I am implementing an ETL job that migrates a non partitioned BigQuery Table to a partitioned one.
To do so I use the Storage API from BigQuery. This creates a number of sessions to pull Data from.
In order to route the BigQuery writes to the right partition I use the File Loads methods.
Streaming inserts was not the option due to the limitation of 30 days.
Storage Write API seems to be limited identifying the partition.
By residing to the File Load Method the Data are being written to GCS.
The issue is that this takes too much time and there is the risk of the sessions to close.
Behind the scenes the File Load Method is a complex one with multiple steps. For example writings to GCS and combining the entries to a destination/partition joined file.
Based on the Dataflow processes it seems that nodes can execute workloads on different parts of the pipeline.
How can I avoid the risk of the session closing? Is there a way for my Dataflow nodes to focus only on the critical part which is write to GCS first and once this is done, then focus on all the other aspects?
You can do a Reshuffle right before applying the write to BigQuery. In Dataflow, that will create a checkpoint, and a new stage in the job. The write to BigQuery would start when all steps previous to the reshuffle have finished, and in case of errors and retries, the job would backtrack to that checkpoint.
Please note that doing a reshuffle implies doing a shuffling of data, so there will be a performance impact.
Related
I'm expected to have thousands of sensors sending telemetry data at 10FPS with around 1KB of binary data per frame, using IOT Core, meaning I'll get it via PubSub. I'd like to get that data to BigQuery, and no processing is needed.
As Dataflow don't have a template capable of dealing with binary data, and working with it seems a bit cumbersome, I'd like to try to avoid it and go full serverless.
Question is, what's my best alternative?
I've thought about Cloud Run service running an express app to accept the data from PubSub, and using global variable to accumulate around 500 rows in ram, then dump it using BigQuery's insert() method (NodeJS client).
How reasonable is that? Will I gain something from accumulation, or should I just insert to bigquery every single incoming row?
Streaming Ingestion
If your requirement is to analyze high volumes of continuously arriving data with near-real-time dashboards and queries, streaming inserts would be a good choice. The quotas and limits for streaming inserts can be found here.
Since you are using the Node.js client library, use the BigQuery legacy streaming API's insert() method as you have already mentioned. The insert() method streams one row at a time irrespective of accumulation of rows.
For new projects, the BigQuery Storage Write API is recommended as it is cheaper and has an enriched feature set than the legacy API does. The BigQuery Storage Write API only supports Java, Python and Go(in preview) client libraries currently.
Batch Ingestion
If your requirement is to load large, bounded data sets that don’t have to be processed in real-time, prefer batch loading. BigQuery batch load jobs are free. You only pay for storing and querying the data but not for loading the data. Refer to quotas and limits for batch load jobs here. Some more key points on batch loading jobs have been quoted from this article.
Load performance is best effort
Since the compute used for loading data is made available from a shared pool at no cost to the user,
BigQuery does not make guarantees on performance and available
capacity of this shared pool. This is governed by the fair scheduler
allocating resources among load jobs that may be competing with loads
from other users or projects. Quotas for load jobs are in place to
minimize the impact.
Load jobs do not consume query capacity
Slots used for querying data are distinct from the slots used for ingestion. Hence, data
ingestion does not impact query performance.
ACID semantics
For data loaded through the bq load command, queries will either reflect the presence of all or none of the data .
Queries never scan partial data.
I have recently started with Apache beam. I am sure I am missing something here. I have a requirement to load from a very huge database to bigquery. These tables are huge. I have written sample beam jobs to load minimal rows from simple tables.
How would I able to load n number of rows from tables using JDBCIO? Is there anyway that i can load these data in batches as we do in conventional data migration jobs.?
Can I do batch read from a database and write in batches to bigquery?
Also i have seen that, the suggested approach to load the data to bigquery is by adding the files to the data store buckets. But, in automated environment, the requirement is to write it as a dataflow job to load from db and write it to bigquery. What should my design approach to solve this issue using apache beam?
Please help.!
It looks[1] like BigQueryIO will write batches of data if it comes from a bounded PCollection (otherwise it uses streaming inserts). It also appears to bound the size of each file and batch, so I don't think you'll need to do any manual batching.
I'd just read from your database via JDBCIO, transform it if needed, and write it to BigQueryIO.
