We want to use AWS Athena for analytics and segmentation, our problem is that our data is schemaless, rows are different with some similar columns.
Is it possible to create table without defining all the columns?
When we query we know the type (string/int) of each column so if there is a way to define on the query it will be great.
We can structure the data in anyway needed to support schemaless and in any format: CSV / JSON.
Is Athena an option for schemaless uses?
There are many ways to use Athena in schemaless uses and you need to give specific examples of scenarios that you want to support more efficiently as in Athena you pay based on the data that you scan and optimizing your data to minimize the data scan is critical to make it a useful tool in scale.
The simplest way to get you started as you are learning the tool, and the types of queries that you can run on your data, is to define a table with a single column ("line"), and then do the parsing of the data that you want using string functions, or JSON functions if the lines are in JSON format.
You will get good time performance if you have multiple files, but it will be expensive as you need to scan all your data for every query. I suggest that you start with these queries as a good way to define your requirements. As you see the growth of usage, start optimizing the use cases by using the CTAS (Create Table As Select) commands that will generate parquet versions of the original raw data to support the more popular (and expensive) use cases.
You are welcome to read my blog post that is describing the strategy and tactics of a cloud environment using Athena and the other AWS tools around it.
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.
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 are looking at Amazon Redshift to implement our Data Warehouse and I would like some suggestions on how to properly design Schemas in Redshift, please.
I am completely new to Redshift. In the past when I worked with "traditional" data warehouses, I was used to creating schemas such as "Source", "Stage", "Final", etc. to group all the database objects according to what stage the data was in.
By default, a database in Redshift has a single schema, which is named PUBLIC. So, my question to those who have worked with Redshift, does the approach that I have outlined above apply here? If not, I would love some suggestions.
Thanks.
With my experience in working with Redshift, I can assert the following points with confidence:
Multiple schema: You should create multiple schema and create tables accordingly. When you'll scale, it'll be easier for you to pin-point where exactly the table is supposed to be. Let us say, you have 3 schema, named production, aggregates and rough. Now, you know that the table production will contain the tables that are not supposed to be changed (mostly OLTP data) - such as user, order, transactions tables. Table aggregates will have aggregated data built over raw tables - such as number of orders placed per user per day per category. Finally, rough will contain any table that doesn't hold a business logic but is required for some temporary work - let us say to check the genre of movies for a list of 1 lakh users, which is shared with you in an excel file. Simply create a table in rough schema, perform your operations and drop the table. Now you very clearly know where you'll find the tables based on whether they are raw, aggregated or simply temporary tables.
Public schema: Forget it exists. Any table that is not preceded with a schema name, gets created there. A lot of clutter - no point in storing any important data there.
Cross schema joins: There's no stopping here. You may join as many tables from as many schema as required. In fact, it is desirable you create dimension tables and join on a PK later, rather than to keep all the information in a single table.
Spend some quality time in designing the schema and underlying table structure. When you expand, it'll be easier for you to classify things better in terms of access control. Do let me know if I've missed some obvious points.
You can have multiple databases in a Redshift cluster but I would stick with one. You are correct that schemas (essentially namespaces) are a good way to divide things up. You can query across schemas but not databases.
I would avoid using the public schema as managing certain permissions there can be difficult (easier to deny someone access to public than prevent them from being able to create a table for example).
For best results if you have the time, learn about the permissions system up front. You want to create groups that have access to schemas or tables and add/remove users from groups to control what they can do. Once you have that going it becomes pretty easy to manage.
In addition to the other responses, here are some suggestions for improving schema performance.
First: Automatic compression encodings using COPY command
Improve the performance of Amazon Redshift using the COPY command. It will get data into Redshift database. The COPY command is clever enough. It automatically chooses the most appropriate encoding settings for the data it uploads. You don’t have to think about it. However, it does so only for the first data upload into an empty table.
So, make sure to use a significant data set while uploading data for the first time, which Redshift can assess to set the column encodings in the best way. Uploading a few lines of test data will confuse Redshift to know how best to optimize the compression to handle the real workload.
Second: Use Best Distribution Style and Key
Distribution-style decides how data is distributed across the nodes. Applying a distribution style at table level tells Redshift how you want to distribute the table and the key. So, how you specify distribution style is important for good query performance with Redshift. The style you choose may affect requirements for data storage and cluster. It also affects the time taken by the COPY command to execute.
I recommend setting the distribution style to all tables with a smaller dimension. For large dimension, distribute both the dimension and associated fact on their join column. To optimize the second large dimension, take the storage-hit and distribute ALL. You can even design the dimension columns into the fact.
Third: Use the Best Sort Key
A Redshift database maintains data in a table with an arrangement of a sort-key-column if specified. Since it’s sorted in each partition; each cluster node upholds its partition in predefined order. (While designing your Redshift schema, also consider the impact on your budget. Redshift is priced by amount of stored data and by the number of nodes.)
Sort key optimizes Amazon Redshift performance significantly. You can do it in many ways. First, use data filtering. If where-clause filters on a sort-key-column, it skips the entire data blocks. It’s because Redshift saves data in blocks. Each block header records the minimum and maximum sort key value. Filter outside of that range, the entire block may get skipped.
Alternatively, when joining two tables, sorted on their joint keys, the data is read in matching order. Also, you can merge-join without separate sort-steps. Joining large dimension to a large fact table will be easy with this method because neither will fit into a hash table.
I have a central data store in AWS . I wanted to access multiple tables in that database and find patterns and predictions on those collection of data.
my tables have several transactional data like call details,marketing campaign details,contact information of people etc.
How to integrate all this data for a big data analysis to find the relationship and store them efficiently
I am confused whether to use Haddop or not, which architecture would be perfect
The most easiest way for you to start is to export tables you wish to analyze into a csv file and process it using Amazon Machine Learning.
The following guide describes entire process:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/machine-learning/latest/dg/tutorial.html
I'm currently trying to find the best way of processing two very large datasets.
I have two BigQuery Tables :
One table containing streamed events (Billion rows)
One table containing a tags and the associated event properties (100 000 rows)
I want to tag each event with the appropriate tags based on the event properties (an event can have multiple tags). However a SQL cross-join seems to be too slow for the dataset size.
What is the best way to proceed using a pipeline of mapreduces and avoiding
very costly shuffle phase since each event has to be compared to each tag.
Also I'm planning to use Google Cloud Dataflow, is this tool adapted for this task?
Google Cloud Dataflow is a good fit for this.
Assuming the tags data is small enough to fit in memory you can avoid a shuffle by passing it as a SideInput.
Your pipeline would look like the following
Use two BigQueryIO transforms to read from each table.
Create a DoFn to tag each event with its tags.
The input PCollection to your DoFn should be the events. Pass the table of tags as a side input.
Use a BigQueryIO transform to write the result back to BigQuery (assuming you want to use BigQuery for the output)
If your tags data is too large to fit in memory you will most likely have to use a Join.