I have a use case wherein I want to take a data from DynamoDB and do some transformation on the data. After this I want to create 3 csv files (there will be 3 transformations on the same data) and dump them to 3 different s3 locations.
My architecture would be sort of following:
Is it possible to do so? I can't seem to find any documentation regarding it. If it's not possible using pipeline, are there any other services which could help me with my use case?
These dumps will be scheduled daily. My other consideration was using aws lamda. But according to my understanding, it's event based triggered rather time based scheduling, is that correct?
Yes it is possible but not using HiveActivity instead EMRActivity. If you look into Data pipeline documentation for HiveActivity, it clearly states its purpose and not suits your use case:
Runs a Hive query on an EMR cluster. HiveActivity makes it easier to set up an Amazon EMR activity and automatically creates Hive tables based on input data coming in from either Amazon S3 or Amazon RDS. All you need to specify is the HiveQL to run on the source data. AWS Data Pipeline automatically creates Hive tables with ${input1}, ${input2}, and so on, based on the input fields in the HiveActivity object.
Below is how your data pipeline should look like. There is also a inbuilt template Export DynamoDB table to S3 in UI for AWS Data Pipeline which creates the basic structure for you, and then you can extend/customize to suit your requirements.
To your next question using Lambda, Of course lambda can be configured to have event based triggering or schedule based triggering, but I wouldn't recommend using AWS Lambda for any ETL operations as they are time bound & usual ETLs are longer than lambda time limits.
AWS has specific optimized feature offerings for ETLs, AWS Data Pipeline & AWS Glue, I would always recommend to choose between one of two. In case your ETL involves data sources not managed within AWS compute and storage services OR any speciality use case which can't be sufficed by above two options, then AWS Batch will be my next consideration.
Thanks amith for your answer. I have been busy for quite some time now. I did some digging after you posted your answer. Turns out we can dump the data to different s3 locations using Hive activity as well.
This is how the data pipeline would like in that case.
But I believe writing multiple hive activities, when your input source is DynamoDB table, is not a good idea since hive doesn't load any data in memory. It does all the computations on the actual table which could deteriorate the performance of the table. Even documentation suggests to export the data incase you need to make multiple queries to same data. Reference
Enter a Hive command that maps a table in the Hive application to the data in DynamoDB. This table acts as a reference to the data stored in Amazon DynamoDB; the data is not stored locally in Hive and any queries using this table run against the live data in DynamoDB, consuming the table’s read or write capacity every time a command is run. If you expect to run multiple Hive commands against the same dataset, consider exporting it first.
In my case I needed to perform different type of aggregations on the same data once a day. Since dynamoDB doesn't support aggregations, I turned to Data pipeline using Hive. In the end we ended up using AWS Aurora which is My-SQL based.
Related
I am looking for advice which service should I use. I am new to big data and confused with differences between them on AWS.
Use case:
I receive 60-100 csv files daily (each one can be from few MB to few GB). There are six corresponding schemas, and each file can be treated as part of only one table.
I need to load those files to the six database tables and execute joins between them and generate daily output. After generation of the output, the data present in database is no longer need, so we can truncate that tables and await on the next day.
Files have predictable naming patterns:
A_<timestamp1>.csv goes to A table
A_<timestamp2>.csv goes to A table
B_<timestamp1>.csv goes to B table
etc ...
Which service could be used for that purpose?
AWS Redshift (execute here joins)
AWS Glue (load to redshift)
AWS EMR (spark)
or maybe something else? I heard that spark could be used to do the joins, but what is the proper, optimal and performant way of doing that?
Edit:
Thanks for the responses. I see two options for now:
Use AWS Glue, setup 6 crawlers which will load on trigger files to specific AWS Glue Data Catalogs, execute SQL joins with Athena
Use AWS Glue, setup 6 crawlers which will load on trigger files to specific AWS Glue Data Catalogs, trigger spark job (AWS Glue in serverless form) to do the SQL joins and setup output to the S3.
Edit 2:
But according to the: https://carbonrmp.com/knowledge-hub/tech-engineering/athena-vs-spark-lessons-from-implementing-a-fully-managed-query-system/
Presto is designed for low latency and uses a massively parallel processing (MPP) approach which is fast but requires everything to happen at once and in memory. It’s all or nothing, if you run out of memory, then “Query exhausted resources at this scale factor”. Spark is designed for scalability and follows a map-reduce design [1]. The job is split and processed in chunks, which are generally processed in batches. If you double the workload without changing the resource, it should take twice as long instead of failing [2]
So Athena (aka Presto) is not scalable as much as I want. I've seen "Query exhausted resources at this scale factor" for my case.
Any possibility of changing the file type to a columnar format like parquet? Then you can use AWS EMR and spark should be able to handle the joins easily. Obviously, you need to optimize the query depending on the data/cluster size etc.
We have a service where a DynamoDB table ~50GB is our feature repository, which we use for real-time, online applications.
We want to create a data lake from this table for historical data, model training and analytics insights. We want to guarantee a 30-minutes "freshness" of data lake data w.r.t. the original table.
However, I'm confused on what could be a good architecture for this: my understanding of data lakes is that you should use a storage service (i.e., S3) to store the raw data with no processing. Then, you perform ETL jobs, where you transform, process and filter the data (e.g., using Glue) before using for whatever app.
But here is my doubt: does this means that we have to dump the DynamoDB table into S3 every 30 minutes? This can be easily done, but it sounds weird (this would result in ~876TB/year).
Am I missing something in the data lake pipeline?
You've hit a common problem, and its one AWS are actively working on.
If you want continous sync-ing from dynamodb to S3, its possible using existing technology including dynamodb streams. I suggest checking out this project in awslabs. Frankly its quite a bit of effort.
