Is there a Database in Big Data Heaven? Understanding the world of SQL on Hadoop.

(co-authored by John Overton, VP of BizDev/Sales)

Is there a Database in Big Data Heaven?

 

2012 was certainly a watershed year of widespread adoption of Hadoop — and with it, the emerging adoption of SQL on Hadoop. We have strong regard for all the work ISVs have done to educate the market and deliver first generation solutions. Many firms, from large enterprises to start-ups are, are now on the path of developing Big Data strategies that ultimately drive revenue, growth and differentiation. But Gartner’s Svetlana Sicular recently declared that Big Data is falling into what Gartner calls the “Trough of Disillusionment”…yet the good news is “Big data is moving from closets full of hidden Hadoop clusters into CEO’s corner offices”

The market is primed and Hadoop solutions are certainly demonstrating the ability to store and process data at scale — but there’s a lack of satisfaction from customers.  Expectations of being able to run operational applications on Hadoop are not being met. So if Hadoop/HBase is heaven for large data sets, is there a database in Big Data Heaven?

To answer this, Drawn to Scale has been working on the hard problem of building an operational infrastructure on Hadoop with a SQL interface.

Currently, Hadoop is stuck in the world of Analytical applications. Yet there is a much larger need for user-facing apps with real-time reads and writes — like powering websites and mobile apps.  Developers now know that Hadoop scales data storage cheaply, but building applications without actual database functionality is a chasm of complexity.  It’s a clear example of “The Law of Conservation of Complexity” which states that every application has an inherent amount of irreducible complexity. This complexity cannot be wished away and has to be dealt with, either in product development or in user interaction.   A SQL interface on Hadoop infrastructure is still not a database.

The three fundamental aspects keeping Hadoop from being used operationally are:
1. MapReduce and HBase are low-level programming interfaces
2. MapReduce is a batch-oriented processing system
3. MapReduce is not built for concurrency

 

INTERFACES ARE NOT INFRASTRUCTURE

 

SQL and the RDBMS have been the standard way we interact with data for decades — these concepts have become almost synonymous. SQL is the language to interface and manipulate data, and the RDBMS the storage and execution infrastructure.

However, you can have a SQL interface without a database infrastructure behind it. Today, we’re seeing a similar approach with Hive, Phoenix, and Cloudera’s Impala — SQL interfaces focused on non-Operational infrastructure whose goal is to make data manipulation faster and easier for analytical use cases.

Think of the concept of a Vending Machine. The vending machine is the Interface to food (data) and the warehouse is where all the rest of the food is actually stored.

  1. Vending machines store only a sub-set of data that’s in the warehouse
  2. Vending machines have to be re-stocked in batch (by delivery trucks)
  3. Vending machines service single or few users at a time. (Analysts insert coins here)

Let’s take a look at the open source projects — Hive, Impala, and Phoenix — to better understand their Infrastructures relative to their SQL Interfaces.

 

Fly on, Albatross — a survey of current SQL on Hadoop solutions

 

Hive – A SQL Interface to MapReduce
Interface: HiveQL
Infrastructure: MapReduce
Storage: HadoopFS

 

Hive was one of the first non-native interfaces to MapReduce, Hadoop’s batch processing framework. Developers, not analysts, write scripts with the interface of HiveQL.  Scripts are then compiled into MapReduce jobs.  This cycle repeats for every new query manipulation needed preventing the analyst from ever having a free form conversation with the data.

It’s also the least performant of the three due to the way MapReduce execution works — it scans over an entire data set, often with little structure. It then performs computations, moves the results of the computation across a network, performs more computations, moves it across the network again, and then stores results.

Hive makes it easier to write pure Java code against a dataset, the computations are highly customizable, if you are a developer. Results are typically stored in a flat file format in the Hadoop distributed filesystem.

If Hive were a vending machine, a developer would make the request to an empty vending machine, then wait for a truck to deliver the requested data in the structure requested.  Not bad if you have the time to wait.  The chasm of complexity to get to operational functionality is just too large to even try.

