mirror of https://github.com/apache/druid.git
typos, wording, fix overfull hboxes
This commit is contained in:
parent
bff902150e
commit
35099e4970
|
@ -60,28 +60,28 @@
|
|||
|
||||
\maketitle
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{abstract}
|
||||
\begin{abstract}
|
||||
Druid is an open source\footnote{\href{http://druid.io/}{http://druid.io/} \href{https://github.com/metamx/druid}{https://github.com/metamx/druid}}
|
||||
data store designed for real-time exploratory analytics on large data sets.
|
||||
The system combines a column-oriented storage layout, a distributed,
|
||||
shared-nothing architecture, and an advanced indexing structure to allow for
|
||||
the arbitrary exploration of billion-row tables with sub-second latencies. In
|
||||
this paper, we describe Druid's architecture, and detail how it supports fast
|
||||
aggregations, flexible filters, and low latency data ingestion.
|
||||
aggregations, flexible filters, and low latency data ingestion.
|
||||
\end{abstract}
|
||||
|
||||
% A category with the (minimum) three required fields
|
||||
\category{H.2.4}{Database Management}{Systems}[Distributed databases]
|
||||
% \category{D.2.8}{Software Engineering}{Metrics}[complexity measures, performance measures]
|
||||
\keywords{distributed; real-time; fault-tolerant; analytics; column-oriented; OLAP}
|
||||
\keywords{distributed; real-time; fault-tolerant; highly available; open source; analytics; column-oriented; OLAP}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
In recent years, the proliferation of internet technology has
|
||||
created a surge in machine-generated events. Individually, these
|
||||
events contain minimal useful information and are of low value. Given the
|
||||
created a surge in machine-generated events. Individually, these
|
||||
events contain minimal useful information and are of low value. Given the
|
||||
time and resources required to extract meaning from large collections of
|
||||
events, many companies were willing to discard this data instead. Although
|
||||
events, many companies were willing to discard this data instead. Although
|
||||
infrastructure has been built to handle event-based data (e.g. IBM's
|
||||
Netezza\cite{singh2011introduction}, HP's Vertica\cite{bear2012vertica}, and EMC's
|
||||
Greenplum\cite{miner2012unified}), they are largely sold at high price points
|
||||
|
@ -89,36 +89,36 @@ and are only targeted towards those companies who can afford the offering.
|
|||
|
||||
A few years ago, Google introduced MapReduce \cite{dean2008mapreduce} as their
|
||||
mechanism of leveraging commodity hardware to index the internet and analyze
|
||||
logs. The Hadoop \cite{shvachko2010hadoop} project soon followed and was
|
||||
logs. The Hadoop \cite{shvachko2010hadoop} project soon followed and was
|
||||
largely patterned after the insights that came out of the original MapReduce
|
||||
paper. Hadoop is currently deployed in many organizations to store and analyze
|
||||
large amounts of log data. Hadoop has contributed much to helping companies
|
||||
large amounts of log data. Hadoop has contributed much to helping companies
|
||||
convert their low-value event streams into high-value aggregates for a variety
|
||||
of applications such as business intelligence and A-B testing.
|
||||
|
||||
As with a lot of great systems, Hadoop has opened our eyes to a new space of
|
||||
problems. Specifically, Hadoop excels at storing and providing access to large
|
||||
As with many great systems, Hadoop has opened our eyes to a new space of
|
||||
problems. Specifically, Hadoop excels at storing and providing access to large
|
||||
amounts of data, however, it does not make any performance guarantees around
|
||||
how quickly that data can be accessed. Furthermore, although Hadoop is a
|
||||
how quickly that data can be accessed. Furthermore, although Hadoop is a
|
||||
highly available system, performance degrades under heavy concurrent load.
|
||||
Lastly, while Hadoop works well for storing data, it is not optimized for
|
||||
ingesting data and making that data immediately readable.
|
||||
|
||||
Early on in the development of the Metamarkets product, we ran into each of
|
||||
these issues and came to the realization that Hadoop is a great back-office,
|
||||
batch processing, and data warehousing system. However, as a company that has
|
||||
batch processing, and data warehousing system. However, as a company that has
|
||||
product-level guarantees around query performance and data availability in a
|
||||
highly concurrent environment (1000+ users), Hadoop wasn't going to meet our
|
||||
needs. We explored different solutions in the space, and after
|
||||
needs. We explored different solutions in the space, and after
|
||||
trying both Relational Database Management Systems and NoSQL architectures, we
|
||||
came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the open source world that
|
||||
could be fully leveraged for our requirements. We ended up creating Druid, an
|
||||
open-source, distributed, column-oriented, real-time analytical data store. In
|
||||
open source, distributed, column-oriented, real-time analytical data store. In
|
||||
many ways, Druid shares similarities with other OLAP systems
|
||||
\cite{oehler2012ibm, schrader2009oracle, lachev2005applied},
|
||||
interactive query systems \cite{melnik2010dremel}, main-memory databases
|
||||
\cite{farber2012sap}, as well as widely known distributed data stores
|
||||
\cite{chang2008bigtable, decandia2007dynamo, lakshman2010cassandra}. The
|
||||
\cite{chang2008bigtable, decandia2007dynamo, lakshman2010cassandra}. The
|
||||
distribution and query model also borrow ideas from current generation search
|
||||
infrastructure \cite{linkedin2013senseidb, apache2013solr,
|
||||
banon2013elasticsearch}.
|
||||
|
@ -130,10 +130,10 @@ potential method of solving it. Druid is deployed in production at several
|
|||
technology
|
||||
companies\footnote{\href{http://druid.io/druid.html}{http://druid.io/druid.html}}.