However, I believe AWS are about to release a product that will keep dynamodb tables and S3 buckets in sync, without code, in a few clicks. Its called AWS Glue Elastic Views. The product is in preview. They announced the product in December 2020 so I'm hoping it available soon. There is also a form you can fill in to join the trial but there is no guarantee AWS will give to access.
I am using BigQuery Data Transfer Service to migrate all data from redshift to bigquery.
After that, i want to perform backfilling for specific time, if any data is missing. But i don't see any backfilling option in Transfer job.
How can i achieve that in bigquery?
Reading your question under the light of your comments I would proceed differently from what you describe. You reach the same goal however :) .
Using your ETL pipeline, the first step would be to accumulate raw data in a datalake.
Let's take a storage service like S3 to do so. For this ETL pipeline, S3 is your datasink.
Note that your pipeline does nothing more than taking raw data from A to put it into S3. Also, the location in S3 should be under a timestampted folder on day for instance (e.g: yyyymmdd) so that you can sort and consume your data on time dimension.
Obviously the considered data is ahead in time from the one you already have in Redshift.
Maybe it is also a different structure from the one you already put in redshift due to potential transformation you set in your initial pipeline.
In case you set raw data directly into redshift, then just export the data into the same S3 bucket under the name legacy/*. (In case it is transformed, then you have to put a second S3 datasink in your pipeline with this intermediary transformation an keep the same S3 naming strategy).
Let's take a break to understand what we have. We filled an S3 bucket with raw data that we can now replay at will on a specific day using a cron or an orchestrating tool such as Apache Airflow. Moreover you can freely modified the content of each timestamped folder in case you missed data to replay the following pipelines => the backfill you want.
Speaking of which, S3 would act as a data source for these following pipelines that would set wanted transformations on the raw data from S3 and choose BigQuery and potentially Redshift as Datasink. Now please take in consideration the price of these operations. Streaming API in BQ is expensive. As high of 0.50$ per Gb. Do that only if you need real time result. If you can afford latency of more than 5 minutes a better strategy would to set GCS as the datasink of your ETL and transfer the data from there into BQ (note to put the data in the same file naming pattern yyyymmdd to enable potential backfill). This transfer is free if GCS bucket and BQ dataset are in the same region. You would trigger the transfer with GCS events for instance (trigering a cloud function on blob creation that put the data into BQ).
Last but not least, backfilling should be done wisely especially in BQ where update or creation at row level is not peformant and is an open door for duplication. What you should consider is BigQuery partition that you can set on a column that contains a timestamp or an hidden one if your data contains none. Which timestamp? Well the one set in GCS folder name!
Once again you can modify data in your GCS bucket per day and replay the transfer into BQ.
But each transfer from a given day must overwrtite the partition the considered data belongs to. (e.g: the data under 20200914 would overwrite the associated partition in BQ. We abide by the concept of pure task doing so which a guarantee for idempotency and non duplication).
Please read this article to have more insights.
Note: If you intend to get rid off Redshit, you can choose to do it directly and forget about S3 as a datasink of your first ETL. Choose directly GCS (ingress is free) and migrate your already present Redshift data into GCS using S3 as an intermediary service and the Google transfer service from S3 to GCS.
I'm working on a task of copying csv files from s3 bucket to redshift. I've found multiple ways to do so but I'm not sure which one will be the best possible way to do it. Here's the scenario:
On regular intervals, multiple CSV files of size around 500 MB - 1 GB, will be added to my s3 bucket. The data can contain duplicates. The task is to copy the data to redshift table while ensuring that the duplicate data is not present in redshift.
Here are the ways I found which can be used:
Create a AWS Lambda function which will be triggered whenever a file is added to s3 bucket.
Use AWS Kinesis
Use AWS Glue
I understand Lambda should not be used for jobs that takes more than 5 minutes. So should I use it or just eliminate this option?
Kinesis can handle large amount of data but is it the best way to do it?
I'm not familiar with Glue and Kinesis. But I read that Glue can be slow.
If anyone can point me to the right direction, it will be really helpful.
You can definitely make it work with Lambda, if you leverage StepFunctions and the S3 Select option to filter subsets of data into smaller chunks. You'd have your Step Functions manage your ETL orchestration wherein you execute your lambdas that selectively pull from the large data file via the S3 select option. Your pre-process state--see links below--could be used to determine execution requirements, then execute multiple Lambdas, even in parallel, if you wish. Those lambdas would process the subsets of data to remove dups and perform any other ETL operations you might require. Then, you'd take the processed data and write to Redshift. Here are links that will help you put that architecture together:
Trigger State Machine Execution from S3 Event
Manage Lambda Processing Executions and workflow state
Use S3 Select to pull subsets from large data objects
Also, here's a link to a Python ETL pipeline example for the CDK that I built. You'll see an example of an S3 event-driven lambda along with data processing and DDB or MySQL writes. Will give you an idea as to how you can build out comprehensive Lambdas for ETL operations. You would just need to add a psycopg2 layer to your deployment for Redshift. Hope this helps.
I am trying to copy all the tables from a schema (PostgreSQL, 50+ tables) to Amazon S3.
What is the best way to do this? I am able to create 50 different copy activities, but is there a simple way to copy all tables in a schema or write one pipeline and loop?
I think the old method is :
1. Unload your data from PostgreSQL to a CSV file first using something like psql
2. Then just copy the csv to S3
But, AWS gives u a script to do so , RDSToS3CopyActivity See this link from AWS
Since you have a large number of tables. I would recommend using AWS Glue as compared to AWS Data Pipeline. Glue is easily configurable having crawlers etc that allows you the flexibility to choose columns, define etc. Moreover,he underlying jobs in AWS Glue are pyspark jobs that scale really well giving you really good performance.