If I have a BigQuery dataset with data that I would like to make available to 1000 people (where each of these people would only be allowed to view their subset of the data, and is OK to view a 24hr stale version of their data), how can I do this without exceeding the 50 concurrent queries limit?
In the BigQuery documentation there's mention of 50 concurrent queries being permitted which give on-the-spot accurate data, which I would surpass if I needed them to all be able to view on-the-spot accurate data - which I don't.
In the documentation there is mention of Batch jobs being permitted and saving of results into destination tables which I'm hoping would somehow allow a reliable solution for my scenario, but am having difficulty finding information on how reliably or frequently those batch jobs can be expected to run, and whether or not someone querying results that exist in those destination tables is in itself counting towards the 50 concurrent users limit.
Any advice appreciated.
Without knowing the specifics of your situation and depending on how much data is in the output, I would suggest putting your own cache in front of BigQuery.
This sounds kind of like a dashboading/reporting solution, so I assume there is a large amount of data going in and a relatively small amount coming out (per-user).
Run one query per day with a batch script to generate your output (grouped by user) and then export it to GCS. You can then break it up into multiple flat files (or just read it into memory on your frontend). Each user hits your frontend, you determine which part of the output to serve up to them and respond.
This should be relatively cheap if you can work off the cached data and it is small enough that handling the BigQuery output isn't too much additional processing.
Google Cloud Functions might be an easy way to handle this, if you don't want the extra work of setting up a new VM to host your frontend.
Related
members,
Currently we synchronise salesdata into BigQuery, and it allows us to make fast, detailed, practically realtime reports of all kinds of stats that we otherwise would not have available. We want to have a website that is able to use these reports and present this information to website-users.
Some specs:
Users are using the data as 'readonly'
We want to do the analysis 'on request', so as soon as a user opens the page, we would query BigQuery and the user would see their stats depending on the query
The stats could change for external sources but often the result will be equal, I take into my mind that BigQuery would cache the query
The average query processes about 100Mb of data, it takes >2 seconds for the whole backend to respond (so user request, query, return resultset) so performance is what we want
Why I doubt:
BigQuery would not be adviced
Could it run 'out of hand'
Dataset will grow bigger, but we will need to keep using all historical data in any case
I would be an option to get aggregated data into another database for doing the main calls, but that would give me not a 'realtime' experience.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
As per your requirement, you can consider Bigquery as an option since Bigquery is fully managed and supports analytics over petabyte-scale data, it will be able to handle large amounts of data. Bigquery is specially designed for performing OLAP transactions so analysis can be performed on requests. Bigquery uses cached query results through which you can cache the query and fetch results quickly.
If your dataset is very large and grows then you can create partitioned tables to store and manage your data and easily query the tables. Since your data can go out of hand, Bigquery being a fully managed service will automatically handle that load. Historical data can be stored and accessed but for that you can set the expiration time of the table and also check the optimized storage according to your requirement.
So now I'm currently using Google CloudSQL for my needs.
I'm collecting data from user activities. Every day the number of rows in my table will increase around 9-15 million rows and always updated every second. The data including several main parameters like user locations (latitude longitude), timestamp, user activities and conversations and more.
I need to constantly access a lot of insight from this user activities, like "how many users between latitude-longitude A and latitude-longitude B who use my app per hour since 30 days ago?".
Because my table become bigger every day, it's hard to manage the performance of select query in my table. (I already implemented the indexing method in my table especially for most common use parameter)
All my data insert, select, update and more is executed from API that I code in PHP.
So my question is can I get much more better benefit if I use Google BigQuery for my needs?
If yes, how can I do this? Because is Google BigQuery (forgive my if I'm wrong) designed to be used for static data? (Not a constantly update data)? How can I connect my CloudSQL data into BigQuery in real time?
Which one is better: optimizing my table in CloudSQL to maximize the select process or use BigQuery (if possible)
I also open for another alterntive or sugget to optimize my CloudSQL performance :)
Thank you
Sounds like BigQuery would be far better suited your use case. I can think of a good solution:
Migrate existing data from CloudSQL to BigQuery.
Stream events directly to BigQuery (using a async queue).
Use time partitioned table in BigQuery.
If you use BigQuery, you don't need to worry about performance or scaling. That's all handled for you by Google.
I've been hearing conflicting statements on how much records / data size, tableau can handle.
In the last week two people have told me they have dashes which are, 100m and 600m records. They do incremental refreshes.
If I have a dash with xxx million records. Do clients only receive the data that is in their aggregated view.
So, if I have a source with 200million records. In the dash it shows the aggregated total per week per product. Let's say this is 400 cells(underneath it's millions of records). Is the client only receiving 400 data points.
If I then add filters to sub product or user level data, would that mean all of these data is imported due to the filters? If this is the case, how does this affect speed?
Ultimately, Tableau can handle as much data as your datasource can handle. If you are set up so Tableau connects to a datasource directly, only the results of a query are transmitted to the user. I've got billion row datasources in BigQuery that return reasonably fast aggregated numbers to Tableau.
If your datasource is not fast then this won't give good results in Tableau.
If you are using extracts, where, in effect, Tableau pulls all the data locally, things will usually be faster, but you will have local drive and memory limits on the size of the dataset. And each user will need an extract. Unless you are using Tableau server in which case the extract can be on the server.
Dashboards built on big datasources sometimes get slow when there are a lot of filters because populating each filter requires a datasource query (which may be triggered every time you use a filter). There are strategies to speed up dashboards with this problem by using partial extracts that generate all the values used for filtering (you can sometimes use parameters for a similar speed gain). Or even just designing the filters intelligently. But speed is usually the limiting factor not the size of the source table.