|
||||
The structure of the paper is as follows: we first describe the problem in
|
||||
Section \ref{sec:problem-definition}. Next, we detail system architecture from
|
||||
Section \ref{sec:problem-definition}. Next, we detail system architecture from
|
||||
the point of view of how data flows through the system in Section
|
||||
\ref{sec:architecture}. We then discuss how and why data gets converted into a
|
||||
binary format in Section \ref{sec:storage-format}. We briefly describe the
|
||||
\ref{sec:architecture}. We then discuss how and why data gets converted into a
|
||||
binary format in Section \ref{sec:storage-format}. We briefly describe the
|
||||
query API in Section \ref{sec:query-api} and present performance results
|
||||
in Section \ref{sec:benchmarks}. Lastly, we leave off with our lessons from
|
||||
running Druid in production in Section \ref{sec:production}, and related work
|
||||
|
@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ Druid was originally designed to solve problems around ingesting and exploring
|
|||
large quantities of transactional events (log data). This form of timeseries
|
||||
data is commonly found in OLAP workflows and the nature of the data tends to be
|
||||
very append heavy. For example, consider the data shown in
|
||||
Table~\ref{tab:sample_data}. Table~\ref{tab:sample_data} contains data for
|
||||
Table~\ref{tab:sample_data}. Table~\ref{tab:sample_data} contains data for
|
||||
edits that have occurred on Wikipedia. Each time a user edits a page in
|
||||
Wikipedia, an event is generated that contains metadata about the edit. This
|
||||
metadata is comprised of 3 distinct components. First, there is a timestamp
|
||||
|
@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ columns indicating various attributes about the edit such as the page that was
|
|||
edited, the user who made the edit, and the location of the user. Finally,
|
||||
there are a set of metric columns that contain values (usually numeric) that
|
||||
can be aggregated, such as the number of characters added or removed in an
|
||||
edit.
|
||||
edit.
|
||||
|
||||
Our goal is to rapidly compute drill-downs and aggregates over this data. We
|
||||
want to answer questions like “How many edits were made on the page Justin
|
||||
|
@ -184,25 +184,25 @@ Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) and NoSQL key/value stores were
|
|||
unable to provide a low latency data ingestion and query platform for
|
||||
interactive applications \cite{tschetter2011druid}. In the early days of
|
||||
Metamarkets, we were focused on building a hosted dashboard that would allow
|
||||
users to arbitrarily explore and visualize event streams. The data store
|
||||
users to arbitrarily explore and visualize event streams. The data store
|
||||
powering the dashboard needed to return queries fast enough that the data
|
||||
visualizations built on top of it could provide users with an interactive
|
||||
experience.
|
||||
experience.
|
||||
|
||||
In addition to the query latency needs, the system had to be multi-tenant and
|
||||
highly available. The Metamarkets product is used in a highly concurrent
|
||||
environment. Downtime is costly and many businesses cannot afford to wait if a
|
||||
system is unavailable in the face of software upgrades or network failure.
|
||||
Downtime for startups, who often lack proper internal operations management, can
|
||||
determine business success or failure.
|
||||
determine business success or failure.
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, another key problem that Metamarkets faced in its early days was to
|
||||
Finally, another challenge that Metamarkets faced in its early days was to
|
||||
allow users and alerting systems to be able to make business decisions in
|
||||
``real-time". The time from when an event is created to when that event is
|
||||
queryable determines how fast interested parties are able to react to
|
||||
potentially catastrophic situations in their systems. Popular open source data
|
||||
warehousing systems such as Hadoop were unable to provide the sub-second data
|
||||
ingestion latencies we required.
|
||||
ingestion latencies we required.
|
||||
|
||||
The problems of data exploration, ingestion, and availability span multiple
|
||||
industries. Since Druid was open sourced in October 2012, it been deployed as a
|
||||
|
@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ To solve complex data analysis problems, the different node types come together
|
|||
to form a fully working system. The name Druid comes from the Druid class in
|
||||
many role-playing games: it is a shape-shifter, capable of taking on many
|
||||
different forms to fulfill various different roles in a group. The composition
|
||||
of and flow of data in a Druid cluster are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cluster}.
|
||||
of and flow of data in a Druid cluster are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cluster}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure*}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
|
@ -240,12 +240,12 @@ periodically hand off immutable batches of events they have collected over this
|
|||
small time range to other nodes in the Druid cluster that are specialized in
|
||||
dealing with batches of immutable events. Real-time nodes leverage Zookeeper
|
||||
\cite{hunt2010zookeeper} for coordination with the rest of the Druid cluster.
|
||||
The nodes announce their online state and the data they are serving in
|
||||
Zookeeper.
|
||||
The nodes announce their online state and the data they serve in
|
||||
Zookeeper.
|
||||
|
||||
Real-time nodes maintain an in-memory index buffer for all incoming events.
|
||||
These indexes are incrementally populated as new events are ingested and the
|
||||
indexes are also directly queryable. Druid behaves as a row store
|
||||
These indexes are incrementally populated as events are ingested and the
|
||||
indexes are also directly queryable. Druid behaves as a row store
|
||||
for queries on events that exist in this JVM heap-based buffer. To avoid heap
|
||||
overflow problems, real-time nodes persist their in-memory indexes to disk
|
||||
either periodically or after some maximum row limit is reached. This persist
|
||||
|
@ -255,10 +255,10 @@ index is immutable and real-time nodes load persisted indexes into off-heap
|
|||
memory such that they can still be queried. This process is described in detail
|
||||
in \cite{o1996log} and is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:realtime_flow}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width = 2.6in]{realtime_flow}
|
||||
\caption{Real-time nodes buffer events to an in-memory index, which is
|
||||
\caption{Real-time nodes buffer events to an in-memory index, which is
|
||||
regularly persisted to disk. On a periodic basis, persisted indexes are then merged
|
||||
together before getting handed off.
|
||||
Queries will hit both the in-memory and persisted indexes.
|
||||
|
@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ Queries will hit both the in-memory and persisted indexes.
|
|||
On a periodic basis, each real-time node will schedule a background task that
|
||||
searches for all locally persisted indexes. The task merges these indexes
|
||||
together and builds an immutable block of data that contains all the events
|
||||
that have ingested by a real-time node for some span of time. We refer to this
|
||||
that have been ingested by a real-time node for some span of time. We refer to this
|
||||
block of data as a ``segment". During the handoff stage, a real-time node
|
||||
uploads this segment to a permanent backup storage, typically a distributed
|
||||
file system such as S3 \cite{decandia2007dynamo} or HDFS
|
||||
|
@ -280,20 +280,20 @@ of the processes.
