Develop Reference

Is there a best practice to query on huge CSV in spring boot context?

I'm working for well known company in a project that should bring integration with other system that are producing one csv per hour of 27Gb. The target is query these files without import em (the main problem is bureaucracy, nobody want resposibility if some data change).
Main filters on this files can be done by dates, the end-user must insert a range start-end dates. After that can be filter by few strings.
Context: spring boot microservices
Server: xeon processor 24 core 256gb Ram
Filesystem: NFS mounted from external server
Test data: 1000 files, each one 1Gb
For performance improvement i'm indexing files by date writing on each file name the range that contains and making a folder structure like yyyy/mm/dd. For each of following test the first step was make a raw file paths list that will be read.
research will read all files
Spring batch - buffered reader and parse into object: 12,097 sec
Plain java - threadpool, buffered reader and parse into object: 10,882 sec
Linux egrep with regex and parallel ran from java and parse into object: 7,701 sec
The dirtiest is also fastes. I want avoid it because security department warned me about all checks to make on input data to prevent shell injection.
Googling i found mariadb CONNECT engine that can point also huge csvs, so now i'm going on this way creating temporary table with files that research have interest, the bad part is i have to do one table for each query since dates can be different.
For first year We're expecting not more than 5 parallel researches in same time, with an average of 3 weeks of range. This queries will be done asyncronousely.
Do you know something that can help me on it? Not only for the speed but a good practice to apply.
Thanks a lot folks.

To answer your question:
No. There are no best practices. And, AFAIK there are no generally applicable "good" practices.
But I do have some general advice. If you allow considerations such as bureaucracy and (to a lesser extent) security edicts to dictate your technical solutions, then you are liable to end up with substandard solutions; i.e. solutions that are slow or costly to run and keep running. (If "they" want it to be fast, then "they" shouldn't put impediments in your way.)
I don't think we can give you an easy solution to your problem, but I can say some things about your analysis.
You said about the grep solution.
"I want avoid it because security department warned me about all checks to make on input data to prevent shell injection."
The solution to that concern simple: don't use an intermediate shell. The dangerous injection attacks will be via shell trickery rather than grep. Java's ProcessBuilder doesn't use a shell unless you explicitly use one. The grep program itself can only read the files that are specified in its arguments, and write to standard output and standard error.
You said about the general architecture:
"The target is query these files without import them (the main problem is bureaucracy, nobody want responsibility if some data change)."
I don't understand the objection here. We know that the CSV files are going to change. You are getting a new 27GB CSV file every hour!
If the objection is that the format of the CSV files is going to change, well that affects your ability to effectively query them. But with a little ingenuity, you could detect the the change in format and adjust the ingestion process on the fly.
"We're expecting not more than 5 parallel researches in same time, with an average of 3 weeks of range."
If you haven't done this already, you need to do some analysis to see whether your proposed solution is going to be viable. Estimate how much CSV data needs to be scanned to satisfy a typical query. Multiply that by the number of queries to be performed in (say) 24 hours. Then compare that against your NFS server's ability to satisfy bulk reads. Then redo the calculation assuming a given number of queries running in parallel.
Consider what happens if your (above) expectations are wrong. You only need a couple of "idiot" users doing unreasonable things ...
Having a 24 core server for doing the queries is one thing, but the NFS server also needs to be able to supply the data fast enough. You can improve things with NFS tuning (e.g. by tuning block sizes, the number of NFS daemons, using FS-Cache) but the the ultimate bottlenecks will be getting the data off the NFS server's disks and across the network to your server. Bear in mind that there could be other servers "hammering" the NFS server while your application is doing its thing.

Hadoop MapReduce without cluster - is it possible?

Is it possible to run a Hadoop MapReduce program without a cluster? I mean, I am just trying to fiddle around a little with map/reduce, for educational purposes, so all I want is to run few MapReduce programs on my computer, I don't need any job splitting to multiple nodes etc... Don't need any performance boosts or anything, as I said, just for educational purposes.. Do I still need to run a VM to achieve this? I am using IntelliJ Ultimate, and I'm trying to run simple WordCount.. I believe I've set up all necessary libraries and the entire project, and upon running I get this exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.io.IOException: Cannot initialize Cluster.
Please check your configuration for mapreduce.framework.name and the correspond server addresses.
I've found some posts saying that the entire map/reduce process can be run locally on the jvm, but couldn't yet find the way how to do it.

