Approach (4) or (5) are what I would go for - they are (as your results
show) basically identical as the composite partition key gets converted
into a single hash.
Looking at your doc, I think the issue is you are using < operators on the
day field. As Cassandra doesn’t natively do range queries on a hash
SparkSQL is being clever and iterating through all the data to find the
partitions that match your selection criteria.
The approach that we have found is necessary to get good performance is to
provide the actual list of days you are interested in which should allow
the conditions to be fully pushed down from Spark to Cassandra (although
this can be a little hard to control with SparkSQL). I gave a talk at
Cassandra summit a couple of years ago on our approach to a very similar
problem. You can find the slides, including some code snippets, here:
I think the video is still on Youtube. There is also some update
description and code in this blog post:
one is a bit high level but you might also find relevant:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 18:06 Arbab Khalil <akha...@an10.io> wrote:
> We have been exploring IoT specific C* schema design over the past few
> months. We wanted to share the benchmarking results with the wider
> community for a) bringing rigor to the discussion, and b) starting a
> discussion for better design.
> First the use-case: We have time-series of data from devices on several
> sites, where each device (with a unique dev_id) can have several sensors
> attached to it. Most queries however are both time limited as well as over
> a range of dev_ids, even for a single sensor (Multi-sensor joins are a
> whole different beast for another day!). We want to have a schema where the
> query can complete in time linear to the query ranges for both devices and
> time range, immaterial (largely) to the total data size.
> So we explored several different primary key definitions, learning from
> the best-practices communicated on this mailing list and over the
> interwebs. While details about the setup (Spark over C*) and schema are in
> a companion blog/site here , we just mention the primary keys and the
> key points here.
> PRIMARY KEY (dev_id, day, rec_time)
> PRIMARY KEY ((dev_id, rec_time)
> PRIMARY KEY (day, dev_id, rec_time)
> PRIMARY KEY ((day, dev_id), rec_time)
> PRIMARY KEY ((dev_id, day), rec_time)
> Combination of above by adding a year field in the schema.
> The main takeaway (again, please read through the details at ) is that
> we really don't have a single schema to answer the use case above without
> some drawback. Thus while the ((day, dev_id), rec_time) gives a constant
> response, it is dependent entirely on the total data size (full scan). On
> the other hand, (dev_id, day, rec_time) and its counterpart (day, dev_id,
> provide acceptable results, we have the issue of very large partition space
> in the first, and hotspot while writing for the latter case.
> We also observed that having a multi-field partition key allows for fast
> querying only if the "=" is used going left to right. If an IN() (for
> specifying eg. range of time or list of devices) is used once that order,
> than any further usage of IN() removes any benefit (i.e. a near full table
> Another useful learning was that using the IN() to query for days is less
> useful than putting in a range query.
> Currently, it seems we are in a bind --- should we use a different data
> store for our usecase (which seems quite typical for IoT)? Something like
> HDFS or Parquet? We would love to get feedback on the benchmarking results
> and how we can possibly improve this and share widely.
>  Cassandra Benchmarks over Time Series Data for IoT Use Case
> Arbab Khalil
> Software Design Engineer
*Chief Product Officer <https://www.instaclustr.com/>*
Read our latest technical blog posts here
This email has been sent on behalf of Instaclustr Pty. Limited (Australia)
and Instaclustr Inc (USA).
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy
or disclose its content, but please reply to this email immediately and
highlight the error to the sender and then immediately delete the message.