[1] https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/gcp/bigquery/BigQueryIO.java
CSV files get uploaded to some FTP server (for which I don't have SSH access) in a daily basis and I need to generate weekly data that merges those files with transformations. That data would go into a history table in BQ and a CSV file in GCS.
My approach goes as follows:
Create a Linux VM and set a cron job that syncs the files from the
FTP server with a GCS bucket (I'm using GCSFS)
Use an external table in BQ for each category of CSV files
Create views with complex queries that transform the data
Use another cron job to create a table with the historic data and also the CSV file on a weekly basis.
My idea is to remove as much middle processes as I can and to make the implementation as easy as possible, including dataflow for ETL, but I have some questions first:
What's the problem with my approach in terms of efficiency and money?
Is there anything DataFlow can provide that my approach can't?
any ideas about other approaches?
BTW, I ran into one problem that might be fixable by parsing the csv files myself rather than using external tables, which is invalid characters, like the null char, so I can get rid of them, while as an external table there is a parsing error.
Probably your ETL will be simplified by Google DataFlow Pipeline batch execution job. Upload your files to the GCS bucket. For transforming use pipeline transformation to strip null values and invalid character (or whatever your need is). On those transformed dataset use your complex queries like grouping it by key, aggregating it (sum or combine) and also if you need side inputs data-flow provides ability to merge other data-sets into the current the data-set too. Finally the transformed output can written to BQ or you can write your own custom implementation for writing those results.
So the data-flow gives you very high flexibility to your solution, you can branch the pipeline and work differently on each branch with same data-set. And regarding the cost, if you run your batch job with three workers, which is the default that should not be very costly, but again if you just want to concentrate on your business logic and not worry about the rest, google data-flow is pretty interesting and its very powerful if used wisely.
Data-flow helps you to keep everything on a single plate and manage them effectively. Go through its pricing and determine if it could be the best fit for you (your problem is completely solvable with google data-flow), Your approach is not bad but needs extra maintenance with those pieces.
Hope this helps.
here are a few thoughts.
If you are working with a very low volume of data then your approach may work just fine. If you are working with more data and need several VMs, dataflow can automatically scale up and down the number of workers your pipeline uses to help it run more efficiently and save costs.
Also, is your linux VM always running? Or does it only spin up when you run your cron job? A batch Dataflow job only runs when it needed, which also helps to save on costs.
In Dataflow you could use TextIO to read each line of the file in, and add your custom parsing logic.
You mention that you have a cron job which puts the files into GCS. Dataflow can read from GCS, so it would probably be simplest to keep that process around and have your dataflow job read from GCS. Otherwise you would need to write a custom source to read from your FTP server.
Here are some useful links:
https://cloud.google.com/dataflow/service/dataflow-service-desc#autoscaling
Is there a way to use Lambda for S3 file concatenation?
I have Firehose streaming data into S3 with the longest possible interval (15 minutes or 128mb) and therefore I have 96 data files daily, but I want to aggregate all the data to a single daily data file for the fastest performance when reading the data later in Spark (EMR).
I created a solution where Lambda function gets invoked when Firehose streams a new file into S3. Then the function reads (s3.GetObject) the new file from source bucket and the concatenated daily data file (if it already exists with previous daily data, otherwise creates a new one) from the destination bucket, decode both response bodies to string and then just add them together and write to the destination bucket with s3.PutObject (which overwrites the previous aggregated file).
The problem is that when the aggregated file reaches 150+ MB, the Lambda function reaches its ~1500mb memory limit when reading the two files and then fails.
Currently I have a minimal amount of data, with a few hundred MB-s per day, but this amount will be growing exponentially in the future. It is weird for me that Lambda has such low limits and that they are already reached with so small files.
Or what are the alternatives of concatenating S3 data, ideally invoked by S3 object created event or somehow a scheduled job, for example scheduled daily?
I would reconsider whether you actually want to do this:
The S3 costs will go up.
The pipeline complexity will go up.
The latency from Firehose input to Spark input will go up.
If a single file injection into Spark fails (this will happen in a distributed system) you have to shuffle around a huge file, maybe slice it if injection is not atomic, upload it again, all of which could take very long for lots of data. At this point you may find that the time to recover is so long that you'll have to postpone the next injection…
Instead, unless it's impossible in the situation, if you make the Firehose files as small as possible and send them to Spark immediately:
You can archive S3 objects almost immediately, lowering costs.
Data is available in Spark as soon as possible.
