I'm searching for any NoSQL system (preferably open source) that supports analytic functions (AF for short) like Oracle/SQL Server/Postgres does. I didn't find any with build-in functions. I've read something about Hive but it doesn't have actual feature of AF (windows, first_last values, ntiles, lag, lead and so on) just histograms and ngrams. Also some NoSQL systems (Redis for example) support map/reduce, but I'm not sure if AF can be replaced with it.
I want to make a performance comparison to choose either Postgres or NoSQL system.
So, in short:
Searching for NoSQL systems with AF
Can I rely on map/reduce to replace AF? Is it fast, reliable, easy to go.
ps. I tried to make my question more constructive.
Once you've really understood how MapReduce works, you can do amazing things with a few lines of code.
Here is a nice video course:
http://code.google.com/intl/fr/edu/submissions/mapreduce-minilecture/listing.html
The real difficulty factor will be between functions that you can implement with a single MapReduce and those that will need chained MapReduces. Moreover, some nice MapReduce implementations (like CouchDB) don't allow you to chain MapReduces (easily).
Some function uses knowledge of all existing data when it involves some king of aggregation (avg, median, standard deviation) or some ordering (first, last).
If you want a distributed NOSQL solution that support AF out of the box, the system will need to rely on some centralized indexing and metadata to keep information about the data in all nodes, thus having a master-node and probably a single point of failure.
You have to ask what you expect to accomplish using NoSQL. You want schemaless tables ? Distributed data ? Better raw performance for very simple queries ?
Depending of your needs, I see three main alternatives here:
1 - use a distributed NoSQL with no single point of failure (ie: Cassandra) to store your data and use map/reduce to process the data and produce the results for the desired function (almost any major NoSQL solution support Hadoop). The caveat is that map/reduce queries are not realtime (can take minutes or hours to execute the query) and requires extra-setup and learning.
2 - use a traditional RDBMS that support multiple servers like MySQL Cluster
3 - use a NoSQL with master/slave topology that supports ad-hoc and aggregation queries like Mongo
As for the second question: yes, you can rely on M/R to replace AF. You can do almost anything with M/R.
Related
So I implemented Haystack with ElasticSearch a week ago within our BETA application. One thing I can notice is that getting some data (large amount) back to our users (for example listing all the users within the application) is much faster by going through Haystack then Django's ORM. Now, I will be releasing a REST service (with TastyPie) to serve the possible tablets within the next weeks, as I want to be able to access the information from iPads, Nexus tablets and so on.
One thing I was wondering, is when should I be querying the ORM vs Haystack/ElasticSearch? For example, if the user on the tablet is requesting a specific set of users, should we let TastyPie query the ORM, or go to ElasticSearch?
If we look at this answer Django: Haystack or ORM, we can all agree that a DB is made to retrieve and write data. However, could we say that retrieving faster can be faster with Haystack/ElasticSearch once the search engine was updated?
I am a bit confused as to when, should we not be querying Haystack if it is much faster?!
To make things clear I guess you're talking about querying Elasticsearch via Haystack without later instantiating any objects for your search results with data from you database.
Some points to consider besides the points mentioned in the other post:
A search engine like Elasticsearch is highly optimized when dealing with full-text searches (When doing something with SQL it highly depends on the database/engine you are using)
Queries that are involving a lot of relations/joins will most like be easier to handle with the ORM, but on the other hand you can eg save data from foreign-key relations in a denormalized fashion when using ES which could give you a performance boost. Of course you can denormalize your database tables as well but this is quite often considered as a bad practice as long as you know what you are doing, eg when solving a performance bottleneck.
ES is somehow quite easy to scale while scaling your SQL DB might be more complicated.
Most likely this is a decision that depends very much on your use case, the amount of data to process and the queries you are intending to run. So the best thing of course is - as always - to do some benchmarking yourself and compare this two solutions. But don't do any premature optimisations as one big advantage of the ORM is to keep things simple - you don't have to care much about the integrity of your data and maintain an additional system.
I'm trying to perform statistical analysis on relatively flat time series data with AWS Elastic MapReduce. AWS gives you the option of using Hive, Pig, or HBase for EMR jobs- which one would be best for this type of analysis? I don't think data analysis is gonna be on the terrabyte scale- items in my tables are mostly under 1K. I've also never used any of the three, but learning curve shouldn't be an issue. I'm more concerned with what is going to be more efficient; I'm also handing this project off soon, so something that is relatively to understand for people with noSQL experience would be nice- but I'm mostly looking to make the sensible choice for the data I have. An example query I might make is something like "Find all accounts between last week and today with an event value over 20 for each day".
