you have only described on area where you need a solution and I'm assuming that you don't have other needs for a Redshift cluster operating on the same data. This would change the optimization point.
I'm learning Amazon Redshift. Heard that it is very powerful storage on cloud and works very fast on data where aggregate operations are required because it stores data column-wise.
Am not able to find any example queries? Could someone share with me some examples of Aggregate queries running on Amazon Redshift? Is it different from normal relation database queries?
You are correct -- Amazon Redshift is a columnar database. This means that data is stored on disk per column, making operations on a column very fast. For example, adding the Sales column for a particular value in the Country column only requires accessing two columns rather than all columns in a table.
Other benefits are that data in Redshift is compressed (which works well with the columnar concept, because each column uses its own compression method based on the data stored) and the fact that it is a clustered database, so compute and storage can be scaled by adding additional nodes.
Amazon Redshift presents itself as a PostgreSQL database, so you just use industry-standard SQL to query data. No changes to queries are required.
However, you can optimize Redshift by wisely choosing a Distribution Key for each table that determines how data is distributed amongst nodes, and carefully select the Sort Key, which determines how data is stored on each node. Put simply, data should be distributed by how you JOIN tables and should be sorted by what you use in WHERE statements.
As for sample queries... it totally depends upon your data! Queries look exactly the same as normal SQL.