I am trying to get the row count for a dataset with 280 fields with out having affect on the performance. Looking for best possible ways to perform.
The better option to avoid performance issue is, use sorter transformation and sort the columns and pass the pipeline to aggregator transformation. In aggregator transformation please check the option sorted input.
In terms if your source is a database then, index the required conditional columns in the table and also partition the table if required.
For your solution, I have in mind 2 options:
Using Aggregator (remember to use a predefined order by to improve performance with the next trans), SQ > Aggregator > Target. Inside the aggregator add new ports with the sum() and/or count() functions. Remember to select the columns to group
Check this out this example:
https://www.guru99.com/aggregator-transformation-informatica.html
Using Source Qualifier query override. Use a traditional select count/sum with group by from the database- SQ > Target.
By the way. Informatica is very good with the performance, more than the columns you need to review how many records you are processing. A best practice is always to stress the datasource/database more than the Infa app.
Regards,
Juan
If all you need is just to count the rows, use the Aggregator. That's what it's for. However, this will create cache - to limit it's size, use a single port.
To avoid caching, you can use a variable in expression and just increment it. This however will give you an extra column with all rows numbered, not just a single value. You'll still need to aggregate it. Here it would be possible to use aggregater with no function to return just the last value.
Related
I have a list of lots of data (will be near 1000). I want to add it all in one go to a row. Is this straight forward like a for loop over list with multiple inserts?multiple commits? Is this bad practice?thanks
I haven’t tried yet as just setting up table columns which is many so need to know if feasible thanks
If you're using SQL to insert:
INSERT INTO 'tablename' ('column1', 'column2') VALUES
('data1', 'data2'),
('data1', 'data2'),
('data1', 'data2'),
('data1', 'data2');
If you're using code... generate that above query using a for loop then run it.
For a more efficient approach consider a union as shown in: Is it possible to insert multiple rows at a time in an SQLite database?
insert into 'tablename' ('column1','column2')
select data1 as 'column1',data2 as 'column2'
union select data3,data4
union...
In sqlite you don't have network latency, so it does not really matter performance wise to issue many small requests toward the engine. For more reference about that you can read this page from the official documentation: https://www.sqlite.org/np1queryprob.html
But in write mode (insert or update), each individual query will have to pay the cost of an implicit transaction. To avoid that you need to gather your insert queries in an explicit transaction. Depending of your programming language, how you do that may vary. Here is a code sample on how to do that in go. I've simplified error code management, to have a better view of the gist.
tx, _ := db.Begin()
for _, item := range items {
tx.Exec(`INSERT INTO testtable (col1, col2) VALUES (?, ?)`, item.Field1, item.Field2)
}
tx.Commit()
If you detect an error in your loop instead calling tx.Commit() you need to call tx.Rollback() in order to cancel all previous writes to your database so that the final state is as if no insert query has been issued at all.
With DynamoDB, there is simply no straightforward way to perform an indexed range query over a column. Primary key, local secondary index, and global secondary index all require a partition key to range query.
For example, suppose I have a high-scores table with a numerical score attribute. There is no way to get the top 10 scores or top scores 25 to 50 with an indexed range query
So, what is the idiomatic or preferred way to perform this incredibly common task?
Settle for a table scan.
Use a static partition key and take advantage of partition queries.
Use a fixed number of static partition keys and use multiple partition queries.
It's either 2) or 3) but it depends on the amount and structure of data as well as the read/write activity.
There's no generic answer here as it's use-case specific.
As long as you can get away with it, you probably want to use 2) as it only requires a single Query API call. If you have lots of data or heavy read/write activity, you'd use some bucketing-strategy (very close to your third option) to write to multiple partitions, then do multiple queries and aggregate the results.
DDB isn't suited for analytics. As Maurice said you can facilitate what you need via secondary index, but there are also other options to consider:
If you are providing this Top N to your customers consistently/frequently and N is fixed, then you can have dedicated item(s) that hold this information and you would update that/those item(s) upon writing an item to a table. You can have 1 item for the whole top N or you can apply some bucketing strat.
If your system needs this information infrequently (on some singular occasions), then scan might be also fine.
If this is for analytics/research, consider exporting the table to S3 and using Athena.
Question to all Cassandra experts out there.
I have a column family with about a million records.
I would like to query these records in such a way that I should be able to perform a Not-Equal-To kind of operation.
I Googled on this and it seems I have to use some sort of Map-Reduce.
Can somebody tell me what are the options available in this regard.
I can suggest a few approaches.
1) If you have a limited number of values that you would like to test for not-equality, consider modeling those as a boolean columns (i.e.: column isEqualToUnitedStates with true or false).
2) Otherwise, consider emulating the unsupported query != X by combining results of two separate queries, < X and > X on the client-side.
3) If your schema cannot support either type of query above, you may have to resort to writing custom routines that will do client-side filtering and construct the not-equal set dynamically. This will work if you can first narrow down your search space to manageable proportions, such that it's relatively cheap to run the query without the not-equal.