|
|||
Figure~\ref{fig:realtime_timeline} illustrates the operations of a real-time
|
||||
node. The node starts at 13:37 and will only accept events for the current hour
|
||||
or the next hour. When events are ingested, the node announces that it is
|
||||
serving a segment of data for an interval from 13:00 to 14:00. Every 10
|
||||
serving a segment of data for an interval from 13:00 to 14:00. Every 10
|
||||
minutes (the persist period is configurable), the node will flush and persist
|
||||
its in-memory buffer to disk. Near the end of the hour, the node will likely
|
||||
its in-memory buffer to disk. Near the end of the hour, the node will likely
|
||||
see events for 14:00 to 15:00. When this occurs, the node prepares to serve
|
||||
data for the next hour and creates a new in-memory index. The node then
|
||||
announces that it is also serving a segment from 14:00 to 15:00. The node does
|
||||
announces that it is also serving a segment from 14:00 to 15:00. The node does
|
||||
not immediately merge persisted indexes from 13:00 to 14:00, instead it waits
|
||||
for a configurable window period for straggling events from 13:00 to 14:00 to
|
||||
arrive. This window period minimizes the risk of data loss from delays in event
|
||||
delivery. At the end of the window period, the node merges all persisted
|
||||
indexes from 13:00 to 14:00 into a single immutable segment and hands the
|
||||
segment off. Once this segment is loaded and queryable somewhere else in the
|
||||
segment off. Once this segment is loaded and queryable somewhere else in the
|
||||
Druid cluster, the real-time node flushes all information about the data it
|
||||
collected for 13:00 to 14:00 and unannounces it is serving this data.
|
||||
collected for 13:00 to 14:00 and unannounces it is serving this data.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure*}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
|
@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ real-time node operations are configurable.}
|
|||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Availability and Scalability}
|
||||
Real-time nodes are a consumer of data and require a corresponding producer to
|
||||
provide the data stream. Commonly, for data durability purposes, a message
|
||||
provide the data stream. Commonly, for data durability purposes, a message
|
||||
bus such as Kafka \cite{kreps2011kafka} sits between the producer and the
|
||||
real-time node as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:realtime_pipeline}. Real-time nodes
|
||||
ingest data by reading events from the message bus. The time from event
|
||||
|
@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ milliseconds.
|
|||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
The purpose of the message bus in Figure~\ref{fig:realtime_pipeline} is
|
||||
two-fold. First, the message bus acts as a buffer for incoming events. A
|
||||
two-fold. First, the message bus acts as a buffer for incoming events. A
|
||||
message bus such as Kafka maintains positional offsets indicating how far a
|
||||
consumer (a real-time node) has read in an event stream. Consumers can
|
||||
programmatically update these offsets. Real-time nodes update this offset each
|
||||
|
@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ multiple real-time nodes can read events. Multiple real-time nodes can ingest
|
|||
the same set of events from the bus, creating a replication of events. In a
|
||||
scenario where a node completely fails and loses disk, replicated streams
|
||||
ensure that no data is lost. A single ingestion endpoint also allows for data
|
||||
streams for be partitioned such that multiple real-time nodes each ingest a
|
||||
streams to be partitioned such that multiple real-time nodes each ingest a
|
||||
portion of a stream. This allows additional real-time nodes to be seamlessly
|
||||
added. In practice, this model has allowed one of the largest production Druid
|
||||
clusters to be able to consume raw data at approximately 500 MB/s (150,000
|
||||
|
@ -347,22 +347,22 @@ events/s or 2 TB/hour).
|
|||
Historical nodes encapsulate the functionality to load and serve the immutable
|
||||
blocks of data (segments) created by real-time nodes. In many real-world
|
||||
workflows, most of the data loaded in a Druid cluster is immutable and hence,
|
||||
historical nodes are typically the main workers of a Druid cluster. Historical
|
||||
historical nodes are typically the main workers of a Druid cluster. Historical
|
||||
nodes follow a shared-nothing architecture and there is no single point of
|
||||
contention among the nodes. The nodes have no knowledge of one another and are
|
||||
operationally simple; they only know how to load, drop, and serve immutable
|
||||
segments.
|
||||
segments.
|
||||
|
||||
Similar to real-time nodes, historical nodes announce their online state and
|
||||
the data they are serving in Zookeeper. Instructions to load and drop segments
|
||||
are sent over Zookeeper and contain information about where the segment is
|
||||
located in deep storage and how to decompress and process the segment. Before
|
||||
located in deep storage and how to decompress and process the segment. Before
|
||||
a historical node downloads a particular segment from deep storage, it first
|
||||
checks a local cache that maintains information about what segments already
|
||||
exist on the node. If information about a segment is not present in the cache,
|
||||
exist on the node. If information about a segment is not present in the cache,
|
||||
the historical node will proceed to download the segment from deep storage.
|
||||
This process is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:historical_download}. Once processing
|
||||
is complete, the segment is announced in Zookeeper. At this point, the segment
|
||||
is complete, the segment is announced in Zookeeper. At this point, the segment
|
||||
is queryable. The local cache also allows for historical nodes to be quickly
|
||||
updated and restarted. On startup, the node examines its cache and immediately
|
||||
serves whatever data it finds.
|
||||
|
@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ Historical nodes can support read consistency because they only deal with
|
|||
immutable data. Immutable data blocks also enable a simple parallelization
|
||||
model: historical nodes can concurrently scan and aggregate immutable blocks
|
||||
without blocking.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Tiers}
|
||||
\label{sec:tiers}
|
||||
Historical nodes can be grouped in different tiers, where all nodes in a
|
||||
|
@ -394,11 +394,11 @@ can also be created with much less powerful backing hardware. The
|
|||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Availability}
|
||||
Historical nodes depend on Zookeeper for segment load and unload instructions.