 

Impala – SQL for low-latency data warehousing
Interface: Similar to HiveQL
Infrastructure: Massively Parallel Processing (MPP)
Storage: HadoopFS (occasionally HBase)

 

Cloudera’s Impala is an implementation of Google’s Dremel. Dremel relies on massive parallelization and brute force to arrive at answers to analytics queries in low minutes to seconds.  Similar to an MPP data warehouse, queries in Impala originate at a client node. This query is then sent to *every* data storage node which stores part of the dataset. Results are partially aggregated locally, then combined on the client machine.

Imagine the overhead of every query hitting every machine in an operational context.  Impala would fall down unable to handle more than a handful of concurrent requests.

Also unlike an RDBMS, Impala lacks indexes, optimization, and a true distributed execution environment.  Without indexes, many queries need to scan over the entire dataset to return results, which often results in *every query* running on *every machine*.  This approach leads to unpredictable performance based on query type and data set size.  In addition, without metrics gathering and optimization, Impala cannot determine how to minimize query execution time. This is especially important when it comes to filter and joins.

Without a distributed execution environment that can *move data between nodes*, operations like JOINs become much more difficult. Since joins require sorting and then matching aspects of a dataset together, the Impala client will need to bring large portions of the entire dataset to a single client (one server),  and then ‘join’ the information there. The dataset will also need to fit in memory.

We’re going to need a bigger vending machine and the operational viability is limited to patient internal users.

 

Phoenix – A SQL Interface to HBase
Interface: Small subset of SQL
Infrastructure: Coprocessor and Client-Side execution and filtering
Storage: HBase (key-value store)

 

Phoenix is a new open source project from Salesforce that provides a SQL interface to data that is stored in HBase. Claiming higher performance than Impala or MapReduce, Phoenix abstracts away a lot of tricky concepts with HBase, such as serialization, filters, and a basic ability to “push computation to the data” so network traffic is minimized. However, Phoenix lacks many aspects of functionality an operational database requires.

Similar to Impala, Phoenix cannot handle more than a handful of concurrent requests, unless the queries are simple, because it lacks indexes, optimization, and distributed execution.

The execution environment for Phoenix relies on HBase Coprocessors and a client which combines results from multiple machines. These provide ‘hooks’ into the HBase engine and allows one to run code on events such as scanning for data or writing data. Therefore, Phoenix makes running queries like “Group all my employees by department” simpler, by retrieving data, aggregating it on the same machine it’s retrieved from, then sending that smaller dataset over the network — there’s the delivery truck again.

This vending machine can only store so much before it has to be restocked, and meanwhile users are lining up waiting for access.

Phoenix provides a good story for analytics and simple applications as a SQL Interface bolt on to HBase.  The infrastructure, however, limits its viability to only analytical application verticals, but anyone seeking operational capabilities will need to look elsewhere.

 

Pearls Before Swine

 

Climbing out of the trough requires vendors to enable firms to realize deeper business value with operational Big Data applications. This takes a radically new approach beyond just adding a SQL interface to Hadoop.  One that focuses on the infrastructure behind the SQL.  We modeled Spire after Google’s F1 — to combine the scale of BigTable with the simplicity of SQL, and a complete distributed execution environment.

We took this construct and applied it to the world of Big Data, and have developed a true operational database with purpose built infrastructure to provide:

  • Complete SQL interface for data storage and retrieval
  • Distributed indexing and query execution for predictable and manageable performance as user concurrency and data set grows
  • Optimization for rapid queries and joins to enable small reads and small writes against the entire data set in real time

Spire allows you to put the vending machine in the back of the building (for the analyst), while opening the doors of the warehouse to thousands of users with access to all the data in the warehouse, make changes to the data and see the changes made by other users in real time.  It’s like trying to do your grocery shopping through a vending machine vs. walking into a Costco store.

If your application requires an operational infrastructure with a SQL interface capable of thousands of reads/writes a second at Hadoop scale, check out Spire. 

One Response to “Is there a Database in Big Data Heaven? Understanding the world of SQL on Hadoop.”

×

Comments are closed.