So let's say you're interested in all purchases of a particular customer of every product type except Widget. An ideal query could look something like SELECT * FROM purchases WHERE customer = 'Bob' AND item != 'Widget'; Now of course, you cannot run this, but in this case you should be able to run SELECT * FROM purchases WHERE customer = 'Bob' without wasting too many resources and filter item != 'Widget' in the client application.
4) Finally, if there is no way to restrict the data in a meaningful way before doing the scan (querying without the equality check would returning too many rows to handle comfortably), you may have to resort to MapReduce. This means running a distributed job that would scan all rows in the table across the cluster. Such jobs will obviously run a lot slower than native queries, and are quite complex to set up. If you want to go this way, please look into Cassandra Hadoop integration.
If you want to use not-equals operator on a specific partition key and get all other data from table then you can use a combination of range queries and TOKEN function from CQL to achieve this
For example, if you want to fetch all rows except the ones having partition key as 'abc' then you execute below 2 queries
select <column1>,<column2> from <keyspace1>.<table1> where TOKEN(<partition_key_column_name>) < TOKEN('abc');
select <column1>,<column2> from <keyspace1>.<table1> where TOKEN(<partition_key_column_name>) > TOKEN('abc');
But, beware that result is going to be huge (depending on size of table and fields you need). So you might want to use this in conjunction with dsbulk kind of utility. Also note that there is no guarantee of ordering in your result. This is just a kind of data dump which will most probably be useful for some kind of one-time data migration like scenarios.
I want to process all of the data in a column family in a MapReduce job. Ordering is not important.
An approach is to iterate over all the row keys of the column family to use as the input. This could be potentially a bottleneck and could replaced with a parallel method.
I'm open to other suggestions, or for someone to tell me I'm wasting my time with this idea. I'm currently investigating the following:
A potentially more efficient way is to assign ranges to the input instead of iterating over all row keys (before the mapper starts). Since I am using RandomPartitioner, is there a way to specify a range to query based on the MD5?
For example, I want to split the task into 16 jobs. Since the RandomPartitioner is MD5 based (from what I have read), I'd like to query everything starting with a for the first range. In other words, how would I query do a get_range on the MD5 with the start of a and ends before b. e.g. a0000000000000000000000000000000 - afffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff?
I'm using the pycassa API (Python) but I'm happy to see Java examples.
I'd cheat a little:
Create new rows job_(n) with each column representing each row key in the range you want
Pull all columns from that specific row to indicate which rows you should pull from the CF
I do this with users. Users from a particular country get a column in the country specific row. Users with a particular age are also added to a specific row.
Allows me to quickly pull the rows i need based on the criteria i want and is a little more efficient compared to pulling everything.
This is how the Mahout CassandraDataModel example functions:
https://github.com/apache/mahout/blob/trunk/integration/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/cf/taste/impl/model/cassandra/CassandraDataModel.java
Once you have the data and can pull the rows you are interested in, you can hand it off to your MR job(s).
Alternately, if speed isn't an issue, look into using PIG: How to use Cassandra's Map Reduce with or w/o Pig?
I need to write a MapReduce Job that Gets all rows in a given Date Range(say last one month). It would have been a cakewalk had My Row Key started with Date. But My frequent Hbase queries are on starting values of key.
My Row key is exactly A|B|C|20120121|D . Where combination of A/B/C along with date (in YearMonthDay format) makes a unique row ID.
My Hbase tables could have upto a few million rows. Should my Mapper read all the table and filter each row if it falls in given date range or Scan / Filter can help handling this situation?
Could someone suggest (or a snippet of code) a way to handle this situation in an effective manner?
Thanks
-Panks
A RowFilter with a RegEx Filter would work, but would not be the most optimal solution. Alternatively you can try to use secondary indexes.
One more solution is to try the FuzzyRowFIlter. A FuzzyRowFilter uses a kind of fast-forwarding, hence skipping many rows in the overall scan process and will thus be faster than a RowFilter Scan. You can read more about it here.
Alternatively BloomFilters might also help depending on your schema. If your data is huge you should do a comparative analysis on secondary index and Bloom Filters.
You can use a RowFilter with a RegexStringComparator. You'd need to come up with a RegEx that filters your dates appropriately. This page has an example that includes setting a Filter for a MapReduce scanner.
I am just getting started with HBase, bloom filters might help.
You can modify the Scan that you send into the Mapper to include a filter. If your date is also the record timestamp, it's easy:
Scan scan = new Scan();
scan.setTimeRange(minTime, maxTime);
TableMapReduceUtil.initTableMapperJob("mytable", scan, MyTableMapper.class,
OutputKey.class, OutputValue.class, job);
If the date in your row key is different, you'll have to add a filter to your scan. This filter can operate on a column or a row key. I think it's going to be messy with just the row key. If you put the date in a column, you can make a FilterList where all conditions must be true and use a CompareOp.GREATER and a CompareOp.LESS. Then use scan.setFilter(filterList) to add your filters to the scan.