I need to migrate my Spring Boot app to Redis instead of some useless relational DBMS (i need some scalability among other reasons). I made some research but couldn't make clear some questions before the start:
Should i use Redisson as Hibernate cache
Should i somehow modify my model/entities to use 'em in NoSQL Redis? The relations in my model are not primitive and i wonder should i perform any steps to port the model to run under Redis?
Thanks in advance for any assist.
You should think around following:
Access Patterns: These help decide which NoSQL to chose. Redis is a Key-Value store. All the access patterns are key based. It doesn't have a query language.
Architecture: Redis is completely in-memory and therefore amazingly fast. It is one of the most popular cache solutions. However, if you use it as Database then work out the pricing as Memory is costly than disk space. Moreover, there is a minor chance to lose data if the cluster crashes and data has not yet been replicated to disk.
If you are able to tick all the boxes then I would suggest to keep it simple and use a Java Client like Jedis rather than Redisson.
You will have to write a new DAO layer to adapt to key based access patterns.
So I've been trying hard to figure out if NoSQL is really bringing that much value outside of auto-sharding and handling UNSTRUCTURED data.
Assuming I can fit my STRUCTURED data on a single machine OR have an effective 'auto-sharding' feature for SQL, what advantages do any NoSQL options offer? I've determined the following:
Document-based (MongoDB, Couchbase, etc) - Outside of it's 'auto-sharding' capabilities, I'm having a hard time understanding where the benefit is. Linked objects are quite similar to SQL joins, while Embedded objects significantly bloat doc size and causes a challenge regarding to replication (a comment could belong to both a post AND a user, and therefore the data would be redundant). Also, loss of ACID and transactions are a big disadvantage.
Key-value based (Redis, Memcached, etc) - Serves a different use case, ideal for caching but not complex queries
Columnar (Cassandra, HBase, etc ) - Seems that the big advantage here is more how the data is stored on disk, and mostly useful for aggregations rather than general use
Graph (Neo4j, OrientDB, etc) - The most intriguing, the use of both edges and nodes makes for an interesting value-proposition, but mostly useful for highly complex relational data rather than general use.
I can see the advantages of Key-value, Columnar and Graph DBs for specific use cases (Caching, social network relationship mapping, aggregations), but can't see any reason to use something like MongoDB for STRUCTURED data outside of it's 'auto-sharding' capabilities.
If SQL has a similar 'auto-sharding' ability, would SQL be a no-brainer for structured data? Seems to me it would be, but I would like the communities opinion...
NOTE: This is in regards to a typical CRUD application like a Social Network, E-Commerce site, CMS etc.
If you're starting off on a single server, then many advantages of NoSQL go out the window. The biggest advantages to the most popular NoSQL are high availability with less down time. Eventual consistency requirements can lead to performance improvements as well. It really depends on your needs.
Document-based - If your data fits well into a handful of small buckets of data, then a document oriented database. For example, on a classifieds site we have Users, Accounts and Listings as the core data. The bulk of search and display operations are against the Listings alone. With the legacy database we have to do nearly 40 join operations to get the data for a single listing. With NoSQL it's a single query. With NoSQL we can also create indexes against nested data, again with results queried without Joins. In this case, we're actually mirroring data from SQL to MongoDB for purposes of search and display (there are other reasons), with a longer-term migration strategy being worked on now. ElasticSearch, RethinkDB and others are great databases as well. RethinkDB actually takes a very conservative approach to the data, and ElasticSearch's out of the box indexing is second to none.
Key-value store - Caching is an excellent use case here, when you are running a medium to high volume website where data is mostly read, a good caching strategy alone can get you 4-5 times the users handled by a single server. Key-value stores (RocksDB, LevelDB, Redis, etc) are also very good options for Graph data, as individual mapping can be held with subject-predicate-target values which can be very fast for graphing options over the top.
Columnar - Cassandra in particular can be used to distribute significant amounts of load for even single-value lookups. Cassandra's scaling is very linear to the number of servers in use. Great for heavy read and write scenarios. I find this less valuable for live searches, but very good when you have a VERY high load and need to distribute. It takes a lot more planning, and may well not fit your needs. You can tweak settings to suite your CAP needs, and even handle distribution to multiple data centers in the box. NOTE: Most applications do emphatically NOT need this level of use. ElasticSearch may be a better fit in most scenarios you would consider HBase/Hadoop or Cassandra for.
Graph - I'm not as familiar with graph databases, so can't comment here (beyond using a key-value store as underlying option).
Given that you then comment on MongoDB specifically vs SQL ... even if both auto-shard. PostgreSQL in particular has made a lot of strides in terms of getting unstrictured data usable (JSON/JSONB types) not to mention the power you can get from something like PLV8, it's probably the most suited to handling the types of loads you might throw at a document store with the advantages of NoSQL. Where it happens to fall down is that replication, sharding and failover are bolted on solutions not really in the box.
