Jones Driving Data Quality with Data Contracts

A comprehensive guide to building reliable, trusted, and effective data platforms
1. Auflage 2023
ISBN: 978-1-83763-624-2
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection

E-Book, Englisch, 206 Seiten

No detailed description available for "Driving Data Quality with Data Contracts".

Autoren/Hrsg.

Jones, Andrew

Fachgebiete

• Mathematik | Informatik EDV | Informatik Daten / Datenbanken Datenbankdesign & Datenbanktheorie
• Mathematik | Informatik EDV | Informatik Daten / Datenbanken Automatische Datenerfassung, Datenanalyse
• Mathematik | Informatik EDV | Informatik Informatik Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion Informationsarchitektur
• Mathematik | Informatik EDV | Informatik Daten / Datenbanken Data Warehouse

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Table of Contents - A Brief History of Data Platforms
- Introducing Data Contracts
- How to Get Adoption in Your Organization
- Bringing Data Consumers and Generators Closer Together
- Embedding Data Governance
- What Makes Up a Data Contract
- A Contract-Driven Data Architecture
- A Sample Implementation
- Implementing Data Contracts In Your Organization
- Data Contracts in Practice

Leseproben

1
A Brief History of Data Platforms
Before we can appreciate why we need to make a fundamental shift to a data contracts-backed data platform in order to improve the quality of our data, and ultimately the value we can get from that data, we need to understand the problems we are trying to solve. I’ve found the best way to do this is to look back at the recent generations of data architectures. By doing that, we’ll see that despite the vast improvements in the tooling available to us, we’ve been carrying through the same limitations in the architecture. That’s why we continue to struggle with the same old problems. Despite these challenges, the importance of data continues to grow. As it is used in more and more business-critical applications, we can no longer accept data platforms that are unreliable, untrusted, and ineffective. We must find a better way. By the end of this chapter, we’ll have explored the three most recent generations of data architectures at a high level, focusing on just the source and ingestion of upstream data, and the consumption of data downstream. We will gain an understanding of their limitations and bottlenecks and why we need to make a change. We’ll then be ready to learn about data contracts. In this chapter, we’re going to cover the following main topics: The enterprise data warehouse The big data platform The modern data stack The state of today’s data platforms The ever-increasing use of data in business-critical applications The enterprise data warehouse
We’ll start by looking at the data architecture that was prevalent in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which was centered around an enterprise data warehouse (EDW). As we discuss the architecture and its limitations, you’ll start to notice how many of those limitations continue to affect us today, despite over 20 years of advancement in tools and capabilities. EDW is the collective term for a reporting and analytics solution. You’d typically engage with one or two big vendors who would provide these capabilities for you. It was expensive and only larger companies that could justify the investment. The architecture was built around a large database in the center. This was likely an Oracle or MS SQL Server database, hosted on-premises (this was before the advent of cloud services). The extract, transform, and load (ETL) process was performed on data from source systems, or more accurately, the underlying database of those systems. That data could then be used to drive reporting and analytics. The following diagram shows the EDW architecture: Figure 1.1 – The EDW architecture Because this ETL ran against the database of the source system, reliability was a problem. It created a load on the database that could negatively impact the performance of the upstream service. That, and the limitations of the technology we were using at the time, meant we could do few transforms on the data. We also had to update the ETL process as the database schema and the data evolved over time, relying on the data generators to let us know when that happened. Otherwise, the pipeline would fail. Those who owned databases were somewhat aware of the ETL work and the business value it drove. There were few barriers between the data generators and consumers and good communication. However, the major limitation of this architecture was the database used for the data warehouse. It was very expensive and, as it was deployed on-premises, was of a fixed size and hard to scale. That created a limit on how much data could be stored there and made available for analytics. It became the responsibility of the ETL developers to decide what data should be available, depending on the business needs, and to build and maintain that ETL process by getting access to the source systems and their underlying databases. And so, this is where the bottleneck was. The ETL developers had to control what data went in, and they were the only ones who could make data available in the warehouse. Data would only be made available if it met a strong business need, and