|
||||
If Zookeeper becomes unavailable, historical nodes are no longer able to serve
|
||||
new data and drop outdated data, however, because the queries are served over
|
||||
HTTP, historical nodes are still be able to respond to query requests for
|
||||
Should Zookeeper become unavailable, historical nodes are no longer able to serve
|
||||
new data or drop outdated data, however, because the queries are served over
|
||||
HTTP, historical nodes are still able to respond to query requests for
|
||||
the data they are currently serving. This means that Zookeeper outages do not
|
||||
impact current data availability on historical nodes.
|
||||
impact current data availability on historical nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Broker Nodes}
|
||||
Broker nodes act as query routers to historical and real-time nodes. Broker
|
||||
|
@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ nodes understand the metadata published in Zookeeper about what segments are
|
|||
queryable and where those segments are located. Broker nodes route incoming queries
|
||||
such that the queries hit the right historical or real-time nodes. Broker nodes
|
||||
also merge partial results from historical and real-time nodes before returning
|
||||
a final consolidated result to the caller.
|
||||
a final consolidated result to the caller.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Caching}
|
||||
\label{sec:caching}
|
||||
|
@ -417,11 +417,11 @@ distributed key/value store such as Memcached
|
|||
first maps the query to a set of segments. Results for certain segments may
|
||||
already exist in the cache and there is no need to recompute them. For any
|
||||
results that do not exist in the cache, the broker node will forward the query
|
||||
to the correct historical and real-time nodes. Once historical nodes return
|
||||
to the correct historical and real-time nodes. Once historical nodes return
|
||||
their results, the broker will cache these results on a per segment basis for
|
||||
future use. This process is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:caching}. Real-time
|
||||
data is never cached and hence requests for real-time data will always be
|
||||
forwarded to real-time nodes. Real-time data is perpetually changing and
|
||||
forwarded to real-time nodes. Real-time data is perpetually changing and
|
||||
caching the results is unreliable.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure*}
|
||||
|
@ -436,20 +436,20 @@ that all historical nodes fail, it is still possible to query results if those
|
|||
results already exist in the cache.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Availability}
|
||||
In the event of a total Zookeeper outage, data is still queryable. If broker
|
||||
In the event of a total Zookeeper outage, data is still queryable. If broker
|
||||
nodes are unable to communicate to Zookeeper, they use their last known view of
|
||||
the cluster and continue to forward queries to real-time and historical nodes.
|
||||
Broker nodes make the assumption that the structure of the cluster is the same
|
||||
as it was before the outage. In practice, this availability model has allowed
|
||||
our Druid cluster to continue serving queries for a significant period of time while we
|
||||
diagnosed Zookeeper outages.
|
||||
diagnosed Zookeeper outages.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Coordinator Nodes}
|
||||
Druid coordinator nodes are primarily in charge of data management and
|
||||
distribution on historical nodes. The coordinator nodes tell historical nodes
|
||||
to load new data, drop outdated data, replicate data, and move data to load
|
||||
balance. Druid uses a multi-version concurrency control swapping protocol for
|
||||
managing immutable segments in order to maintain stable views. If any
|
||||
managing immutable segments in order to maintain stable views. If any
|
||||
immutable segment contains data that is wholly obsoleted by newer segments, the
|
||||
outdated segment is dropped from the cluster. Coordinator nodes undergo a
|
||||
leader-election process that determines a single node that runs the coordinator
|
||||
|
@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ Rules govern how historical segments are loaded and dropped from the cluster.
|
|||
Rules indicate how segments should be assigned to different historical node
|
||||
tiers and how many replicates of a segment should exist in each tier. Rules may
|
||||
also indicate when segments should be dropped entirely from the cluster. Rules
|
||||
are usually set for a period of time. For example, a user may use rules to
|
||||
are usually set for a period of time. For example, a user may use rules to
|
||||
load the most recent one month's worth of segments into a ``hot" cluster, the
|
||||
most recent one year's worth of segments into a ``cold" cluster, and drop any
|
||||
segments that are older.
|
||||
|
@ -488,19 +488,19 @@ of segments. Since each historical node has limited resources, segments must be
|
|||
distributed among the cluster to ensure that the cluster load is not too
|
||||
imbalanced. Determining optimal load distribution requires some knowledge about
|
||||
query patterns and speeds. Typically, queries cover recent segments spanning
|
||||
contiguous time intervals for a single data source. On average, queries that
|
||||
contiguous time intervals for a single data source. On average, queries that
|
||||
access smaller segments are faster.
|
||||
|
||||
These query patterns suggest replicating recent historical segments at a higher
|
||||
rate, spreading out large segments that are close in time to different
|
||||
historical nodes, and co-locating segments from different data sources. To
|
||||
historical nodes, and co-locating segments from different data sources. To
|
||||
optimally distribute and balance segments among the cluster, we developed a
|
||||
cost-based optimization procedure that takes into account the segment data
|
||||
source, recency, and size. The exact details of the algorithm are beyond the
|
||||
scope of this paper and may be discussed in future literature.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Replication}
|
||||
Coordinator nodes may tell different historical nodes to load copies of the
|
||||
Coordinator nodes may tell different historical nodes to load a copy of the
|
||||
same segment. The number of replicates in each tier of the historical compute
|
||||
cluster is fully configurable. Setups that require high levels of fault
|
||||
tolerance can be configured to have a high number of replicas. Replicated
|
||||
|
@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ cluster. Over the last two years, we have never taken downtime in our Druid
|
|||
cluster for software upgrades.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Availability}
|
||||
Druid coordinator nodes have two external dependencies: Zookeeper and MySQL.
|
||||
Druid coordinator nodes have Zookeeper and MySQL as external dependencies.
|
||||
Coordinator nodes rely on Zookeeper to determine what historical nodes already
|
||||
exist in the cluster. If Zookeeper becomes unavailable, the coordinator will no
|
||||
longer be able to send instructions to assign, balance, and drop segments.