The only real limit on how much Tableau can handle is how many points are displayed. And that depends on RAM. In my experience a 4GB machine will choke on a chart will a couple of million points (e.g. a map plotting every postcode in the UK). But on a 16GB RAM machine I have never found a limit other than how fast the points are drawn.
I am just starting with biquery, my DB is small (10K of rows 1 table) and my queries are simple count and group by.
Its takes and average of 3-4 sec per request but sometimes its jumps to 10 and event 15sec
I am querying from amazon linux server in Irland using the BQ tool.
Is it possible to get results faster (under 1sec) so I will be able to present my webpages faster.
1) Big Query is a highly scalable database, before being a "super fast" database. It's designed to process HUGE amount of data distributing the processing among several different machines using a technique named Dremel. Because it's designed to use several machines and parallel processing, you should expect to have super-scalability with a good performance.
2) BigQuery is an asset when you want to analyze billions of rows.
For example: analyzing all the wikipedia revisions in 5-10 seconds isn't bad, is it? But even a much smaller table would take about the same time, even if has 10k rows.
3) Under this size, you'll be better off using more traditional data storage solutions such as Cloud SQL or the App Engine Datastore. If you want to keep SQL capability, Cloud SQL is the best guess.
Sybase IQ is often installed in a single database and it doesn't use Dremel. That said, it's going to be faster than Big Query in many scenarios...as designed.
4) Certainly the performance differ from a dedicated environment. You get your dedicated environment for 20K$ a month.
That's the expected behaviour. In BigQuery you are using a shared infrastructure, so depending on the use at the moment you will get better or worse response time. Actually batch queries (those not needing interactivity) are encouraged and rewarded by not adding up to your quota.
You typically don't use BigQuery as your main database to show data in your web application. Depending on what you want to do, BigQuery can be a Big Data storage and you should have another intermediate store where you could store computed results to display to your users. Or maybe in your use case you don't really need BigQuery and there is a better solution.
In any case, you are not going to be able to avoid a few seconds wait (even if you go Premium, you get more guarantees about the service, but in no case a service fast enough as to be your main backend for a webapp)
We have data stored in a data warehouse as follows:
Price
Date
Product Name (varchar(25))
We currently only have four products. That changes very infrequently (on average once every 10 years). Once every business day, four new data points are added representing the day's price for each product.
On the website, a user can request this information by entering a date range and selecting one or more products names. Analytics shows that the feature is not heavily used (about 10 users requests per week).
It was suggested that the data warehouse should daily push (SFTP) a CSV file containing all data (currently 6718 rows of this data and growing by four each day) to the web server. Then, the web server would read data from the file and display that data whenever a user made a request.
Usually, the push would only be once a day, but more than one push could be possible to communicate (infrequent) price corrections. Even in the price correction scenario, all data would be delivered in the file. What are problems with this approach?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request? Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request?
Yes it would. You have very little data, so there is no need to try and 'cache' this in some way. (Apart from the fact that CSV might not be the best way to do this).
There is nothing stopping you from doing these requests from the webserver to the database server. With as little information as this you will not find performance an issue, but even if it would be when everything grows, there is a lot to be gained on the database-side (indexes etc) that will help you survive the next 100 years in this fashion.
The amount of requests from your users (also extremely small) does not need any special treatment, so again, direct query would be the best.
Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Well, it might, but that would not justify your CSV method. Examples and why you need not worry, could be
the connection with the databaseserver is down.
This is an issue for both methods, but with only one connection per day the change of a 1-in-10000 failures might seem to be better for once-a-day methods. But these issues should not come up very often, and if they do, you should be able to handle them. (retry request, give a message to user). This is what enourmous amounts of websites do, so trust me if I say that this will not be an issue. Also, think of what it would mean if your daily update failed? That would present a bigger problem!
Performance issues
as said, this is due to the amount of data and requests, not a problem. And even if it becomes one, this is a problem you should be able to catch at a different level. Use a caching system (non CSV) on the database server. Use a caching system on the webserver. Fix your indexes to stop performance from being a problem.
BUT:
It is far from strange to want your data-warehouse separated from your web system. If this is a requirement, and it surely could be, the best thing you can do is re-create your warehouse-database (the one I just defended as being good enough to query directly) on another machine. You might get good results by doing a master-slave system
your datawarehouse is a master-database: it sends all changes to the slave but is inexcessible otherwise
your 2nd database (on your webserver even) gets all updates from the master, and is read-only. you can only query it for data
your webserver cannot connect to the datawarehouse, but can connect to your slave to read information. Even if there was an injection hack, it doesn't matter, as it is read-only.
Now you don't have a single moment where you update the queried database (the master-slave replication will keep it updated always), but no chance that the queries from the webserver put your warehouse in danger. profit!
I don't really see how SQL injection could be a real concern. I assume you have some calendar type field that the user fills in to get data out. If this is the only form just ensure that the only field that is in it is a date then something like DROP TABLE isn't possible. As for getting access to the database, that is another issue. However, a separate file with just the connection function should do fine in most cases so that a user can't, say open your webpage in an HTML viewer and see your database connection string.
As for the CSV, I would have to say querying a database per user, especially if it's only used ~10 times weekly would be much more efficient than the CSV. I just equate the CSV as overkill because again you only have ~10 users attempting to get some information, to export an updated CSV every day would be too much for such little pay off.
EDIT:
Also if an attack is a big concern, which that really depends on the nature of the business, the data being stored, and the visitors you receive, you could always create a backup as another option. I don't really see a reason for this as your question is currently stated, but it is a possibility that even with the best security an attack could happen. That mainly just depends on if the attackers want the information you have.