If a single file injection into Spark fails there's less data to shuffle around, and if you have automated recovery this shouldn't even be noticeable unless some system is running full tilt at all times (at which point bulk injections would be even worse).
There's a tiny amount of latency increase from establishing TCP connections and authentication.
I'm not familiar with Spark specifically, but in general such a "piped" solution would involve:
A periodic trigger or (even better) an event listener on the Firehose output bucket to process input ASAP.
An injector/transformer to move data efficiently from S3 to Spark. It sounds like Parquet could help with this.
A live Spark/EMR/underlying data service instance ready to receive the data.
In case of an underlying data service, some way of creating a new Spark cluster to query the data on demand.
Of course, if it is not possible to keep Spark data ready (but not queriable ("queryable"? I don't know)) for a reasonable amount of money, this may not be an option. It may also be possible that it's extremely time consuming to inject small chunks of data, but that seems unlikely for a production-ready system.
If you really need to chunk the data into daily dumps you can use multipart uploads. As a comparison, we're doing light processing of several files per minute (many GB per day) from Firehose with no appreciable overhead.
You may create a Lambda function that will be invoked only once a day using Scheduled Events and in your Lambda function you should use Upload Part - Copy that does not need to download your files on the Lambda function. There is already an example of this in this thread
I'm looking to use Dataflow to load data into BigQuery tables using BQ load jobs - not streaming (streaming would cost too much for our use case). I see that the Dataflow SDK has built in support for inserting data via BQ streaming, but I wasn't able to find anything in the Dataflow SDK that supports load jobs out of the box.
Some questions:
1) Does the Dataflow SDK have OOTB support for BigQuery load job inserts? If not, is it planned?
2) If I need to roll my own, what are some good approaches?
If I have to roll my own, performing a BQ load job using Google Cloud Storage is a multi step process - write the file to GCS, submit the load job via the BQ API, and (optionally) check the status until the job has completed (or failed). I'd hope I could use the existing TextIO.write() functionality to write to GCS, but I'm not sure how I'd compose that step with the subsequent call to the BQ API to submit the load job (and optionally the subsequent calls to check the status of the job until it's complete).
Also, I'd be using Dataflow in streaming mode, with windows of 60 seconds - so I'd want to do the load job every 60 seconds as well.
Suggestions?
I'm not sure which version of Apache Beam you are using, but now it's possible to use a micro-batching tactic using a Stream Pipeline. If you decide one way or another you can use something like this:
.apply("Saving in batches", BigQueryIO.writeTableRows()
.to(destinationTable(options))
.withMethod(Method.FILE_LOADS)
.withJsonSchema(myTableSchema)
.withCreateDisposition(CreateDisposition.CREATE_IF_NEEDED)
.withWriteDisposition(WriteDisposition.WRITE_APPEND)
.withExtendedErrorInfo()
.withTriggeringFrequency(Duration.standardMinutes(2))
.withNumFileShards(1);
.optimizedWrites());
Things to keep in mind
There are 2 different methods: FILE_LOADS and STREAMING_INSERT, if you use the first one you need to include the withTriggeringFrequency and withNumFileShards. For the first one, from my experience, is better to use minutes and the number will depend on the amount of throughput data. If you receive quite a lot try to keep it small, I have seen "stuck errors" when you increase it too much. The shards can affect mostly your GCS billing, if you add to much shards it will create more files per table per x amount of minutes.
If your input data size is not so big the streaming insert can work really well and the cost shouldn't be a big deal. In that scenario you can use STREAMING_INSERT method and remove the withTriggeringFrequency and withNumFileShards. Also, you can add withFailedInsertRetryPolicy like InsertRetryPolicy.retryTransientErrors() so no rows are being lost (keep in mind that idempotency is not guaranteed with STREAM_INSERTS, so duplication is possible)
You can check your Jobs in BigQuery and validate that everything is working! Keep in mind the policies for jobs with BigQuery (I think is 1000 jobs per table) when you are trying to define triggering frequency and shards.
Note: You can always read this article about efficient aggregation pipelines https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-to-efficiently-process-both-real-time-and-aggregate-data-with-dataflow
BigQueryIO.write() always uses BigQuery load jobs when the input PCollection is bounded. If you'd like it to also use them if it is unbounded, specify .withMethod(FILE_LOADS).withTriggeringFrequency(...).