Advice for storing records in Riak

Toby Corkindale toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au
Sun Apr 14 22:38:09 EDT 2013


On 12/04/13 19:49, Christian Dahlqvist wrote:
> Hi Toby,
>
> Inserting lots of small records in Riak and querying the full data set
> via MapReduce is definitely not the best way to go around things. As
> Alexander points out, easy object is stored with metadata, which adds
> some overhead and Riak MapReduce tends to work best when run over
> smaller data sets.
>
> In order to help and come up with suggestions on how to model your data
> efficiently I would need to better understand the nature of the data you
> want to store in Riak, the access patterns and how you need to be able
> to query it.
>
> - What does the data represent? Are there any natural way to group records?
> - How frequently are records inserted? How often are they updated? Do
> you delete records or keep them forever?
> - How do you need to be able to query this data? What is the logical
> task of the MapReduce job you described?
> - In what different ways is the data aggregated?


Hi Christian,
thanks for your offer of help.

The dataset I'm looking at is roughly described as follows:

Records consist of a small number of organisations and their metadata; a 
moderate number of people associated with those organisations and their 
metadata; and then a large number of events which refer to a single 
person and single organisation along with data about the event.

This dataset has data that goes back in time a fair way, and the intent 
is to keep it indefinitely. New data arrives in batches throughout the 
year. The only time data is deleted is when it is discovered to be 
faulty and is replaced by a new batch of corrected records.

There are some ways the data could be logically grouped, such as by 
organisation, or by person, but we can't just roll it all up into 
aggregates at the start.

Actual queries can easily be segmented to only be working over a subset 
of the whole data, per query. We do that already on the existing SQL system.

The actual queries we run usually aggregate the data from the raw events 
up to either person or organisation level by time period. Some are quite 
simple queries, such as "number of events per org where this single 
value exceeded a fixed threshold". Some others are more complex, such as 
finding events where certain values have exceeded the typical range for 
that value as seen by the parent person or organisation.

The big queries don't need to run instantly; we run them all and store 
the results.
The queries tend to get tweaked or updated regularly, requiring them to 
be re-run over the entire dataset, or at least the recent periods, and 
it's desirable that this process completes in a reasonable timeframe.



Currently this all runs in a big PostgreSQL database, reasonably 
successfully, but as the amount of data and the number of queries grows, 
I'm investigating options to horizontally scale the system, and on the 
face of it I think the data and queries would suit a map-reduce system?


Cheers,
Toby


> On 12 Apr 2013, at 09:11, Alexander Sicular <siculars at gmail.com
> <mailto:siculars at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Inline -Alexander.
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2013 3:11 AM, "Toby Corkindale"
>> <toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au
>> <mailto:toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I wondered if I could get a little advice on good practices for
>> storing my records in Riak, such that they perform reasonably well in
>> map-reduce queries?
>> >
>> > I have a little over 200 million records, currently stored in a
>> regular SQL database. I'm expecting this dataset to continue to grow,
>> of course.
>> > Each record is reasonably small - some get up to couple of hundred
>> bytes, but most are smaller, and consist of around a dozen numeric
>> fields and some small alphanumeric identifier fields.
>> >
>> > My initial trial of importing these into Riak were to take each
>> database row and convert it into a small JSON of key=>value pairs.
>> >
>> > I'm find two issues with this though.
>> > 1) It takes a really long time to import everything into Riak, at
>> least compared to ingesting into PostgreSQL. (I'm using Riak's HTTP API)
>>
>> Proto buff interface is faster,  less overhead. ..
>>
>> > 2) An initial trial of some map-reduce queries was significantly
>> slower than I was hoping; I suspect this is because of my data
>> structure though.
>> > My initial map phase was iterating over a high percentage of the
>> keys, decoding the JSON, and then returning just one or two of the
>> fields from the JSON structure, which is maybe an inefficient way to
>> go about things?
>>
>> Not the most efficient.  Everything is translated from erlang to
>> JavaScript and shipped over to the coordinating node.  MR over smaller
>> sets,  accumulate over some range like time or something native to
>> your app.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > So I was wondering if there's a better way to be approaching the
>> problem.. I wondered about breaking up the records further, and
>> storing individual fields against keys, rather than the whole record
>> as a JSON object.
>> >
>> > Eg. This was my initial method:
>> > Key: {id}:{recordtype}:{recordid}
>> > Value: { field1: "foo", field2: "bar", field3: "baz" }
>> >
>> > I wondered about this, creating one key for each field:
>> > {id}:{recordtype}:{recordid}:field1 ==> "foo"
>> > {id}:{recordtype}:{recordid}:field2 ==> "bar"
>> > {id}:{recordtype}:{recordid}:field3 ==> "baz"
>> >
>>
>> Don't do that.  There is a ~400b per key overhead in riak.
>>
>> > That would avoid the need for one of the map phases; but on the
>> other hand, now I'd be creating an order of magnitude more overall
>> keys in the db.
>> >
>> >
>> > On the other hand, I wondered about going the other way, and
>> grouping records under one key. So instead of having keys 100, 101,
>> 102 .. 109, I would have one key 10x that contained a JSON structure
>> with an array of records.. (I don't know whether I store 10, 50 or 100
>> records per key)
>> >
>>
>> I might batch depending on your access pattern and update pattern. If
>> you update values with any frequency it may not be worth it.  Riak has
>> no in place updates.
>>
>> > This would speed up the time taken to ingest data to Riak, and
>> reduce the number of total queries made by the map phase.. but would
>> increase the work DONE in the map phase and add inefficiencies as
>> sometimes only a few rows of the set would actually be required for a
>> given query.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And the third consideration is that maybe I just need to scale up
>> the cluster size to have more machines. Currently it's running on a
>> small cluster of four nodes while trialling Riak. (And I'm comparing
>> performance with a single, but significantly more powerful, PostgreSQL
>> node)
>> >
>> >
>> > There's nothing to stop me trying out all these methods, but I
>> thought I'd poll the community for advice since no doubt implemented
>> similar things before and know what rough things may or may not work well.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Toby





More information about the riak-users mailing list