|
||||
|
@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ The design principle for responding to MySQL and Zookeeper failures is the
|
|||
same: if an external dependency responsible for coordination fails, the cluster
|
||||
maintains the status quo. Druid uses MySQL to store operational management
|
||||
information and segment metadata information about what segments should exist
|
||||
in the cluster. If MySQL goes down, this information becomes unavailable to
|
||||
in the cluster. If MySQL goes down, this information becomes unavailable to
|
||||
coordinator nodes. However, this does not mean data itself is unavailable. If
|
||||
coordinator nodes cannot communicate to MySQL, they will cease to assign new
|
||||
segments and drop outdated ones. Broker, historical, and real-time nodes are still
|
||||
|
@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ is typically 5--10 million rows. Formally, we define a segment as a collection
|
|||
of rows of data that span some period of time. Segments represent the
|
||||
fundamental storage unit in Druid and replication and distribution are done at
|
||||
a segment level.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Druid always requires a timestamp column as a method of simplifying data
|
||||
distribution policies, data retention policies, and first-level query pruning.
|
||||
Druid partitions its data sources into well-defined time intervals, typically
|
||||
|
@ -549,16 +549,16 @@ with timestamps spread over a day is better partitioned by hour.
|
|||
|
||||
Segments are uniquely identified by a data source identifer, the time interval
|
||||
of the data, and a version string that increases whenever a new segment is
|
||||
created. The version string indicates the freshness of segment data; segments
|
||||
created. The version string indicates the freshness of segment data; segments
|
||||
with later versions have newer views of data (over some time range) than
|
||||
segments with older versions. This segment metadata is used by the system for
|
||||
segments with older versions. This segment metadata is used by the system for
|
||||
concurrency control; read operations always access data in a particular time
|
||||
range from the segments with the latest version identifiers for that time
|
||||
range.
|
||||
|
||||
Druid segments are stored in a column orientation. Given that Druid is best
|
||||
used for aggregating event streams (all data going into Druid must have a
|
||||
timestamp), the advantages storing aggregate information as columns rather than
|
||||
timestamp), the advantages of storing aggregate information as columns rather than
|
||||
rows are well documented \cite{abadi2008column}. Column storage allows for more
|
||||
efficient CPU usage as only what is needed is actually loaded and scanned. In a
|
||||
row oriented data store, all columns associated with a row must be scanned as
|
||||
|
@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ contain strings. Storing strings directly is unnecessarily costly and string
|
|||
columns can be dictionary encoded instead. Dictionary encoding is a common
|
||||
method to compress data and has been used in other data stores such as
|
||||
PowerDrill \cite{hall2012processing}. In the example in
|
||||
Table~\ref{tab:sample_data}, we can map each page to an unique integer
|
||||
Table~\ref{tab:sample_data}, we can map each page to a unique integer
|
||||
identifier.
|
||||
{\small\begin{verbatim}
|
||||
Justin Bieber -> 0
|
||||
|
@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ representations.
|
|||
In many real world OLAP workflows, queries are issued for the aggregated
|
||||
results of some set of metrics where some set of dimension specifications are
|
||||
met. An example query is: ``How many Wikipedia edits were done by users in
|
||||
San Francisco who are also male?". This query is filtering the Wikipedia data
|
||||
San Francisco who are also male?" This query is filtering the Wikipedia data
|
||||
set in Table~\ref{tab:sample_data} based on a Boolean expression of dimension
|
||||
values. In many real world data sets, dimension columns contain strings and
|
||||
metric columns contain numeric values. Druid creates additional lookup
|
||||
|
@ -657,9 +657,9 @@ resorted the data set rows to maximize compression.
|
|||
|
||||
In the unsorted case, the total Concise size was 53,451,144 bytes and the total
|
||||
integer array size was 127,248,520 bytes. Overall, Concise compressed sets are
|
||||
about 42\% smaller than integer arrays. In the sorted case, the total Concise
|
||||
about 42\% smaller than integer arrays. In the sorted case, the total Concise
|
||||
compressed size was 43,832,884 bytes and the total integer array size was
|
||||
127,248,520 bytes. What is interesting to note is that after sorting, global
|
||||
127,248,520 bytes. What is interesting to note is that after sorting, global
|
||||
compression only increased minimally.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Storage Engine}
|
||||
|
@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ memory-mapped storage engine but could be a better alternative if performance
|
|||
is critical. By default, a memory-mapped storage engine is used.
|
||||
|
||||
When using a memory-mapped storage engine, Druid relies on the operating system
|
||||
to page segments in and out of memory. Given that segments can only be scanned
|
||||
to page segments in and out of memory. Given that segments can only be scanned
|
||||
if they are loaded in memory, a memory-mapped storage engine allows recent
|
||||
segments to retain in memory whereas segments that are never queried are paged
|
||||
out. The main drawback with using the memory-mapped storage engine is when a
|
||||
|
@ -694,8 +694,8 @@ JSON object containing the aggregated metrics over the time period.
|
|||
|
||||
Most query types will also support a filter set. A filter set is a Boolean
|
||||
expression of dimension name and value pairs. Any number and combination of
|
||||
dimensions and values may be specified. When a filter set is provided, only
|
||||
the subset of the data that pertains to the filter set will be scanned. The
|
||||
dimensions and values may be specified. When a filter set is provided, only
|
||||
the subset of the data that pertains to the filter set will be scanned. The
|
||||
ability to handle complex nested filter sets is what enables Druid to drill
|
||||
into data at any depth.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ A sample count query over a week of data is as follows:
|
|||
}
|
||||
\end{verbatim}}
|
||||
The query shown above will return a count of the number of rows in the Wikipedia data source
|
||||
from 2013-01-01 to 2013-01-08, filtered for only those rows where the value of the ``page" dimension is
|
||||
from 2013-01-01 to 2013-01-08, filtered for only those rows where the value of the ``page" dimension is
|
||||
equal to ``Ke\$ha". The results will be bucketed by day and will be a JSON array of the following form:
|
||||
{\scriptsize\begin{verbatim}
|
||||
[ {
|
||||
|
@ -734,19 +734,19 @@ equal to ``Ke\$ha". The results will be bucketed by day and will be a JSON array
|
|||
} ]
|
||||
\end{verbatim}}
|
||||
|
||||
Druid supports many types of aggregations including double sums, long sums,
|
||||
Druid supports many types of aggregations including sums on floating-point and integer types,
|
||||
minimums, maximums, and complex aggregations such as cardinality estimation and
|
||||
approximate quantile estimation. The results of aggregations can be combined
|
||||
approximate quantile estimation. The results of aggregations can be combined
|
||||
in mathematical expressions to form other aggregations. It is beyond the scope
|
||||
of this paper to fully describe the query API but more information can be found
|
||||
online\footnote{\href{http://druid.io/docs/latest/Querying.html}{http://druid.io/docs/latest/Querying.html}}.
