Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

DACI: How to implement a repository with history?

Status

IN PROGRESS

Impact

HIGH

DriverChris Grote 
Approver
Contributors
Informed
Due date
Outcome

Tips and info

Recommendations

Contributors

Contributors: I am seeking the right people to get involved in the decision. Add your comments to this page, let's get the conversation started.

Please add:

  • The people directly impacted by this so we can include them.
  • Any references to previous work and investigations that we can leverage.
  • Any constraints and challenges we need to consider to make this decision and following action plan.
  • Any additional options we should consider before making the decision.

Background

A common scenario we come across with almost all metadata repositories we have seen is that they lack the ability to store historical information about metadata and respond to point-in-time inquiries. While Egeria's type system and APIs have been built from the beginning to support such history, we have not yet implemented a backend storage option that implements history.

Considering this comes up frequently as a common need, even to augment existing metadata repositories, providing such a historical store for metadata could be a somewhat narrow but nonetheless extremely common adoption point for Egeria.

Current state

We are currently considering implementation options for an initial approach to such a repository.

Data for decision support

  • Identification of potential technologies to use as the backing store for such a repository.

Options considered

 


Option 1: bi-temporal RDBMSOption 2: bi-temporal graphOption 3: search index

Description


Using a bi-temporal relational database like DB2

Using a bi-temporal graph store like Crux

Using a search index like Elastic

Rollout plan





Pros and cons

Native

Handles historical information natively at the storage layer, so should be simpler to implement point-in-time inquiry.

New approach

Takes a new approach to a backing store (relational) compared to our existing implementations (graph-based)

Commercial

We are unaware of any open source, native bi-temporal RDBMS, so this would put a dependency on licensed commercial software.

Schema

Requires a fixed schema, which raises questions about how to both handle efficient queries (not storing things as unqueryable blobs) but also manage history when the type system itself (schema?) may have changed over the course of that history (ie. deprecated attributes and types)

Native

Handles historical information natively at the storage layer, so should be simpler to implement point-in-time inquiry.

Similar to existing

Close alignment with our current repository approaches that are more graph-focused than relational.

Embedded option

Provides a simple option to run in an embedded capacity, which could be useful for demonstration purposes (not requiring additional infrastructure and components).

Pluggable backends

Implemented using pluggable characteristics for its own backends, including both open source and commercial options.

Schemaless

It sounds like each document in Crux is essentially schema-less (tuples / triples-based), so it may be feasible to store multiple versions of a type across the history of a given instance of metadata (question)

Risks



Scalability

The resource requirements that might be necessary for a "true production" rollout are unclear, or the volume to which it can scale. (We heard mention of "16 TB" (sounds plenty) but also "10 million triples" (with history, and one triple per attribute value, per instance, this sounds small?)


Estimated cost and effort





FAQ

Q1.

A1.


References


 Click here to expand...
RelevanceLink
Original GitHub issue https://github.com/odpi/egeria/issues/2545
Discussion with Crux team2020-11-27 Meeting notes







Follow-up action items

  •  
  • No labels