IMHO, none of these. You use MR, Hive, Pig, etc when your data is big, really big and you are talking about a dataset which not even of ~TB. And you want your system to be efficient as well. In such a scenario using these tools would be an overkill. So the sensible choice for the data you have would be a RDBMS of your choice.
And if it is just for learning purpose then use HDFS+Hive or Pig(Depending on what suits you better).
In response to your comment :
If I had such a situation like this, I would use HDFS, to store my flat data, with Hive. The reason why I would go with Hive is that I don't see a lot of transformation kind of things going on here. So, yes, I would go with Hive. And, I don't really see any HBase need as of now. HBase is normally used when you need random real-time access to some part of your data. And if your use case really demands HBase you need to be careful while designing your schema since you are dealing with timeseries data.
But the decision on whether to use Hive or Pig needs some deeper analysis of the kind of operations you are going to perform on your data. You might find these links helpful :
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/hadoop/pig-hive-yahoo-464.html
http://www.larsgeorge.com/2009/10/hive-vs-pig.html
P.S. : You might wanna have a look at R project.
A short summary answer:
Hive is an easy "first option" for your data analysis, because it will use familiar SQL syntax. Because of this there are many convenient connectors to front end analysis tools: Excel, Tableau, Pentaho, Datameer, SAS, etc.
Pig is used more for ETL (transformation) of data incoming to Hadoop. Your data analysis may require some "transformation" of the data before it is stored in Hive. For example you may choose to strip out headers, apply information from other sources, etc. A good example of how this works is provided with the free Hortonworks sandbox tutorials.
HBase is more valuable when you're explicitly looking for a NoSQL store on top of hadoop (example).
I have a question relating to databases and at what point is worth diving into one. I am primarily an embedded engineer, but I am writing an application using Qt to interface with our controller.
We are at an odd point where we have enough data that it would be feasible to implement a database (around 700+ items and growing) to manage everything, but I am not sure it is worth the time right now to deal with. I have no problems implementing the GUI with files generated from excel and parsed in, but it gets tedious and hard to track even with VBA scripts. I have been playing around with converting our data into something more manageable for the application side with Microsoft Access and that seems to be working well. If that works out I am only a step (or several) away from using an SQL database and using the Qt library to access and modify it.
I don't have much experience managing data at this level and am curious what may be the best way to approach this. So what are some of the real benefits of using a database if any in this case? I realize much of this can be very application specific, but some general ideas and suggestions on how to straddle the embedded/application programming line would be helpful.
This is not about putting a database in an embedded project. It is also not a business type application where larger databases are commonly used. I am designing a GUI for a single user on a desktop to interface with a micro-controller for monitoring and configuration purposes.
I decided to go with SQLite. You can do some very interesting things with data that I didn't really consider an option when first starting this project.
A database is worthwhile when:
Your application evolves to some
form of data driven execution.
You're spending time designing and
developing external data storage
structures.
Sharing data between applications or
organizations (including individual
people)
The data is no longer short and
simple.
Data Duplication
Evolution to Data Driven Execution
When the data is changing but the execution is not, this is a sign of a data driven program or parts of the program are data driven. A set of configuration options is a sign of a data driven function, but the whole application may not be data driven. In any case, a database can help manage the data. (The database library or application does not have to be huge like Oracle, but can be lean and mean like SQLite).
Design & Development of External Data Structures
Posting questions to Stack Overflow about serialization or converting trees and lists to use files is a good indication your program has graduated to using a database. Also, if you are spending any amount of time designing algorithms to store data in a file or designing the data in a file is a good time to research the usage of a database.
Sharing Data
Whether your application is sharing data with another application, another organization or another person, a database can assist. By using a database, data consistency is easier to achieve. One of the big issues in problem investigation is that teams are not using the same data. The customer may use one set of data; the validation team another and development using a different set of data. A database makes versioning the data easier and allows entities to use the same data.
Complex Data
Programs start out using small tables of hard coded data. This evolves into using dynamic data with maps, trees and lists. Sometimes the data expands from simple two columns to 8 or more. Database theory and databases can ease the complexity of organizing data. Let the database worry about managing the data and free up your application and your development time. After all, how the data is managed is not as important as to the quality of the data and it's accessibility.
Data Duplication
Often times, when data grows, there is an ever growing attraction for duplicate data. Databases and database theory can minimize the duplication of data. Databases can be configured to warn against duplications.
