I'm new to OLAP, so perhaps I don't know the right terminology to use for this question, but bear with me here.
I work with lots of hierarchical, multidimensional data where parent/aggregated cells mostly have data, but child/leaf cells are often missing data (attribute values are unknown but non-zero). I currently use a combination of scripting and SQL to work with it, but that's getting unwieldy. It seems like OLAP cubes and MDX are better suited to the structure of the data, but not necessarily to tasks I need to do with it. For example:
OLAP seems mainly designed for read-only reporting; I do a lot of modifications to the data in batch processes
OLAP seems to like having complete leaf-level data to calculate aggregates; my data has missing values at various levels
Examples of what I want to do:
Load original multi-level data into cube and preserve known parents; don't overwrite or display their values as calculated aggregates of children (which may be incomplete).
Create/update/delete cells in a cube based on results from complicated queries/joins of other cubes. Sometimes a cube needs to be transformed to use a slightly different dimension definition.
Users require estimates for unknown values. I can create decent estimates, but need to adjust them so they conform to known parents/children across all dimensions and levels (this is much harder than it sounds). I am already doing this, but it involves pulling the data out of the RDBMS into a custom executable.
Queries and calculations need to be able to handle the unknowns properly. Ideally be able to easily query how much of an aggregated cell's value is made up of estimated vs. known values, possibly compute confidence/error statistics, or check whether we can derive an exact value for an unknown when it has a known parent and all known siblings, etc.
Data can be large... up to tens of millions of fact table rows. Performance needs to be decent for batch jobs (minutes are ok, hours not so much).
Could an OLAP server and MDX be a good tool for this type of work? Are there any other tools that would work well for manipulating hierarchical/multidimensional/gap-filled data?
That's some needs for an OLAP system, interesting and challenging :-) :
- Load original multi-level data into cube and preserve known parents; don't overwrite or display their values as calculated aggregates of children (which may be incomplete).
You can change the way cubes aggregate values in a hierarchy. Doing this in one hierarchy is fine doing this using in multiple hierarchies might start to get complicated. It's worth checking twice if there is a mathematical 'unique' solution to the problem with multiple 'special' hierarchies.
Create/update/delete cells in a cube based on results from complicated queries/joins of other cubes. Sometimes a cube needs to be transformed to use a slightly different dimension definition.
Here you can use writeback (MDX function Update cube), but I think it's a bit too simple for your needs. Implementation depend on the vendors. Pay attention creating cells can kill your memory as for large cubes you can quickly have millions of cells in a subcube.
What is the sparsity of your model ? -> number of cells with data / number of total cells
Some models have sparsities of 1e-30, here it's easy to explode if you're updating all cells ;-).
Users require estimates for unknown values. I can create decent estimates, but need to adjust them so they conform to known parents/children across all dimensions and levels (this is much harder than it sounds). I am already doing this, but it involves pulling the data out of the RDBMS into a custom executable.
This is looking complicated The issue here is the complexity of the algos, a possible solution using MDX language and how they match with the OLAP engige (fast enough). You're taking the risk it explodes, but have a look at Scope function
Data can be large... up to tens of millions of fact table rows. Performance needs to be decent for batch jobs (minutes are ok, hours not so much).
That should not be a real challenge..
To answer your question, I don't think so. We've a similar problem - on the genetical field - and we are going to solve the problem 'adding' a dedicated calculation module to our OLAP solution. It's an interesting on going project
Related
I have come across a problem with reporting from SQL Server databases using SSRS, that I wonder if you could help me with.
When you have a huge amount of data in a table, and you want to select only those rows within a certain criteria, and you want to allow the users to specify that criteria (for example, it might be a start date and end date), and you then want to take that data (within the criteria) and perform a ton of other transformations on it, including producing various temporary result sets along the way (using CTEs or Table Variables or Temp tables) to finally produce the report, this basically takes ages in SQL. You can do it, but your users might have to wait an hour or two from the moment they've hit View Report, to their report being rendered.