|
||||
|
||||
As of this writing, a join query for Druid is not yet implemented. This has
|
||||
As of this writing, a join query for Druid is not yet implemented. This has
|
||||
been a function of engineering resource allocation and use case decisions more
|
||||
than a decision driven by technical merit. Indeed, Druid's storage format
|
||||
than a decision driven by technical merit. Indeed, Druid's storage format
|
||||
would allow for the implementation of joins (there is no loss of fidelity for
|
||||
columns included as dimensions) and the implementation of them has been a
|
||||
conversation that we have every few months. To date, we have made the choice
|
||||
conversation that we have every few months. To date, we have made the choice
|
||||
that the implementation cost is not worth the investment for our organization.
|
||||
The reasons for this decision are generally two-fold.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -756,30 +756,29 @@ The reasons for this decision are generally two-fold.
|
|||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
A join query is essentially the merging of two or more streams of data based on
|
||||
a shared set of keys. The primary high-level strategies for join queries the
|
||||
authors are aware of are a hash-based strategy or a sorted-merge strategy. The
|
||||
a shared set of keys. The primary high-level strategies for join queries we
|
||||
are aware of are a hash-based strategy or a sorted-merge strategy. The
|
||||
hash-based strategy requires that all but one data set be available as
|
||||
something that looks like a hash table, a lookup operation is then performed on
|
||||
this hash table for every row in the ``primary" stream. The sorted-merge
|
||||
this hash table for every row in the ``primary" stream. The sorted-merge
|
||||
strategy assumes that each stream is sorted by the join key and thus allows for
|
||||
the incremental joining of the streams. Each of these strategies, however,
|
||||
the incremental joining of the streams. Each of these strategies, however,
|
||||
requires the materialization of some number of the streams either in sorted
|
||||
order or in a hash table form.
|
||||
order or in a hash table form.
|
||||
|
||||
When all sides of the join are significantly large tables (> 1 billion records),
|
||||
materializing the pre-join streams requires complex distributed memory
|
||||
management. The complexity of the memory management is only amplified by
|
||||
management. The complexity of the memory management is only amplified by
|
||||
the fact that we are targeting highly concurrent, multitenant workloads.
|
||||
This is, as far as the authors are aware, an active academic research
|
||||
problem that we would be more than willing to engage with the academic
|
||||
community to help resolving in a scalable manner.
|
||||
This is, as far as we are aware, an active academic research
|
||||
problem that we would be willing to help resolve in a scalable manner.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Performance}
|
||||
\label{sec:benchmarks}
|
||||
Druid runs in production at several organizations, and to demonstrate its
|
||||
performance, we have chosen to share some real world numbers for the main production
|
||||
cluster running at Metamarkets in early 2014. For comparison with other databases
|
||||
cluster running at Metamarkets as of early 2014. For comparison with other databases
|
||||
we also include results from synthetic workloads on TPC-H data.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Query Performance in Production}
|
||||
|
@ -789,7 +788,7 @@ based on a given metric is much more expensive than a simple count over a time
|
|||
range. To showcase the average query latencies in a production Druid cluster,
|
||||
we selected 8 of our most queried data sources, described in Table~\ref{tab:datasources}.
|
||||
|
||||
Approximately 30\% of the queries are standard
|
||||
Approximately 30\% of queries are standard
|
||||
aggregates involving different types of metrics and filters, 60\% of queries
|
||||
are ordered group bys over one or more dimensions with aggregates, and 10\% of
|
||||
queries are search queries and metadata retrieval queries. The number of
|
||||
|
@ -827,7 +826,7 @@ approximately 10TB of segments loaded. Collectively,
|
|||
there are about 50 billion Druid rows in this tier. Results for
|
||||
every data source are not shown.
|
||||
|
||||
\item The hot tier uses Intel Xeon E5-2670 processors and consists of 1302 processing
|
||||
\item The hot tier uses Intel\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Xeon\textsuperscript{\textregistered} E5-2670 processors and consists of 1302 processing
|
||||
threads and 672 total cores (hyperthreaded).
|
||||
|
||||
\item A memory-mapped storage engine was used (the machine was configured to
|
||||
|
@ -838,28 +837,28 @@ Query latencies are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:query_latency} and the queries per
|
|||
minute are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:queries_per_min}. Across all the various
|
||||
data sources, average query latency is approximately 550 milliseconds, with
|
||||
90\% of queries returning in less than 1 second, 95\% in under 2 seconds, and
|
||||
99\% of queries returning in less than 10 seconds. Occasionally we observe
|
||||
99\% of queries returning in less than 10 seconds. Occasionally we observe
|
||||
spikes in latency, as observed on February 19, where network issues on
|
||||
the Memcached instances were compounded by very high query load on one of our
|
||||
largest data sources.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width = 2.3in]{avg_query_latency}
|
||||
\includegraphics[width = 2.3in]{query_percentiles}
|
||||
\caption{Query latencies of production data sources.}
|
||||
\caption{Query latencies of production data sources.}
|
||||
\label{fig:query_latency}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width = 2.8in]{queries_per_min}
|
||||
\caption{Queries per minute of production data sources.}
|
||||
\caption{Queries per minute of production data sources.}
|
||||
\label{fig:queries_per_min}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Query Benchmarks on TPC-H Data}
|
||||
We also present Druid benchmarks on TPC-H data.
|
||||
We also present Druid benchmarks on TPC-H data.