The whole installation tutorial of "pseudo-distributed" mode specifically walks you through the installation of a single node Hadoop cluster
There's also the "Mini cluster" which you'll find some Hadoop projects use for unit&integration tests
I feel like you're just asking if you need HDFS or YARN, though, and the answer is no, Hadoop can read file:// prefixed file paths from disk, with or without a cluster
Keep in mind that splitting is not just between nodes, but also between multiple cores of a single computer. If you're not doing any parallel processing, there's not much reason to use Hadoop other than to learn the API semantics.
Aside: From an "educational perspective", in my career thus far, I find more people writing Spark than MapReduce, and not many jobs asking specifically for MapReduce code

Cleaning big data with Hive

I'm using Hive to query data that I have. The problem is, this data needs to be cleaned and it's way too big for me to try and process it on my computer (hence using Hadoop and Hive). Is there a way for me to do this with Hive? I looked into user defined functions but my understanding is that they operate row by row so might not be an optimal way to clean the data.
Thanks

You should clean your data using a MapReduce program. Probably don't even a reducer which would increase your performance.
The MapReduce program works like a bufferedfile reader, reading one line of data at a time. You can perform your cleaning operation on each line, and then insert it into a hive table for querying.

what is your data size?
what is your cleaning operation?
If your cleaning operation can not be done with the help of Hive then only go for mapreduce/pig.
If your problem is performance of hive, try to optimize it.
Optimization depends on your cleaning operation.you can use distribution cache,map side joins etc...

Cassandra and Pig integration - Is hadoop optional?

I'm trying to set up a trial cassandra + pig cluster. The cassandra wiki makes it sound like you need hadoop to integrate with pig.
but the readme in cassandra-src/contrib/pig makes it sound like you can run pig on cassandra without hadoop.
If hadoop is optional, what do you lose by not using it?

Hadoop is only optional when you are testing things out. In order to do anything at any scale you will need hadoop as well.
Running without hadoop means you are running pig in local mode. Which basically means all the data is processed by the same pig process that you are running in. This works fine with a single node and example data.
When running with any significant amount of data or multiple machines you want to run pig in hadoop mode. By running hadoop task trackers on your cassandra nodes pig can take advantage of the benefits map reduce provides by distributing the workload and using data locality to reduce network transfer.

It's optional. Cassandra has its own implementation of pig's LoadFunc and storeFunc which allow u to query and store.
Hadoop and Cassandra are different in many ways. It's hard to say what you lose without knowing what exactly u r trying to accomplish.

hadoop beginners question

I've read some documentation about hadoop and seen the impressive results. I get the bigger picture but am finding it hard whether it would fit our setup. Question isnt programming related but I'm eager to get opinion of people who currently work with hadoop and how it would fit our setup:
We use Oracle for backend
Java (Struts2/Servlets/iBatis) for frontend
Nightly we get data which needs to be summarized. this runs as a batch process (takes 5 hours)
We are looking for a way to cut those 5 hours to a shorter time.
Where would hadoop fit into this picture? Can we still continue to use Oracle even after hadoop?

The chances are you can dramatically reduce the elapsed time of that batch process with some straightforward tuning. I offer this analysis on the simple basis of past experience. Batch processes tend to be written very poorly, precisely because they are autonomous and so don't have irate users demanding better response times.
Certainly I don't think it makes any sense at all to invest a lot of time and energy re-implementing our application in a new technology - no matter how fresh and cool it may be - until we have exhausted the capabilities of our current architecture.
If you want some specific advice on how to tune your batch query, well that would be a new question.

Hadoop is designed to parallelize a job across multiple machines. To determine whether it will be a good candidate for your setup, ask yourself these questions:
Do I have many machines on which I can run Hadoop, or am I willing to spend money on something like EC2?
Is my job parallelizable? (If your 5 hour batch process consists of 30 10-minute tasks that have to be run in sequence, Hadoop will not help you).
Does my data require random access? (This is actually pretty significant - Hadoop is great at sequential access and terrible at random access. In the latter case, you won't see enough speedup to justify the extra work / cost).
As far as where it "fits in" - you give Hadoop a bunch of data, and it gives you back output. One way to think of it is like a giant Unix process - data goes in, data comes out. What you do with it is your business. (This is of course an overly simplified view, but you get the idea.) So yes, you will still be able to write data to your Oracle database.

Hadoop distributed filesystem supports highly paralleled batch processing of data using MapReduce.
So your current process takes 5 hours to summarize the data. Of the bat, general summarization tasks are one of the 'types' of job MapReduce excels at. However you need to understand weather your processing requirements will translate into a MapReduce job. By this I mean, can you achieve the summaries you need using the key/value pairs MapReduce limits you to using?
Hadoop requires a cluster of machines to run. Do you have hardware to support a cluster? This usually comes down to how much data you are storing on the HDFS and also how fast you want to process the data. Generally when running MapReduce on a Hadoop the more machines you have either the more data you can store or the faster you run a job. Having an idea of the amount of data you process each night would help a lot here?
You can still use Oracle. You can use Hadoop/MapReduce to do the data crunching and then use custom code to insert the summary data into an oracle DB.