I don't know much about MDX or DAX, cubes or tabular models, but I wonder if there is a quicker way to do what I want. Note the important aspect of the problem: the user is specifying a criteria that has to go all the way back to the original table, and then various transformations (including temp result sets) have to be applied to produce the final report.
What is the best way to do this? Am I doing it the only way possible? I know it's a broad question, but I'd like to know, theoretically, what the answer is. Where should I be looking? Should I be looking at Cubes? Tabular Models? Should I be using R in SQL Server?
There is always a balance when it comes to handling large datasets. Sometimes it makes sense to do some of the work ahead of time so that on-demand reports can run in a reasonable amount of time.
In order for a model to be a good option here are some general guidelines:
Many reports would be able to use common attributes from the model
The data involves aggregates, not just lists of records
The data does not need to be live
You have plenty of development and testing time
Anyone who would be using it as a data source will have to have be
trained on the structure and be at least slightly familiar with MDX
Another option for you to consider is to have a stored procedure that "prepares" the data for you overnight in a separate table. This table could be well indexed because the write time is not as important. They report would then point to this table to be able to quickly retrieve the data it needs to present. This shifts most of the preparation/aggregation work. You can still of course have parameters that limit how much of this data you pull back.
Based on the little bit of information you've given us (300 million rows in a single non-normalized table), there is definitely a faster way. However, there will not be any quick solutions and you haven't provided enough information for me to give any recommendations.
I think you may need to seek some professional help to review your infrastructure and needs along with your usage and objectives so you can be pointed in the right direction.
When attempting to do some benchmarking type reports, I run into the issue of extreme slowness due to the amount of data residing in the database, and this will get incrementally worse. I'm curious of what would be considered the best approach for reports that show for example a percentage of patients entering the hospital within a certain date range that were there due to a specific condition, as well as how that particular hospital compares to the state percentage and also the national percentage. Of course this is all based on the hospitals whose data resides in the database. I have just been writing stored procedures to calculate these percentages, but I know this isn't the best approach. I'm curious how other more experienced reporting professionals would tackle this. I'm currently using SSRS for reporting. I know a little about SSAS, but not enough to know if I should consider it for this type of reporting.
This all depends on the data-structure and the kind of calculations you have to do.
You try to narrow down the amount of data you have to process and the complexity of operations in every possible way
If you have lots of data on a slow system you first try to select the needed data, transfer it to the calculation point and then keep it cached as long as you can.
If you have huge amounts of data you try to preprocess it as much as you can. E.g. for datawarehouses you have a datetime-table with year/month/day/day-of-week/week-of-year etc in it and just constraints to them in the other tables. Like this you can avoid timeconsuming calculations.
If the operations are complex you have to analyze them to make them simpler/faster but on this point it is impossible to predict how much (if at all) there is some room.
It all depends on your understanding of the data-structure and processes you need them for, in order to improve everything as much as you can.
I myself haven't worked with SSAS yet but this is also a great tool but (imho) more for lots of different analysis.
I am working with a consultant who recommends creating a measure dimension and then adding the measure dimension key to our fact table.
I can see how this can make adding new measures easier by just adding rows instead of physically creating columns in the fact table. I can also see how this can add work to the ETL process, adds another join to the star schema, one generic column in fact table to hold all measure data etc.
I'm interested in how others have dealt with this situation. We currently have close to twenty measures.
Instinctively, I don't like it: it's the EAV model, which is not very popular (you can Google the reasons why).
The EAV model is generally considered to be a headache to query and maintain
Different measures go together with different dimensions; this approach could easily turn into "one giant fact table for everything" instead of multiple smaller fact tables for specific reporting areas
I suspect you would end up creating views to give the appearance of multiple fact tables anyway
You will multiply the number of rows in your fact table by the number of measures, resulting in a much bigger physical table
Even with a good indexing/partitioning scheme, queries that include more than one measure will have to read a lot more rows to get the data
What about measures with different data types?