|
||||
Most TPC-H queries do not directly apply to Druid, so we
|
||||
selected queries more typical of Druid's workload to demonstrate query performance. As a
|
||||
comparison, we also provide the results of the same queries using MySQL using the
|
||||
|
@ -871,8 +870,8 @@ open source column store because we were not confident we could correctly tune
|
|||
it for optimal performance.
|
||||
|
||||
Our Druid setup used Amazon EC2
|
||||
\texttt{m3.2xlarge} (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz) instances for
|
||||
historical nodes and \texttt{c3.2xlarge} (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v2 @ 2.50GHz) instances for broker
|
||||
\texttt{m3.2xlarge} instance types (Intel\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Xeon\textsuperscript{\textregistered} E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz) for
|
||||
historical nodes and \texttt{c3.2xlarge} instances (Intel\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Xeon\textsuperscript{\textregistered} E5-2670 v2 @ 2.50GHz) for broker
|
||||
nodes. Our MySQL setup was an Amazon RDS instance that ran on the same \texttt{m3.2xlarge} instance type.
|
||||
|
||||
The results for the 1 GB TPC-H data set are shown
|
||||
|
@ -918,7 +917,7 @@ well.
|
|||
To showcase Druid's data ingestion latency, we selected several production
|
||||
datasources of varying dimensions, metrics, and event volumes. Our production
|
||||
ingestion setup consists of 6 nodes, totalling 360GB of RAM and 96 cores
|
||||
(12 x Intel Xeon E5-2670).
|
||||
(12 x Intel\textsuperscript\textregistered Xeon\textsuperscript\textregistered E5-2670).
|
||||
|
||||
Note that in this setup, several other data sources were being ingested and
|
||||
many other Druid related ingestion tasks were running concurrently on the machines.
|
||||
|
@ -931,7 +930,7 @@ aggregations we want to perform on those metrics. With the most basic data set
|
|||
800,000 events/second/core, which is really just a measurement of how fast we can
|
||||
deserialize events. Real world data sets are never this simple.
|
||||
Table~\ref{tab:ingest_datasources} shows a selection of data sources and their
|
||||
characteristics.
|
||||
characteristics.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
|
@ -974,9 +973,9 @@ running an Amazon \texttt{cc2.8xlarge} instance.
|
|||
|
||||
The latency measurements we presented are sufficient to address the stated
|
||||
problems of interactivity. We would prefer the variability in the latencies to
|
||||
be less. It is still very possible to decrease latencies by adding
|
||||
be less. It is still possible to decrease latencies by adding
|
||||
additional hardware, but we have not chosen to do so because infrastructure
|
||||
costs are still a consideration to us.
|
||||
costs are still a consideration for us.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Druid in Production}\label{sec:production}
|
||||
Over the last few years, we have gained tremendous knowledge about handling
|
||||
|
@ -988,8 +987,8 @@ explore use case, the number of queries issued by a single user are much higher
|
|||
than in the reporting use case. Exploratory queries often involve progressively
|
||||
adding filters for the same time range to narrow down results. Users tend to
|
||||
explore short time intervals of recent data. In the generate report use case,
|
||||
users query for much longer data intervals, but users also already know the
|
||||
queries they want to issue.
|
||||
users query for much longer data intervals, but those queries are generally few
|
||||
and pre-determined.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Multitenancy}
|
||||
Expensive concurrent queries can be problematic in a multitenant
|
||||
|
@ -1000,26 +999,26 @@ to address these issues. Each historical node is able to prioritize which
|
|||
segments it needs to scan. Proper query planning is critical for production
|
||||
workloads. Thankfully, queries for a significant amount of data tend to be for
|
||||
reporting use cases and can be deprioritized. Users do not expect the same level of
|
||||
interactivity in this use case as when they are exploring data.
|
||||
interactivity in this use case as when they are exploring data.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Node failures}
|
||||
Single node failures are common in distributed environments, but many nodes
|
||||
failing at once are not. If historical nodes completely fail and do not
|
||||
recover, their segments need to reassigned, which means we need excess cluster
|
||||
recover, their segments need to be reassigned, which means we need excess cluster
|
||||
capacity to load this data. The amount of additional capacity to have at any
|
||||
time contributes to the cost of running a cluster. From our experiences, it is
|
||||
extremely rare to see more than 2 nodes completely fail at once and hence, we
|
||||
leave enough capacity in our cluster to completely reassign the data from 2
|
||||
historical nodes.
|
||||
historical nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Data Center Outages}
|
||||
Complete cluster failures are possible, but extremely rare. If Druid is
|
||||
only deployed in a single data center, it is possible for the entire data
|
||||
center to fail. In such cases, new machines need to be provisioned. As long as
|
||||
deep storage is still available, cluster recovery time is network bound as
|
||||
deep storage is still available, cluster recovery time is network bound, as
|
||||
historical nodes simply need to redownload every segment from deep storage. We
|
||||
have experienced such failures in the past, and the recovery time was around
|
||||
several hours in the AWS ecosystem for several TBs of data.
|
||||
have experienced such failures in the past, and the recovery time was
|
||||
several hours in the Amazon AWS ecosystem for several terabytes of data.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Operational Monitoring}
|
||||
Proper monitoring is critical to run a large scale distributed cluster.
|
||||
|
@ -1035,20 +1034,20 @@ performance and stability of the production cluster. This dedicated metrics
|
|||
cluster has allowed us to find numerous production problems, such as gradual
|
||||
query speed degregations, less than optimally tuned hardware, and various other
|
||||
system bottlenecks. We also use a metrics cluster to analyze what queries are
|
||||
made in production and what users are most interested in.
|
||||
made in production and what aspects of the data users are most interested in.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Pairing Druid with a Stream Processor}
|
||||
At the time of writing, Druid can only understand fully denormalized data
|
||||
Currently, Druid can only understand fully denormalized data
|
||||
streams. In order to provide full business logic in production, Druid can be
|
||||
paired with a stream processor such as Apache Storm \cite{marz2013storm}.
