Would like some suggestions on loading data to Redshift.
Currently we have an EMR cluster where RAW data is ingested regularly. We have a transformation job which runs daily and creates final modeled object. However, we are following truncate and load strategy in EMR . Due to business reasons there is no way to figure out which data has changed.
We are planning to store of this modeled object in Redshift.
Now my question is If we follow the same truncate and load strategy in
RedShift also, will that work?
I was able to find only articles which say use copy if you want to perform bulk copy, and then use insert command for small updates. But nothing on can and should we be using RedShift where the data is getting overwritten daily.
Related
I have a trigger in Oracle. Can anyone please help me with how it can be replicated to Redshift? DynamoDB managed stream kind of functionality will also work.
Redshift does not support triggers because it's a data warehousing system which is designed to be able to import large amounts of data in a limited time. So, if every row insert would be able to fire a trigger the performance of batch inserts would suffer. This is probably why Redshift developers didn't bother to support this and I agree with them. The trigger type of behavior should be a part of business application logic that runs in OLTP environment and not the data warehousing logic. If you want to run some code in DW after inserting or updating data you have to do it as another step of your data pipeline.
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.
At my organization, we are using a stack of AWS S3, AWS Glue, and Athena to drive some reporting of internal metrics. In general, this stack is great for quick set up for reporting off of raw data (stored in S3). The problem we've come against is what to do if we notice we need to somehow update the data that's already stored in S3. For example, we want to update values in a column that have a certain string to update that value.
Unlike a database, we can't just run a query to update all the existing data. I've tried to see if we can utilize Glue Jobs to accomplish this, but from my limited understanding, it doesn't seem like it's meant to do ETL from a bucket back to the same bucket.
The only thing I can think is to write a custom tool that iterates through an S3 bucket, loads a file, provides the transformation, and puts it back, overwriting the original. It seems there has to be a better way though.
Updates are not handled in a native way in a traditional hive-like warehousing solution, which I deem Athena to be. A common solution is a kind of engineering workaround where you do "insert overwrite" a partition (borrowing Hive syntax, possible in Presto and hopefully also possible in Athena, which is based on Presto).
Other solutions include creating new tables and atomically replacing a view, which users are supposed to query, instead of querying the underlying table(s) directly.
As this is a common problem, there are also some ready to use solutions to it, but I do not know whether which/whether they are possible with Athena. They are certainly possible with Presto (Presto SQL):
Hive ACID transactional tables (updates currently required Hive runtime)
Data Lake (open sourced by Databricks; updates currently require Spark runtime)
Hudi (I know little about this one)
We have raw data stored in S3 as parquet.
I want a subset of that data loaded into Redshift.
To be clear, the Redshift data would be the result of a query (joins, filters, aggregations) of the raw data.
I originally thought that I could build views in Athena, and load the results into Redshift - but seems that it's not that simple !
Glue ETL jobs need an S3 or RDS source - will not accept a view from Athena.
(Cannot crawl a view either).
Next solution, was to have a play with the Athena CTAS functionality, write the results of the view to S3, and then load into RedShift.
However, there is no 'overwrite' option with CTAS.
So questions ...
Is there an easier way to approach this ? (seems a simple requirement)
Is there an easy workaround to execute a CTAS with 'overwrite' behaviour ?
With that, would have to be a solution that could be bundled up into a scheduled job - and already I think is leading into a custom script.
When a simple job becomes so difficult - I cannot help but think I'm missing something simple !?
Thanks
Ol' reliable: use a lambda! Lambda functions can programmatically connect to both s3 and redshift to execute SQL statements, and you have many options for what will trigger the lambda (if it's just a one-time thing, you can just have it be a scheduled lambda). You will be able use cloudwatch logs to examine the process too.
But beware: I noticed that you stored your data as a parquet... Normal Redshift does not support parquet formatted data. So, if you want to store types like structs, etc. you will need to use Redshift Spectrum.
My team is attempting to use Redshift to consolidate information from several different databases. In our first attempt to implement this solution, we used Kinesis Firehose to write records of POSTs to our APIs to S3 then issued a COPY command to write the data being inserted to the correct tables in Redshift. However, this only allowed us to insert new data and did not let us transform data, update rows when altered, or delete rows.
What is the best way to maintain an updated data warehouse in Redshift without using batch transformation? Ideally, we would like updates to occur "automatically" (< 5min) whenever data is altered in our local databases.
Firehose or Redshift don't have triggers, however you could potentially use the approach using Lambda and Firehose to pre-process the data before it gets inserted as described here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/bigdata/post/Tx2MUQB5PRWU36K/Persist-Streaming-Data-to-Amazon-S3-using-Amazon-Kinesis-Firehose-and-AWS-Lambda
In your case, you could extend it to use Lambda on S3 as Firehose is creating new files, which would then execute COPY/SQL update.
Another alternative is just writing your own KCL client that would implement what Firehose does, and then executing the required updates after COPY of micro-batches (500-1000 rows).
I've done such an implementation (we needed to update old records based on new records) and it works alright from consistency point of view, though I'd advise against such architecture in general due to bad Redshift performance with regards to updates. Based on my experience, the key rule is that Redshift data is append-only, and it is often faster to use filters to remove unnecessary rows (with optional regular pruning, like daily) than to delete/update those rows in real-time.
Yet another alernative, is to have Firehose dump data into staging table(s), and then have scheduled jobs take whatever is in that table, do processing, move the data, and rotate tables.
As a general reference architecture for real-time inserts into Redshift, take a look at this: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/bigdata/post/Tx2ANLN1PGELDJU/Best-Practices-for-Micro-Batch-Loading-on-Amazon-Redshift
This has been implemented multiple times, and works well.