Is this easily supported in your reporting tool?
I'm sure there are other issues, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately. As a rule of thumb, if someone suggests an EAV implementation in any context, you should be very wary and ask them exactly what advantages it offers and how it will be managed as the data and complexity increase. But I think you've already identified some key areas of concern.
SSAS will do this, and I know of a major vendor of insurance policy administration software that provided a M.I. solution for their system that works like this. You do get some flexibility from the approach in that you can add measures without having to deploy a build of the cube, although for 20 measures I don't think you need to worry about that.
'Measures' is essentially another dimension (and often referred to as such in the documentation). I believe SSAS uses a largely column-oriented structure behind the scenes.
However, a naive application of this approach does have some issues that could come and bite you to a greater or lesser extent.
You only have one measure, [Value], [Amount] or whatever it's called. If your tool won't let you inject calculated measures at the front-end then you can't sort the whole data set on the value of one of your attribute types. ProClarity and report builder >=2.0 will do this but Excel won't.
You can't do ratios or other calculated measures in this way. You will have to either embed them in the cube script (meaning you need to deploy a build to add them) or use a tool that lets you define them in the client.
Although it doesn't make a lot of differece to the cube it will be slow to query on the database and increase storage requirements. It's also fiddly to query on the database.
Over the years I have read a lot of people's opinions on how to get better performance out of their SQL (Microsoft SQL Server, just so we are all on the same page...) queries. However, they all seem to be tightly tied to either a high-performance OLTP setup or a data warehouse OLAP setup (cubes-galore...). However, my situation today is kind of in the middle of the 2, hence my indecision.
I have a general DB structure of [Contacts], [Sites], [SiteContacts] (the junction table of [Sites] and [Contacts]), [SiteTraits], and [ContractTraits]. I have nearly 3 million contacts with about 50 fields (between [Contacts] and [ContactTraits]) relating to just the contact, and about 600 thousand sites with about 150 fields (between [Sites] and [SiteTraits]) relating to just the sites. Basically it’s a pretty big flattened table or view… Most of the columns are int, bit, char(3), or short varchar(s). My problem is that a good portion of these columns are available to be used in ad-hoc queries by the user, and as quickly as possible because the main UI for this will be a website. I know the most common filters, but even with heavy indexing on them I think this will still be a beast… This data is read-only; the data doesn’t change at all during the day and the database will only be refreshed with the latest information during scheduled downtime. So I see this situation like an OLAP database with the read requirements of an OLTP database.
I see 3 options; 1. Break the table into smaller divisible units sub-query everything, 2. make one flat table and really go to town on the indexing 3. Create an OLAP cube and sub-query the rest based on what filter values I don’t put as the cube dimensions, and. I have not done much with OLAP cubes so I frankly don’t even know if that is an option, but from what I’ve done with them in the past I think it might be an option. Also, just to clarify what I mean when I say “sub-query everything” is instead of having a WHERE clause on the outer select, there would be one (if applicable) for each table being brought into the query and then the tables are INNER JOINed, to eliminate a really large Cartesian Product. As for the second option of the one large table, I have heard and seen conflicting results with that approach as it will save on joins but at the same time a table scan takes much longer.
Ideas anyone? Do I need to share what I’m smoking? I think this could turn into a pretty good discussion if everyone puts in their 2 cents. Oh, and feel free to tell me if I’m way off base with the OLAP cube idea if that’s the case, I’m new to that stuff too.
Thanks in advance to any and all opinions and help with this dilemma I’ve found myself in.
You may want to consider this as a relational data warehouse. You could design your relational database tables as a star schema (or, a snowflake schema). This design is very similar to the OLAP cube logical structure, but the physical structure is in the relational database.
In the star schema you would have one or more fact tables, which represent transactions of some sort and is usually associated with a date. I'm not sure what a transaction might be in this case though. The fact may be the association of sites to contacts and the table.