Moving to using a database has many factors to be considered. Some include but are not limited to: data complexity, data duplication (including parts of the data), project deadlines, development costs and licensing issues. If your program can run more efficiently with a database, then do so. A database may also save development time (and money). There are other tasks that you and your application can be performing than managing data. Leave data management up to the experts.
What you are describing doesn't sound like a typical business application, and many of the answers already posted here assume that this is the kind of application you are talking about, so let me offer a different perspective.
Whether or not you use a database for 700 items is going to depend greatly on the nature of the data.
I would say that, about 90% of the time at this scale, you will benefit from a light-weight database like SQLite, provided that:
The data may potentially grow substantially larger than what you are describing,
The data may be shared by more than one user,
You may need to run queries against the data (which I don't think you're doing right now), and
The data can easily be described in table form.
The other 10% of the time, your data will be highly structured, hierarchical, object-based, and doesn't neatly fit into the table model of a database or Excel table. If this is the case, consider using XML files.
I know developers instinctively like to throw databases at problems like this, but if you are currently using Excel data to design user interfaces (or display configuration settings), rather than display a customer record, XML may be a better fit. XML is more expressive than either Excel or database tables, and can be easily manipulated with a simple text editor.
XML parsers and data binders for C++ are easy to find.
I recommend you to introduce a Database in your app, your application will gain flexibility and will be easier to maintain and to improve with new features in the future.
I would start with a lightweight file based db like Sqlite.
With a well designed db you'll have:
Reduced data redundancy
Greater data integrity
Improved data security
Last but not least, using a database will save you from the Excel import/update/export Hell!
Reasons for using a database:
Concurrent writes. It's easy to achieve concurrency in databases
Easy querying. SQL queries tend to be much concise than procedural code to search data. UPDATEs, INSERT INTOs can also do lots of stuff with very little code
Integrity. Constraints are very easy to define and are enforced without writing code. If you have a non-null constraint, you can rest assured that the value won't be null, no need to write checks anywhere. If you have a foreign key constraint in place, you won't have "dangling references".
Performance over large datasets. Indexing is very simple to add to an SQL database
Reasons for not using a database:
It tends to be an extra dependency (although there exist very lightweight databases- I like H2 for Java, for instance)
Data not well suited to a relational schema. Things that are basically key/value maps. XML (although databases often support XPath, etc.).
Sometimes files are more convenient. They can be diff'ed, merged, edited with a plain text editor, etc. Sometimes spreadsheets can be more practical (you don't have to build an editor- you can use a spreadsheet program)
Your data is already somewhere else
When you have a lot of data that you're not sure how they will be exploited in the future.
For example you might want to add an SQLite database in an embedded application that need to register statistics that you're not sure how will be used. Later you send the full database for injection in a bigger one running on a central server and those data can easily be exploited, using requests.
In fact, if your application's purpose is to "gather data" then having a database is a must have.
I see quite a few requirements that well met by databases:
1). Ad hoc queries. Find me all the {X} that meet criteria Y
2). Data with structure that can benefit from normalisation - factoring out common values into separate "tables". You can save space and reduce the possibility of inconsistency this way. Once you've done this then those ad-hoc queries start to be really useful.
3). Large data volumes. Professional database are very good at making good use of resoruces, clever query optmisations and paging strategies. Trying to write this stuff yourself is a real challenge.
You're clearly not needing that last one, but the other two, maybe do apply to you.
Don't forget that the appropriate database can be quite different depending on your requirements (and don't forget that a text file could be used as a database if you're requirements are simple enough - for example, config files are just a specific kind of database). Such parameters might be:
number of records
size of data items
does the database need to be shared with other devices? Concurrently?
how complex are the relationships between the various pieces of data
is the database read only (created at build time and not changed, for example)?
does the database need to be updated by multiple entities concurrently?
do you need to support complex queries?
For a database with 700 entries, an in-memory sorted array loaded from a text file might well be appropriate. But I could also see the need for an embedded SQL database or maybe having the controller request data from the database over a network connection depending on what the various requirements (and resource limitations) are.
There isn't a specific point at which a database is worthwhile. Instead I usually ask the following questions:
Is the amount of data the application uses/creates growing?
Is the upper limit of this data growth unknown (or unclear)?
Will the application need to aggregate or filter this data?
Could there be future uses of the data that may not be obvious right now?
Is performance of data retrieval and/or storage important?
Are there (or could there be) multiple users of the application who share data?
If I answer 'Yes' to most of these questions I almost always choose a database (as opposed to other options such as XML/ini/CSV/Excel/text files or the filesystem).
