Partitioning is one of the easiest ways to improve the performance of your data lake, because it reduces the amount of data scanned. But implementing partitions can be surprisingly challenging, as can their effective use. In this post I look at several of the issues that you should consider when partitioning your data.
My prior posts used Lambda to do data transformation. But what if we could use a non-programmatic tool, in keeping with the Extract-Load-Transform mindset of the modern data pipeline. As it turns, we can: Amazon Athena can write data as well as query it. There are, of course, a few stumbles along the way. In this blog post I walk through the process of aggregating CloudTrail data using SQL.
In this final part of a three-part series, I add another aggregation step to combine a month’s worth of data and write it as Parquet.
So you want to execute some custom CUDA-based AI processing on a GPU, but don’t have the hardware? Have an AWS account? Try using the DLAMI machine instances. This article explains how to get started if you need OS-level access.
When I ran the Lambda from my previous post against Chariot’s CloudTrail repository, it took almost four minutes to process a single day’s worth of data. That seems like a long time, and as a developer I want to optimize everything I write. In this post I look into analyzing the current runtime, and options for improving it.
As I’ve written in the past, large numbers of small files make for an inefficient data lake. But sometimes, you can’t avoid small files. Our CloudTrail repository, for example, has 4,601,675 files as-of this morning, 44% of which are under 1,000 bytes long. In this post, I develop a Lambda-based data pipeline to aggregate these files, storing them in a new S3 location partitioned by date. Along the way I call out some of the challenges that face such a pipeline.
In my last post, I said that I didn’t think Postgres was a good choice for a decision support database, versus a task-specific DBMS such as Redshift. In this post I’m going to take the opposite stand, and say that there are cases where Postgres is appropriate: namely, low-latency systems that contain a limited amount of data.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 59:00 — 54.0MB) | Embed
In this week’s TechChat, we welcome Keith Gregory, our Cloud & Data Engineering Practice Lead here at Chariot. Keith is a prolific writer both on the Chariot blog as well as on his own, and is a wealth of knowledge on all things AWS. We touch on Redshift execution plans, how to appropriately size Redshift … Read More
My last few posts have focused on Redshift and Athena, two specialized tools for managing and querying Big Data. But there’s a meme that’s been floating around for at least a few years that you should just use Postgres for anything data-related. It may not provide all of the features and capabilities of a dedicated tool, but is one less thing to learn and manage. Should this advice also apply to your data warehouse?
I’ve always been a fan of database servers: self-contained entities that manage both storage and compute, and give you knobs to turn to optimize your queries. The flip side is that I have an inherent distrust of services such as Athena, which promise to run queries efficiently on structured data split between many files in a data lake. It just doesn’t seem natural; where are the knobs?
So, since I had data generated for my post on Athena performance with different file types, I decided to use that data in a performance comparison with Redshift.