The fact table would reference dimension tables, which describe the fact. Dimensions might be Sites and Contacts. A dimension contains attributes, such as contact name, contact address, etc. If you are familiar with the OLAP cube, then this will be a familiar logical architecture.
It wouldn't be a very big problem to add numerous indexes to your architecture. The database is mostly read only, except for the refresh time. You won't have to worry about read performance while indexes are being updated. So, the architecture can accommodate all indexes that are needed (as long as you can dedicate enough downtime to refresh the data).
I agree with bobs answer: throw an OLAP front end and query through the cube. The reason why this will be a good think is that cubes are highly efficient at querying (often precomputed) aggregates by multiple dimensions and they store the data in a column-oriented format that is more efficient for data analysis.
The relational data underneath the cube will be great for detail drill-ins to find the individual facts that give a certain aggregate value. But querying directly the relational data will always be slow, because those aggregates users are interested in for analysis can only be produced by scanning large amounts of data. OLAP is just better at this.
OLAP/SSAS is efficient for aggregate queries, not as much for granular data in my experience.
What are the most common queries? For single pieces of data or aggregates?
If the granularity of SiteContacts is pretty close to that of Contacts (ie. circa 3 million records - most contacts associated with only a single site), you may get the best performance out of a single table (with plenty of appropriate indexes, obviously; partitioning should also be considered).
On the other hand, if most contacts are associated with many sites, it might be better to stick with something close to your current schema.
OLAP tends to produce the best results on aggregated data - it sounds as though there will be relatively little aggregation carried out on this data.
Star schemas consist of fact tables with dimensions hanging off them - depending on the relationship between Sites and Contacts, it sounds as though you either have one huge dimension table, or two large dimensions with a factless fact table (sounds like an oxymoron, but is covered in Kimball's methodology) linking them.
I have a database containing a single huge table. At the moment a query can take anything from 10 to 20 minutes and I need that to go down to 10 seconds. I have spent months trying different products like GridSQL. GridSQL works fine, but is using its own parser which does not have all the needed features. I have also optimized my database in various ways without getting the speedup I need.
I have a theory on how one could scale out queries, meaning that I utilize several nodes to run a single query in parallel. A precondition is that the data is partitioned (vertically), one partition placed on each node. The idea is to take an incoming SQL query and simply run it exactly like it is on all the nodes. When the results are returned to a coordinator node, the same query is run on the union of the resultsets. I realize that an aggregate function like average need to be rewritten into a count and sum to the nodes and that the coordinator divides the sum of the sums with the sum of the counts to get the average.
What kinds of problems could not easily be solved using this model. I believe one issue would be the count distinct function.
Edit: I am getting so many nice suggestions, but none have addressed the method.
It's a data volume problem, not necessarily an architecture problem.
Whether on 1 machine or 1000 machines, if you end up summarizing 1,000,000 rows, you're going to have problems.
Rather than normalizing you data, you need to de-normalize it.
You mention in a comment that your data base is "perfect for your purpose", when, obviously, it's not. It's too slow.
So, something has to give. Your perfect model isn't working, as you need to process too much data in too short of a time. Sounds like you need some higher level data sets than your raw data. Perhaps a data warehousing solution. Who knows, not enough information to really say.
But there are a lot of things you can do to satisfy a specific subset of queries with a good response time, while still allowing ad hoc queries that respond in "10-20 minutes".
Edit regarding comment:
I am not familiar with "GridSQL", or what it does.
If you send several, identical SQL queries to individual "shard" databases, each containing a subset, then the simple selection query will scale to the network (i.e. you will eventually become network bound to the controller), as this is a truly, parallel, stateless process.
The problem becomes, as you mentioned, the secondary processing, notably sorting and aggregates, as this can only be done on the final, "raw" result set.