Also, if the application will have many users who could be accessing the data concurrently, I'll lean towards a full database server (MySQL, SQl Server, Oracle etc).
But often in a single user (or small concurrency) situation, a local database such as SQLite cannot be beaten for portability and ease of deployment.
To add a negative: not suitable for real-time processing, due to non-deterministic latency. However, It would be quite ample for looking up and setting operating parameters, for instance during startup. I would not put database accesses on critical time paths.
You don't need a database if you have a few thousand rows in one or two tables to handle in a single user app (for the embedded point).
If it is for multiple users (concurrent access, locking) or the need of transactions you definitly should consider a database.
Handling complex datastructures in normalized tables and maintain integrety, or a huge amount of data would be another indication you should use a database.
It sounds like your application is running on a desktop computer and simply communicating to the embedded device.
As such using a database is much more feasible. Using one on an embedded platform is a much more complex issue.
On the desktop front I use a database when there is the need to store new information continuously and the need to extract that information in a relational way. What i don't use databases for is storing static information, information i read once at load and thats it. The exception is when the application has many users and there is the need to storage this information on a per user basis.
It sounds be to me like your collecting information from your embedded device, storing it somehow, then using it later to display via a GUI.
This is a good case for using a database, especially if you can architect the system such that there is a data collection daemon that manages the continuous communication with the embedded device. This app can then just write the data into the database. When the GUI is launched it can extract the data for display.
Using the database will also ease your GUI develop if you need to display different views, such as "show me all the entries between 2 dates". With a database you just ask it for the correct values to display with a proper SQL query and the GUI displays whatever comes back allowing you to decouple much of the "business logic" code from the GUI.
We are also facing a similar situation. We have set of data coming from different test setups and it is currently being dumped into excel sheets, processed using Perl or VBA.
We found out this method had lot of problems:
i. Managing data using excel sheets is quite cumbersome. After some time you have a whole lot of excel sheets and there is no easy way to retrieve required data from it.
ii. People start sending the excel sheets to and fro for comments and review through e-mails. E-Mail becomes the primary mode of managing the comments related to the data. These comments are lost at a later point of time and there is no way of retrieving it back.
iii. Multiple copies of the files get created and changes in one copy are not reflected in the other - there is no versioning.
This is for the same reasons we have decided to move to a database based solution and are currently working on it. Let me summaries what we are trying to do:
i. The database is in a central server accessible by PC in all the test setups.
ii. All the data goes into a temporary location (local hard disk in files) as soon as it is generated. From the files, it is pushed into database by a process running in the background (so even if there is a network problem, data will be present in the local files system).
iii. We have a web based application which allows users to log in and access data in the format they want. The portal will allow them to add comment, generate different kind of reports, share it with other users after review etc. It will also have the ability to export data into excel sheet, just in case you need to take it with you.
Let know if this can be better implemented.
"At what point is it worth using a database?"
If and when you've got data to manage ?
What is the easiest to use distributed map reduce programming system?
For example. in a distributed datastore containing many users, each with many connections, say I wanted to count the total number of connections:
Map:
for all records of type "user"
do for each user
count number of connections
retrun connection_count_for_one_user
Reduce:
reduce (connection_count_for_one_user)
total_connections += connection_count_for_one_user
Is there any mapreduce system that lets me program in this way?
Well i'll take a stab at making some suggestions, but your question isn't too clear.
So how are you storing your data? The storage mechanism is separate to how you apply MapReduce algorithms to the data. I'm going to assume you are using the Hadoop Distributed File System.
The problem you illustrate actually looks very similar to the typical Hadoop MapReduce word count example. Instead of words you are just counting users instead.
Some of the options you have for applying MapReduce to data stored on a HDFS are:
Java framework - good if you are comfortable with Java.
Pig - a high-level scripting language.
Hive - a data warehousing solution for Hadoop that provides an SQL like interface.
Hadoop streaming - allows you to write mappers and reducers in pretty much any language.
Which is easiest?
Well that all depends on what you feel comfortable with. If know Java take a look at the standard Java framework. If you are used to scripting languages you could use Pig or streaming. If you know SQL you could take a look at using Hive QL to query the HDFS. I would take a look the documentation for each as a starting point.
I am working on a project that deals with analyzing a very large amount of data, so I discovered MapReduce fairly recently, and before i dive any further into it, i would like to make sure my expectations are correct.
The interaction with the data will happen from a web interface, so response time is critical here, i am thinking a 10-15 second limit. Assuming my data will be loaded into a distributed file system before i perform any analysis on it, what kind of a performance can i expect from it?