that typically meant the only data in the warehouse was data that drove the company KPIs. If you wanted some data to do some analysis and it wasn’t already in there, you had to put a ticket in their backlog and hope for the best. If it did ever get prioritized, it was probably too late for what you wanted it for. Note Let’s illustrate how different roles worked together with this architecture with an example. Our data generator, Vivianne, is a software engineer working on a service that writes its data to a database. She’s aware that some of the data from that database is extracted by a data analyst, Bukayo, and that is used to drive top-level business KPIs. Bukayo can’t do much transformation on the data, due to the limitations of the technology and the cost of infrastructure, so the reporting he produces is largely on the raw data. There are no defined expectations between Vivianne and Bukayo, and Bukayo relies on Vivianne telling him in advance whether there are any changes to the data or the schema. The extraction is not reliable. The ETL process could affect the performance of the database, and so can be switched off when there is an incident. Schema and data changes are not always known in advance. The downstream database also has limited performance and cannot be easily scaled to deal with an increase in the data or usage. Both Vivianne and Bukayo lack autonomy. Vivianne can’t change her database schema without getting approval from Bukayo. Bukayo can only get a subset of data, with little say over the format. Furthermore, any potential users downstream of Bukayo can only access the data he has extracted, severely limiting the accessibility of the organization’s data. This won’t be the last time we see a bottleneck that prevents access to, and the use of, quality data. Let’s look now at the next generation of data architecture and the introduction of big data, which was made possible by the release of Apache Hadoop in 2006. The big data platform
As the internet took off in the 1990s and the size and importance of data grew with it, the big tech companies started developing a new generation of data tooling and architectures that aimed to reduce the cost of storing and transforming vast quantities of data. In 2003, Google wrote a paper describing their Google File System, and in 2004 followed that up with another paper, titled MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters. These ideas were then implemented at Yahoo! and open sourced as Apache Hadoop in 2006. Apache Hadoop contained two core modules. The Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) gave us the ability to store almost limitless amounts of data reliably and efficiently on commodity hardware. Then the MapReduce engine gives us a model on which we could implement programs to process and transform this data, at scale, also on commodity hardware. This led to the popularization of big data, which was the collective term for our reporting, ML, and analytics capabilities with HDFS and MapReduce as the foundation. These platforms used open source technology and could be on-premises or in the cloud. The reduced costs made this accessible to organizations of any size, who could either implement it themselves or use a packaged enterprise solution provided by the likes of Cloudera and MapR. The following diagram shows the reference data platform architecture built upon Hadoop: Figure 1.2 – The big data platform architecture At the center of the architecture is the data lake, implemented on top of HDFS or a similar filesystem. Here, we could store an almost unlimited amount of semi-structured or unstructured data. This still needed to be put into an EDW in order to drive analytics, as data visualization tools such as Tableau needed a SQL-compatible database to connect to. Because there were no expectations set on the structure of the data in the data lake, and no limits on the amount of data, it was very easy to write as much as you could and worry about how to use it later. This led to the concept of extract, load, and transform (ELT), as opposed to ETL, where the idea was to extract and load the data into the data lake first without any processing, then apply schemas and transforms later as part of loading to the data warehouse or reading the data in other downstream processes. We then had much more data than ever before. With a low barrier to entry and cheap storage, data was easily added to the data lake, whether there was a consumer requirement in mind or not. However, in practice, much of that data...

Über Autor(innen)

Jones Andrew:
Andrew Jones is a principal engineer at GoCardless, one of Europe's leading Fintech's. He has over 15 years experience in the industry, with the first half primarily as a software engineer, before he moved into the data infrastructure and data engineering space. Joining GoCardless as its first data engineer, he led his team to build their data platform from scratch. After initially following a typical data architecture and getting frustrated with facing the same old challenges he'd faced for years, he started thinking there must be a better way, which led to him coining and defining the ideas around data contracts. Andrew is a regular speaker and writer, and he is passionate about helping organizations get maximum value from data.