cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Efficient model for a sorting
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:15:32 GMT
@DuyHai

What scatter/gather? If you partition your data by user_id then you query
only 1 shard to get sorted by time visitors for a user.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:09 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com> wrote:

> MV is right now your best choice for this kind of sorting behavior.
>
> Secondary index (whatever the impl, SASI or Lucene) has a cost of
> scatter-gather if your cluster scale out. With MV you're at least
> guaranteed to hit a single node everytime
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.hoxha@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can you use the lucene index https://github.com/Stratio/cas
>> sandra-lucene-index ?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Roth <benjamin.roth@jaumo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have a frequently used pattern which seems to be quite costly in CS.
>>> The pattern is always the same: I have a unique key and a sorting by a
>>> different field.
>>>
>>> To give an example, here a real life example from our model:
>>> CREATE TABLE visits.visits_in (
>>>     user_id int,
>>>     user_id_visitor int,
>>>     created timestamp,
>>>     PRIMARY KEY (user_id, user_id_visitor)
>>> ) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (user_id_visitor ASC)
>>>
>>> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW visits.visits_in_sorted_mv AS
>>>     SELECT user_id, created, user_id_visitor
>>>     FROM visits.visits_in
>>>     WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL AND created IS NOT NULL AND
>>> user_id_visitor IS NOT NULL
>>>     PRIMARY KEY (user_id, created, user_id_visitor)
>>>     WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (created DESC, user_id_visitor DESC)
>>>
>>> This simply represents people, that visited my profile sorted by date
>>> desc but only one entry per visitor.
>>> Other examples with the same pattern could be a whats-app-like inbox
>>> where the last message of each sender is shown by date desc. There are lots
>>> of examples for that pattern.
>>>
>>> E.g. in redis I'd just use a sorted set, where the key could be like
>>> "visits_${user_id}", set key would be user_id_visitor and score
>>> the created timestamp.
>>> In MySQL I'd create the table with PK on user_id + user_id_visitor and
>>> create an index on user_id + created
>>> In C* i use an MV.
>>>
>>> Is this the most efficient approach?
>>> I also could have done this without an MV but then the situation in our
>>> app would be far more complex.
>>> I know that denormalization is a common pattern in C* and I don't
>>> hesitate to use it but in this case, it is not as simple as it's not an
>>> append-only case but updates have to be handled correctly.
>>> If it is the first visit of a user, it's that simple, just 2 inserts in
>>> base table + denormalized table. But on a 2nd or 3rd visit, the 1st or 2nd
>>> visit has to be deleted from the denormalized table before. Otherwise the
>>> visit would not be unique any more.
>>> Handling this case without an MV requires a lot more effort, I guess
>>> even more effort than just using an MV.
>>> 1. You need kind of app-side locking to deal with race conditions
>>> 2. Read before write is required to determine if an old record has to be
>>> deleted
>>> 3. At least CL_QUORUM is required to make sure that read before write is
>>> always consistent
>>> 4. Old record has to be deleted on update
>>>
>>> I guess, using an MV here is more efficient as there is less roundtrip
>>> between C* and the app to do all that and the MV does not require strong
>>> consistency as MV updates are always local and are eventual consistent when
>>> the base table is. So there is also no need for distributed locks.
>>>
>>> I ask all this as we now use CS 3.x and have been advised that 3.x is
>>> still not considered really production ready.
>>>
>>> I guess in a perfect world, this wouldn't even require an MV if SASI
>>> indexes could be created over more than 1 column. E.g. in MySQL this case
>>> is nothing else than a BTree. AFAIK SASI indices are also BTrees, filtering
>>> by Partition Key (which should to be done anyway) and sorting by a field
>>> would perfectly do the trick. But from the docs, this is not possible right
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Does anyone see a better solution or are all my assumptions correct?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Benjamin Roth
>>> Prokurist
>>>
>>> Jaumo GmbH · www.jaumo.com
>>> Wehrstraße 46 · 73035 Göppingen · Germany
>>> Phone +49 7161 304880-6 · Fax +49 7161 304880-1
>>> AG Ulm · HRB 731058 · Managing Director: Jens Kammerer
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message