|
||||
|
||||
A Storm topology consumes events from a data stream, retains only those that are
|
||||
“on-time”, and applies any relevant business logic. This could range from
|
||||
simple transformations, such as id to name lookups, up to complex operations
|
||||
simple transformations, such as id to name lookups, to complex operations
|
||||
such as multi-stream joins. The Storm topology forwards the processed event
|
||||
stream to Druid in real-time. Storm handles the streaming data processing work,
|
||||
and Druid is used for responding to queries for both real-time and
|
||||
historical data.
|
||||
historical data.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Multiple Data Center Distribution}
|
||||
Large scale production outages may not only affect single nodes, but entire
|
||||
|
@ -1058,13 +1057,13 @@ exactly replicated across historical nodes in multiple data centers.
|
|||
Similarily, query preference can be assigned to different tiers. It is possible
|
||||
to have nodes in one data center act as a primary cluster (and receive all
|
||||
queries) and have a redundant cluster in another data center. Such a setup may
|
||||
be desired if one data center is situated much closer to users.
|
||||
be desired if one data center is situated much closer to users.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Related Work}
|
||||
\label{sec:related}
|
||||
Cattell \cite{cattell2011scalable} maintains a great summary about existing
|
||||
Scalable SQL and NoSQL data stores. Hu \cite{hu2011stream} contributed another
|
||||
great summary for streaming databases. Druid feature-wise sits somewhere
|
||||
great summary for streaming databases. Druid feature-wise sits somewhere
|
||||
between Google’s Dremel \cite{melnik2010dremel} and PowerDrill
|
||||
\cite{hall2012processing}. Druid has most of the features implemented in Dremel
|
||||
(Dremel handles arbitrary nested data structures while Druid only allows for a
|
||||
|
@ -1074,15 +1073,15 @@ algorithms mentioned in PowerDrill.
|
|||
Although Druid builds on many of the same principles as other distributed
|
||||
columnar data stores \cite{fink2012distributed}, many of these data stores are
|
||||
designed to be more generic key-value stores \cite{lakshman2010cassandra} and do not
|
||||
support computation directly in the storage layer. There are also other data
|
||||
stores designed for some of the same of the data warehousing issues that Druid
|
||||
is meant to solve. These systems include include in-memory databases such as
|
||||
support computation directly in the storage layer. There are also other data
|
||||
stores designed for some of the same data warehousing issues that Druid
|
||||
is meant to solve. These systems include in-memory databases such as
|
||||
SAP’s HANA \cite{farber2012sap} and VoltDB \cite{voltdb2010voltdb}. These data
|
||||
stores lack Druid's low latency ingestion characteristics. Druid also has
|
||||
native analytical features baked in, similar to \cite{paraccel2013}, however,
|
||||
Druid allows system wide rolling software updates with no downtime.
|
||||
native analytical features baked in, similar to ParAccel \cite{paraccel2013}, however,
|
||||
Druid allows system wide rolling software updates with no downtime.
|
||||
|
||||
Druid is similiar to \cite{stonebraker2005c, cipar2012lazybase} in that it has
|
||||
Druid is similiar to C-Store \cite{stonebraker2005c} and LazyBase \cite{cipar2012lazybase} in that it has
|
||||
two subsystems, a read-optimized subsystem in the historical nodes and a
|
||||
write-optimized subsystem in real-time nodes. Real-time nodes are designed to
|
||||
ingest a high volume of append heavy data, and do not support data updates.
|
||||
|
@ -1090,14 +1089,14 @@ Unlike the two aforementioned systems, Druid is meant for OLAP transactions and
|
|||
not OLTP transactions.
|
||||
|
||||
Druid's low latency data ingestion features share some similarities with
|
||||
Trident/Storm \cite{marz2013storm} and Streaming Spark
|
||||
Trident/Storm \cite{marz2013storm} and Spark Streaming
|
||||
\cite{zaharia2012discretized}, however, both systems are focused on stream
|
||||
processing whereas Druid is focused on ingestion and aggregation. Stream
|
||||
processors are great complements to Druid as a means of pre-processing the data
|
||||
before the data enters Druid.
|
||||
|
||||
There are a class of systems that specialize in queries on top of cluster
|
||||
computing frameworks. Shark \cite{engle2012shark} is such a system for queries
|
||||
computing frameworks. Shark \cite{engle2012shark} is such a system for queries
|
||||
on top of Spark, and Cloudera's Impala \cite{cloudera2013} is another system
|
||||
focused on optimizing query performance on top of HDFS. Druid historical nodes
|
||||
download data locally and only work with native Druid indexes. We believe this
|
||||
|
@ -1111,7 +1110,7 @@ stores \cite{macnicol2004sybase}.
|
|||
|
||||
\section{Conclusions}
|
||||
\label{sec:conclusions}
|
||||
In this paper, we presented Druid, a distributed, column-oriented, real-time
|
||||
In this paper we presented Druid, a distributed, column-oriented, real-time
|
||||
analytical data store. Druid is designed to power high performance applications
|
||||
and is optimized for low query latencies. Druid supports streaming data
|
||||
ingestion and is fault-tolerant. We discussed Druid benchmarks and
|
||||
|
@ -1123,8 +1122,8 @@ as the storage format, query language, and general execution.
|
|||
\section{Acknowledgements}
|
||||
\label{sec:acknowledgements}
|
||||
Druid could not have been built without the help of many great engineers at
|
||||
Metamarkets and in the community. We want to thank everyone that has
|
||||
contributed to the Druid codebase for their invaluable support.
|
||||
Metamarkets and in the community. We want to thank everyone that has
|
||||
contributed to the Druid codebase for their invaluable support.
|
||||
|
||||
% The following two commands are all you need in the
|
||||
% initial runs of your .tex file to
|
||||
|
@ -1136,7 +1135,7 @@ contributed to the Druid codebase for their invaluable support.
|
|||
% latex bibtex latex latex
|
||||
% to resolve all references
|
||||
|
||||
%Generated by bibtex from your ~.bib file. Run latex,
|
||||
%Generated by bibtex from your ~.bib file. Run latex,
|
||||
%then bibtex, then latex twice (to resolve references).
|
||||
|
||||
%APPENDIX is optional.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue