We have end users issuing queries against our bigquery tables from multiple places. From BI tools, from the GCP console, from bash scripts that use bq, from python scripts that call the API etc … we would like to be able to track the cost of queries so we can compare the cost of those different querying methods.
Within GCP the way to differentiate costs is to put labels onto stuff. Is there a way to mandate the labels that queries from any (all??) of those querying mechanisms must have? I think this is impossible for ad hoc bash/python scripts but perhaps we can mandate that a particular BI tool must pass through labels on all the queries that it issues.
Any advice on this subject would be appreciated.
I dont think you can Mandate lables . But you can create seprate service accounts
One for CLI
One for GCP console
One for BI
and track your costs based on that.
Related
I have some app data which is currently stored in Splunk. But i am looking for a way where I can input the Splunk data directly to BigQuery. My target is to analyze the app data on BigQuery and perhaps create Data Studio dashboards based on the BigQuery.
I know there are a lot of third party connectors that can help me with this, but I am looking for a solution where I can use features from Splunk or BigQuery to conncet both of them together and not rely on third party connectors.
Based on your comment indicating that you're interested in resources to egress data from Splunk into BigQuery with custom software, I would suggest using either tool's REST API on either side.
You don't indicate whether this is a one-time or a recurring asking - that may impact where you want the software to run that performs this operation. If it's a one-time thing and you've got a fair internet connection yourself, you may just want to write a console application from your own machine to perform the migration. If it's a recurring operation, you might instead look at any of the various "serverless" hosting options out there (e.g. Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions, or AWS Lambda). In addition to development experience, note that you may have to pay an egress bandwidth cost for each on top of normal service charges.
Beyond that, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to do a bulk export from Splunk out to some external file that you load into Google Drive and then import into Big Query. But maybe it makes more sense to download the records as paged data via HTTPS so you can perform some ETL operation on top of it (e.g. replace nulls with empty strings, update Datetime types to match Google's exacting standards, etc.). If you go this route, it looks as though this is the documentation you'd use from Splunk and you can either use Google's newer, and higher-performance Storage Write API to receive the data or their legacy streaming API to ingest into BigQuery. Either option supports SDKs across varied languages (e.g. C#, Go, Ruby, Node.js, Python, etc.), though only the legacy streaming API supports plain HTTP REST calls.
Beyond that, don't forget your OAuth2 concerns to authenticate on either side of the operation, though this is typically abstracted away by the various SDKs offered by either party, and less of something you'd have to deal with the ins and outs of.
I have a project in BigQuery where many people update/add Views.
Other access Views/Tables from 3rd party softwares like Tableau.
I have no control for example if the Analysit who wrote the query in Tableau used the Partition of the table or not.
Is it possible somehow to ask BigQuery to send email for each query that passes threshold? For example 20GB. Then I can check this specific query and user to see if it's OK or not (I'm not forcing partition as it's not always what we need)
I know that it's possible to use the Stackdriver Logging export to download logs into BigQuery tables / storage but I don't see anything there that can tell me if query passed this specific criteria.
There are different solutions available but the best is using Cloud Pub/Sub topics and piece of Cloud Function:
Enable programmatic notifications to receive Cloud Pub/Sub messages with the current status of your budget
Programmatic Budgets Notification Examples
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
We have a huge set of data stored on hadoop cluster. We need to do some analysis to these data using apache spark and provide the result of this analysis to other applications via an API.
I have two ideas but I can not figure out which one is the recommended.
The first option is to make spark application(s) that make its analysis and store the result in another datastore (relation DB or even HDFS), then develop another application that reads the result of the analysis from the other datastore and provide an API for querying.
The second option is to make merge the two applications into one application. This way I deduce the need to another datastore but I this way the application will up running all the time.
What is the recommended way to go for in this situation? and if there is another options kindly list it.
It depends on How frequently the user going to hit the get api.as if client want real time result should go for in line api.else can use first aproach of storing result in another data storage.
We're building a Silverlight application which will be offered as SaaS. The end product is a Silverlight client that connects to a WCF service. As the number of clients is potentially large, updating needs to be easy, preferably so that all instances can be updated in one go.
Not having implemented multi tenancy before, I'm looking for opinions on how to achieve
Easy upgrades
Data security
Scalability
Three different models to consider are listed on msdn
Separate databases. This is not easy to maintain as all schema changes will have to be applied to each customer's database individually. Are there other drawbacks? A pro is data separation and security. This also allows for slight modifications per customer (which might be more hassle than it's worth!)
Shared Database, Separate Schemas. A TenantID column is added to each table. Ensuring that each customer gets the correct data is potentially dangerous. Easy to maintain and scales well (?).
Shared Database, Separate Schemas. Similar to the first model, but each customer has its own set of tables in the database. Hard to restore backups for a single customer. Maintainability otherwise similar to model 1 (?).
Any recommendations on articles on the subject? Has anybody explored something similar with a Silverlight SaaS app? What do I need to consider on the client side?
Depends on the type of application and scale of data. Each one has downfalls.
1a) Separate databases + single instance of WCF/client. Keeping everything in sync will be a challenge. How do you upgrade X number of DB servers at the same time, what if one fails and is now out of sync and not compatible with the client/WCF layer?
1b) "Silos", separate DB/WCF/Client for each customer. You don't have the sync issue but you do have the overhead of managing many different instances of each layer. Also you will have to look at SQL licensing, I can't remember if separate instances of SQL are licensed separately ($$$). Even if you can install as many instances as you want, the overhead of multiple instances will not be trivial after a certain point.
3) Basically same issues as 1a/b except for licensing.
2) Best upgrade/management scenario. You are right that maintaining data isolation is a huge concern (1a technically shares this issue at a higher level). The other issue is if your application is data intensive you have to worry about data scalability. For example if every customer is expected to have tens/hundreds millions rows of data. Then you will start to run into issues and query performance for individual customers due to total customer base volumes. Clients are more forgiving for slowdowns caused by their own data volume. Being told its slow because the other 99 clients data is large is generally a no-go.
Unless you know for a fact you will be dealing with huge data volumes from the start I would probably go with #2 for now, and begin looking at clustering or moving to 1a/b setup if needed in the future.
We also have a SaaS product and we use solution #2 (Shared DB/Shared Schema with TenandId). Some things to consider for Share DB / Same schema for all:
As mention above, high volume of data for one tenant may affect performance of the other tenants if you're not careful; for starters index your tables properly/carefully and never ever do queries that force a table scan. Monitor query performance and at least plan/design to be able to partition your DB later on based some criteria that makes sense for your domain.
Data separation is very very important, you don't want to end up showing a piece of data to some tenant that belongs to other tenant. every query must have a WHERE TenandId = ... in it and you should be able to verify/enforce this during dev.
Extensibility of the schema is something that solutions 1 and 3 may give you, but you can go around it by designing a way to extend the fields that are associated with the documents/tables in your domain that make sense (ie. Metadata for tables as the msdn article mentions)
What about solutions that provide an out of the box architecture like Apprenda's SaaSGrid? They let you make database decisions at deploy and maintenance time and not at design time. It seems they actively transform and manage the data layer, as well as provide an upgrade engine.
I've similar case, but my solution is take both advantage.
Where data and how data being placed is the question from tenant. Being a tenant of course I don't want my data to be shared, I want my data isolated, secure and I can get at anytime I want.
Certain data it possibly share eg: company list. So database should be global and tenant database, just make sure to locked in operation tenant database schema, and procedure to update all tenant database at once.
Anyway SaaS model everything delivered as server / web service, so no matter where the database should come to client as service, then only render by client GUI.
Thanks
Existing answers are good. You should look deeply into the issue of upgrading and managing multiple databases. Without knowing the specific app, it might turn out easier to have multiple databases and not have to pay the extra cost of tracking the TenantID. This might not end up being the right decision, but you should certainly be wary of the dev cost of data sharing.