Let's say I need to filter a simple 5GB XML file that is well formed, has a fairly flat data structure and 10,000,000 records in it. And let's say the output will result in 100,000 records. Is 10 seconds possible?
If it, what kind of hardware am i looking at?
If not, why not?
I put the example down, but now wish that I didn't. 5GB was just a sample that i was talking about, and in reality I would be dealing with a lot of data. 5GB might be data for one hour of the day, and I might want to identify all the records that meet a certain criteria.
A database is really not an option for me. What i wanted to find out is what is the fastest performance i can expect out of using MapReduce. Is it always in minutes or hours? Is it never seconds?
MapReduce is good for scaling the processing of large datasets, but it is not intended to be responsive. In the Hadoop implementation, for instance, the overhead of startup usually takes a couple of minutes alone. The idea here is to take a processing job that would take days and bring it down to the order of hours, or hours to minutes, etc. But you would not start a new job in response to a web request and expect it to finish in time to respond.
To touch on why this is the case, consider the way MapReduce works (general, high-level overview):
A bunch of nodes receive portions of
the input data (called splits) and do
some processing (the map step)
The intermediate data (output from
the last step) is repartitioned such
that data with like keys ends up
together. This usually requires some
data transfer between nodes.
The reduce nodes (which are not
necessarily distinct from the mapper
nodes - a single machine can do
multiple jobs in succession) perform
the reduce step.
Result data is collected and merged
to produce the final output set.
While Hadoop, et al try to keep data locality as high as possible, there is still a fair amount of shuffling around that occurs during processing. This alone should preclude you from backing a responsive web interface with a distributed MapReduce implementation.
Edit: as Jan Jongboom pointed out, MapReduce is very good for preprocessing data such that web queries can be fast BECAUSE they don't need to engage in processing. Consider the famous example of creating an inverted index from a large set of webpages.
A distributed implementation of MapReduce such as Hadoop is not a good fit for processing a 5GB XML
Hadoop works best on large amounts of data. Although 5GB is a fairly big XML file, it can easily be processed on a single machine.
Input files to Hadoop jobs need to be splittable so that different parts of the file can be processed on different machines. Unless your xml is trivially flat, the splitting of the file will be non deterministic so you'll need a pre processing step to format the file for splitting.
If you had many 5GB files, then you could use hadoop to distribute the splitting. You could also use it to merge results across files and store the results in a format for fast querying for use by your web interface as other answers have mentioned.
MapReduce is a generic term. You probably mean to ask whether a fully featured MapReduce framework with job control, such as Hadoop, is right for you. The answer still depends on the framework, but usually, the job control, network, data replication, and fault tolerance features of a MapReduce framework makes it suitable for tasks that take minutes, hours, or longer, and that's probably the short and correct answer for you.
The MapReduce paradigm might be useful to you if your tasks can be split among indepdent mappers and combined with one or more reducers, and the language, framework, and infrastructure that you have available let you take advantage of that.
There isn't necessarily a distinction between MapReduce and a database. A declarative language such as SQL is a good way to abstract parallelism, as are queryable MapReduce frameworks such as HBase. This article discusses MapReduce implementations of a k-means algorithm, and ends with a pure SQL example (which assumes that the server can parallelize it).
Ideally, a developer doesn't need to know too much about the plumbing at all. Erlang examples like to show off how the functional language features handle process control.
Also, keep in mind that there are lightweight ways to play with MapReduce, such as bashreduce.
I recently worked on a system that processes roughly 120GB/hour with 30 days of history. We ended up using Netezza for organizational reasons, but I think Hadoop may be an appropriate solution depending on the details of your data and queries.
Note that XML is very verbose. One of your main cost will reading/writing to disk. If you can, chose a more compact format.
The number of nodes in your cluster will depend on type and number of disks and CPU. You can assume for a rough calculation that you will be limited by disk speed. If your 7200rpm disk can scan at 50MB/s and you want to scan 500GB in 10s, then you need 1000 nodes.
You may want to play with Amazon's EC2, where you can stand up a Hadoop cluster and pay by the minute, or you can run a MapReduce job on their infrastructure.
It sounds like what you might want is a good old fashioned database. Not quite as trendy as map/reduce, but often sufficient for small jobs like this. Depending on how flexible your filtering needs to be, you could either just import your 5GB file into a SQL database, or you could implement your own indexing scheme yourself, by either storing records in different files, storing everything in memory in a giant hashtable, or whatever is appropriate for your needs.