We're using Elmah to log errors to an azure storage table. The volume of data is now quite large and requires some clean up.
Querying the data by time stamp is not efficient.
I'm wondering how does Elmah create the partition key for entries and if I could use that to start clearing down data - if it is logically sequenced on some incremental basis ?
Related
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 am currently writing a framework to transfer hive tables to aws. We can't do that in one shot. We need to it over a period of time. And so there are lots of table which needs to be in Synch with AWS and On-prem hadoop.
Tables which are small and needs truncte and load is not an issue. We have a frameowrk which daily refreshes the table using spark framework.
Problem is for huge tables, we need to append only newly added/updated/deleted rows to AWS. Finding a newly added is fairly simple task. However how do I get updated or deleted records.
40% of our total tables are transcation table. so Updates and deletes are frequent.
For other 60% tables Update/deletes are not frequent. However, sometime due to data issue, people delete the past batch and reload the data.
My questions are
Is there a way I can get Change data capture for hive table?
How do I figure out which records are updated/deleted in transcational table?
how do I figure out which records are updated/deleted in External Table?
given Dynamo's pricing, the thought came to mind to use DynamoDB Local DB on an EC2 instance for the go-live of our startup SaaS solution. I've been trying to find like a data sheet for the local db, specifying limits as to # of tables, or records, or general size of the db file. Possibly, we could even run a few local db instances on dedicated EC2 servers as we know at login what user needs to be connected to what db.
Does anybody have any information on the local db limits or on this approach? Also, anybody knows of any legal/licensing issues with using dynamo-local in that way?
Every item in DynamoDB Local will end up as a row in the SQLite database file. So the limits are based on SQLite's limitations.
Maximum Number Of Rows In A Table = 2^64 but the database file limit will likely be reached first (140 terabytes).
Note: because of the above, the number of items you can store in DynamoDB Local will be smaller with the preview version of local with Streams support. This is because to support Streams the update records for items are also stored. E.g. if you are only doing inserts of these items then the item will effectively be stored twice: once in a table containing item data and once in a table containing the INSERT UpdateRecord data for that item (more records will also be generated if the item is being updated over time).
Be aware that DynamoDB Local was not designed for the same performance, availability, and durability as the production service.
I need some guidance on our strategy for loading data into a Redshift Data Warehouse for analytics. We have ~40 SQL databases, each represents one customer and each database is identical. I have a SQL database with the same table structure as the 40 but each table has an additional column called "customer" that will capture where that record came from. We do some additional ETL processing with the records as they come in.
In total we have about 50 GB of data across all 40 DBs. Looking into the recommended processes for Updating / Inserting data on AWS's site they recommend creating the scratch table then merging data. I could do this but I could also just drop all the data from a table and re-load it since I am reading from the source every time. What is the recommended way to handle this?
What variables determine the length of time it takes to restore an Azure SQL Data Warehouse database?
I am creating a new ADW database on a new logical server (in the same Azure region) using the Azure portal and the source specified as the backup for another ADW database (that has ~100TB of uncompressed data loaded to compressed columnar tables).
The Azure Portal reports the status as "Deploying", but am unclear whether this will be an operation taking minutes, hours, or days.
Is there any way to track the progress?
Restore time for Azure SQL Data Warehouse is primarily determined by two factors: the size of the database that you are restoring, and the location you are restoring it into. The fastest restore will be in the paired region, the second will be the original region, and finally everywhere else.