I have a situation where I have an authority data source that has a service sending the data to another data source across the network every time the original data source is updated. Similar to an offsite backup I guess. I'm looking for a way to ensure that the secondary data source is consistent with the original data source.
I think that there are atleast two different things I need to check.
Data integrity: This I believe I can check with a checksum style error check.
Data reaching it's destination: I'm not sure how I can ensure that the data is actually getting recorded in the secondary data source. There is a possibility that the data is never reaching the destination because of a network issue or similar.
Are there any best practices that I can use to ensure that the secondary data source has data consistency with the original data source?
Related
So I am in the process of building a database from my clients data. Each month they create roughly 25 csv's, which are unique by their topic and attributes, but they all have 1 thing in common; a registration number.
The registration number is the only common variable across all of these csv's.
My task is to move all of this into a database, for which I am leaning towards postgres (If anyone believes nosql would be best for this then please shout out!).
The big problem; structuring this within a database. Should I create 1 table per month that houses all the data, with column 1 being registration and column 2-200 being the attributes? Or should put all the csv's into postgres as they are, and then join them later?
I'm struggling to get my head around the method to structure this when there will be monthly updates to every registration, and we dont want to destroy historical data - we want to keep it for future benchmarks.
I hope this makes sense - I welcome all suggestions!
Thank you.
There are some ways where your question is too broad and asking for an opinion (SQL vs NoSQL).
However, the gist of the question is whether you should load your data one month at a time or into a well-developed data model. Definitely the latter.
My recommendation is the following.
First, design the data model around how the data needs to be stored in the database, rather than how it is being provided. There may be one table per CSV file. I would be a bit surprised, though. Data often wants to be restructured.
Second, design the archive framework for the CSV files.
You should archive all the incoming files in a nice directory structure with files from each month. This structure should be able to accommodate multiple uploads per month, either for all the files or some of them. Mistakes happen and you want to be sure the input data is available.
Third, copy (this is the Postgres command) the data into staging tables. This is the beginning of the monthly process.
Fourth, process the data -- including doing validation checks to load it into your data model.
There may be tweaks to this process, based on questions such as:
Does the data need to be available 24/7 even during the upload process?
Does a validation failure in one part of the data prevent uploading any data?
Are SQL checks (referential integrity and check) sufficient for validating the data?
Do you need to be able to "rollback" the system to any particular update?
These are just questions that can guide your implementation. They are not intended to be answered here.
I am creating an ETL pipeline that uses variety of sources and sends the data to Big Query. Talend cannot handle both relational and non relational database components in one job for my use case so here's how i am doing it currently:
JOB 1 --Get data from a source(SQL Server, API etc), transform it and store transformed data in a delimited file(text or csv)
JOB 1 -- Use the stored transformed data from delimited file in JOB 1 as source and then transform it according to big query and send it.
I am using delimited text file/csv as intermediary data storage to achieve this.Since confidentiality of data is important and solution also needs to be scalable to handle millions of rows, what should i use as this intermediary source. Will a relational database help? or delimited files are good enough? or anything else i can use?
PS- I am deleting these files as soon as the job finishes but worried about security till the time job runs, although will run on safe cloud architecture.
Please share your views on this.
In Data Warehousing architecture, it's usually a good practice to have the staging layer to be persistent. This gives you among other things, the ability to trace the data lineage back to source, enable to reload your final model from the staging point when business rules change as well as give a full picture about the transformation steps the data went through from all the way from landing to reporting.
I'd also consider changing your design and have the staging layer persistent under its own dataset in BigQuery rather than just deleting the files after processing.
Since this is just a operational layer for ETL/ELT and not end-user reports, you will be paying only for storage for the most part.
Now, going back to your question and considering your current design, you could create a bucket in Google Cloud Storage and keep your transformation files there. It offers all the security and encryption you need and you have full control over permissions. Big Query works seemingly with Cloud Storage and you can even load a table from a Storage file straight from the Cloud Console.
All things considered, whatever the direction you chose I recommend to store the files you're using to load the table rather than deleting them. Sooner or later there will be questions/failures in your final report and you'll likely need to trace back to the source for investigation.
In a nutshell. The process would be.
|---Extract and Transform---|----Load----|
Source ---> Cloud Storage --> BigQuery
I would do ELT instead of ETL: load the source data as-is and transform in Bigquery using SQL functions.
This allows potentially to reshape data (convert to arrays), filter out columns/rows and perform transform in one single SQL.