That means that your controller ends up, inevitably, becoming your bottleneck and, in the end, regardless of how "scaled out" you are, you still have to contend with a data volume issue. If you send your query out to 1000 node and inevitably have to summarize or sort the 1000 row result set from each node, resulting in 1M rows, you still have a long result time and large data processing demand on a single machine.
I don't know what database you are using, and I don't know the specifics about individual databases, but you can see how if you actually partition your data across several disk spindles, and have a decent, modern, multi-core processor, the database implementation itself can handle much of this scaling in terms of parallel disk spindle requests for you. Which implementations actually DO do this, I can't say. I'm just suggesting that it's possible for them to (and some may well do this).
But, my general point, is if you are running, specifically, aggregates, then you are likely processing too much data if you're hitting the raw sources each time. If you analyze your queries, you may well be able to "pre-summarize" your data at various levels of granularity to help avoid the data saturation problem.
For example, if you are storing individual web hits, but are more interested in activity based on each hour of the day (rather than the subsecond data you may be logging), summarizing to the hour of the day alone can reduce your data demand dramatically.
So, scaling out can certainly help, but it may well not be the only solution to the problem, rather it would be a component. Data warehousing is designed to address these kinds of problems, but does not work well with "ad hoc" queries. Rather you need to have a reasonable idea of what kinds of queries you want to support and design it accordingly.
One huge table - can this be normalised at all?
If you are doing mostly select queries, have you considered either normalising to a data warehouse that you then query, or running analysis services and a cube to do your pre-processing for you?
From your question, what you are doing sounds like the sort of thing a cube is optimised for, and could be done without you having to write all the plumbing.
By trying custom solution (grid) you introduce a lot of complexity. Maybe, it's your only solution, but first did you try partitioning the table (native solution)?
I'd seriously be looking into an OLAP solution. The trick with the Cube is once built it can be queried in lots of ways that you may not have considered. And as #HLGEM mentioned, have you addressed indexing?
Even at in millions of rows, a good search should be logarithmic not linear. If you have even one query which results in a scan then your performance will be destroyed. We might need an example of your structure to see if we can help more?
I also agree fully with #Mason, have you profiled your query and investigated the query plan to see where your bottlenecks are. Adding nodes improving speed makes me think that your query might be CPU bound.
David,
Are you using all of the features of GridSQL? You can also use constraint exclusion partitioning, effectively breaking out your big table into several smaller tables. Depending on your WHERE clause, when the query is processed it may look at a lot less data and return results much faster.
Also, are you using multiple logical nodes per physical server? Configuring it that way can take advantage of otherwise idle cores.
If you monitor the servers during execution, is the bottleneck IO or CPU?
Also alluded to here is that you may want to roll up rows in your fact table into summary tables/cubes. I do not know enough about Tableau, will it automatically use the appropriate cube and drill down only when necessary? If so, it seems like you would get big gains doing something like this.
My guess (based on nothing but my gut) is that any gains you might see from parallelization will be eaten up by reaggregation and subsequent queries of the results. Further, I would think that writing might get more complicated with pk/fk/constraints. If this were my world, I would probably create many indexed views on top of my table (and other views) that optimized for the particular queries I need to execute (which I have worked with successfully on 10million+ row tables.)
If you run the incoming query, unpartitioned, on each node, why will any node finish before a single node running the same query would finish? Am I misunderstanding your execution plan?
I think this is, in part, going to depend on the nature of the queries you're executing and, in particular, how many rows contribute to the final result set. But surely you'll need to partition the query somehow among the nodes.
Your method to scale out queries works fine.
In fact, I've implemented such a method in:
http://code.google.com/p/shard-query
It uses a parser, but it supports most SQL constructs.
It doesn't yet support count(distinct expr) but this is doable and I plan to add support in the future.
I also have a tool called Flexviews (google for flexviews materialized views)
This tool lets you create materialized views (summary tables) which include various aggregate functions and joins.
Those tools combined together can yield massive scalability improvements for OLAP type queries.