Given the complexity of your scenario, where timestamps are not in chronological order and you have a composite key of four columns (X, session_timestamp, session_Id, equipment_number), identifying new or updated records for incremental loading becomes more challenging. Here are some strategies you can consider:
1. Using a Last Processed Marker
If you can track the last record or batch of records processed during each pipeline run, you can use this as a marker to identify new or updated records. This approach requires maintaining a record of what was last processed (e.g., in a separate metadata table or storage).
For example, if you can store the maximum session_Id (assuming it’s a unique, incrementing identifier) processed in the last run, your query to fetch new data might look like this:
SELECT X, session_timestamp, session_Id, equipment_number, other_columns...
FROM ProjectA.source_table
WHERE session_Id > [last_session_id];
2. Full Comparison
If a marker like session_Id is not available or suitable, you might need to perform a full comparison between the source and destination datasets. This is more resource-intensive but ensures that no records are missed.
For this, you would compare the composite key of each record in Project A with those in Project B to find records that are either new or updated. This can be done by a LEFT JOIN or NOT EXISTS query, but it can be quite heavy on performance for large datasets.
3. Timestamp Window with Buffer
Since your timestamps are not strictly chronological, consider using a timestamp window with a buffer. This means you select records from a time range that slightly overlaps with the previous ingestion. This approach might lead to some duplication, which you can handle during the merge process into the main table.
For example:
SELECT X, session_timestamp, session_Id, equipment_number, other_columns...
FROM ProjectA.source_table
WHERE session_timestamp >= DATE_SUB([last_run_timestamp], INTERVAL 1 HOUR);
4. Skipping the Staging Table
If the volume of data is manageable and the performance impact is not significant, you might consider loading data directly into the main table using a MERGE statement, as previously described. This approach simplifies the pipeline but requires careful handling of duplicates and updates.
Please Note:
- Performance and Scalability: Each of these methods has trade-offs in terms of performance and complexity. You’ll need to balance these based on your specific dataset size and update frequency.
- Testing and Validation: Regardless of the method chosen, thorough testing and validation are crucial to ensure that the data integrity is maintained and that the pipeline behaves as expected.
- Documentation and Monitoring: Keep detailed documentation of the logic and process used, and monitor the pipeline’s performance and accuracy regularly.