As far as I know, Google Big Query follows "eventual consistency" architecture, meaning that table creation, schema changes and data import is non-synchronous.
I'm building system that synchronize couple of tables with high update ratio to BQ (by schedule). Latter is not suited for updates at all, so I'm following idea of dropping all previous data and re-importing everything (data volume for this tables is low, so this seems feasible for now).
I'm facing the issue with table re-creation: I'm deleting existing table, creating new (providing schema) and inserting data (via insert_rows, which does streamed insert, AFAIK).
And I'm experiencing inconsistency, most of the time (not always) ending up with empty table, but actual schema. From what I understand, this may happen in case of streaming insert still knows about old table, inserts data in it, and later on deletion/re-creation is synced up.
So my question is how to reliably get the point when table/schema updates is converged to all nodes/regions/etc? Or if there's any other way to reliably re-import the data with potential schema change.
Let's assume we have an Aggregate User which has a UserPortraitImage and a Contract as a PDF file. I want to store files in a dedicated document-based store and just hold process-relevant data in the event (with a link to the BLOB data).
But how do I avoid a two-phase commit when I have to store the files and store the new event?
At first I'd store the documents and then the event; if the first transaction fails it doesn't matter, the command failed. If the second transaction fails it also doesn't matter even if we generated some dead files in the store, the command fails; we could even apply a rollback.
But could there be an additional problem?
The next question is how to design the aggregate and the event. If the aggregate only holds a reference to the BLOB storage, what is the process after a SignUp command got called?
SignUpCommand ==> Store documents (UserPortraitImage and Contract) ==> Create new User aggregate with the given BLOB storage references and store it?
Is there a better design which unburdens the aggregate of knowing that BLOB data is saved in another store? And who is responsible for storing BLOB data and forwarding the reference to the aggregate?
Sounds like you are working with something analogous to an AtomPub media-entry/media-link-entry pair. The blob is going into your data store, the meta data gets copied into the aggregate history
But how do I avoid a two-phase commit when I have to store the files and store the new event?
In practice, you probably don't.
That is to say, if the blob store and the aggregate store happen to be the same database, then you can update both in the same transaction. That couples the two stores, and adds some pretty strong constraints to your choice of storage, but it is doable.
Another possibility is that you accept that the two changes that you are making are isolated from one another, and therefore that for some period of time the two stores are not consistent with each other.
In this second case, the saga pattern is what you are looking for, and it is exactly what you describe; you pair the first action with a compensating action to take if the second action fails. So "manual" rollback.
Or not - in a sense, the git object database uses a two phase commit; an object gets copied into the object store, and then the trees get updated, and then the commit... garbage collection comes along later to discard the objects that you don't need.
who is responsible for storing BLOB data and forwarding the reference to the aggregate?
Well, ultimately it is an infrastructure concern; does your model actually need to interact with the document, or is it just carrying a claim check that can be redeemed later?
At first I'd store the documents and then the event; if the first
transaction fails it doesn't matter, the command failed. If the second
transaction fails it also doesn't matter even if we generated some
dead files in the store, the command fails; we could even apply a
rollback. But could there be an additional problem?
Not that I can think of, aside from wasted disk space. That's what I typically do when I want to avoid distributed transactions or when they're not available across the two types of data stores. Oftentimes, one of the two operations is less important and you can afford to let it complete even if the master operation fails later.
Cleaning up botched attempts can be done during exception handling, as an out-of-band process or as part of a Saga as #VoiceOfUnreason explained.
SignUpCommand ==> Store documents (UserPortraitImage and Contract) ==>
Create new User aggregate with the given BLOB storage references and
store it?
Yes. Usually the Application layer component (Command handler in your case) acts as a coordinator betweeen the different data stores and gets back all it needs to know from one store before talking to the other or to the Domain.
I am working on simple transform SSIS package to import data from one server and load to another server. Only one table is used on each.
I wanted to know, as its just refreshing of data, does the old data in the table needed to be deleted before loading, I needed expert advice about what should I do. Should I truncate the old table or use delete? What other concerns should I keep in mind?
Please give the justification for your answers, it will help to fight technically with my lead.
It depends on what the requirements are.
Do you need to keep track of any changes to the data? If so, truncating the data each time, will not allow you to track the history of your data. A good option in this case is to stage the source data in a separate table/database and load your required data in another structure (with possible history tracking, e.g., a fact table with slowly changing dimensions).
Truncating is the best option to remove data, as it's a minimally logged operation.