For small to medium loads sharding really isn't the best approach. Most scenarios are mostly read so having a replica-set where you have additional read nodes is usually better when you have 3-5 servers. MongoDB is great in this scenario, the master node is automagically elected, and failover is pretty fast. The only weirdness I've seen is when Azure went down in late 2014, and only one of the servers came up first, the other two were almost 40 minutes later. With replication any given read request can be handled in whole by a single server. Your data structures become simpler, and your chances of data loss are reduced.
Again in my own example above, for a mediums sized classifieds site, the vast majority of data belongs to a single collection... it is searched against, and displayed from that collection. With this use case a document store works much better than structured/normalized data. The way the objects are stored are much closer to their representation in the application. There's less of a cognitive disconnect and it simply works.
The fact is that SQL JOIN operations kill performance, especially when aggregating data across those joins. For a single query for a single user it's fine, even with a dozen of them. When you get to dozens of joins with thousands of simultaneous users, it starts to fall apart. At this point you have several choices...
Caching - caching is always a great approach, and the less often your data changes, the better the approach. This can be anything from a set of memcache/redis instances to using something like MongoDB, RethinkDB or ElasticSearch to hold composite records. The challenge here comes down to updating or invalidating your cached data.
Migrating - migrating your data to a data store that better represents your needs can be a good idea as well. If you need to handle massive writes, or very massive read scenarios no SQL database can keep up. You could NEVER handle the likes of Facebook or Twitter on SQL.
Something in between - As you need to scale it depends on what you are doing and where your pain points are as to what will be the best solution for a given situation. Many developers and administrators fear having data broken up into multiple places, but this is often the best answer. Does your analytical data really need to be in the same place as your core operational data? For that matter do your logins need to be tightly coupled? Are you doing a lot of correlated queries? It really depends.
Personal Opinions Ahead
For me, I like the safety net that SQL provides. Having it as the central store for core data it's my first choice. I tend to treat RDBMS's as dumb storage, I don't like being tied to a given platform. I feel that many people try to over-normalize their data. Often I will add an XML or JSON field to a table so additional pieces of data can be stored without bloating the scheme, specifically if it's unlikely to ever be queried... I'll then have properties in my objects in the application code that store in those fields. A good example may be a payment... if you are currently using one system, or multiple systems (one for CC along with Paypal, Google, Amazon etc) then the details of the transaction really don't affect your records, why create 5+ tables to store this detailed data. You can even use JSON for primary storage and have computed columns derived and persisted from that JSON for broader query capability and indexing where needed. Databases like postgresql and mysql (iirc) offer direct indexing against JSON data as well.
When data is a natural fit for a document store, I say go for it... if the vast majority of your queries are for something that fits better to a single record or collection, denormalize away. Having this as a mirror to your primary data is great.
For write-heavy data you want multiple systems in play... It depends heavily on your needs here... Do you need fast hot-query performance? Go with ElasticSearch. Do you need absolute massive horizontal scale, HBase or Cassandra.
The key take away here is not to be afraid to mix it up... there really isn't a one size fits all. As an aside, I feel that if PostgreSQL comes up with a good in the box (for the open-source version) solution for even just replication and automated fail-over they're in a much better position than most at that point.
I didn't really get into, but feel I should mention that there are a number of SaaS solutions and other providers that offer hybrid SQL systems. You can develop against MySQL/MariaDB locally and deploy to a system with SQL on top of a distributed storage cluster. I still feel that HBase or ElasticSearch are better for logging and analitical data, but the SQL on top solutions are also compelling.
More: http://www.mongodb.com/nosql-explained
Schema-less storage (or schema-free). Ability to modify the storage (basically add new fields to records) without having to modify the storage 'declared' schema. RDBMSs require the explicit declaration of said 'fields' and require explicit modifications to the schema before a new 'field' is saved. A schema-free storage engine allows for fast application changes, just modify the app code to save the extra fields, or rename the fields, or drop fields and be done.
Traditional RDBMS folk consider the schema-free a disadvantage because they argue that on the long run one needs to query the storage and handling the heterogeneous records (some have some fields, some have other fields) makes it difficult to handle. But for a start-up the schema-free is overwhelmingly alluring, as fast iteration and time-to-market is all that matter (and often rightly so).
You asked us to assume that either the data can fit on a single machine, OR your database has an effective auto-sharding feature.
Going with the assumption that your SQL data has an auto-sharding feature, that means you're talking about running a cluster. Any time you're running a cluster of machines you have to worry about fault-tolerance.
For example, let's say you're using the simplest approach of sharding your data by application function, and are storing all of your user account data on server A and your product catalog on server B.
Is it acceptable to your business if server A goes down and none of your users can login?
Is it acceptable to your business if server B goes down and no one can buy things?
If not, you need to worry about setting up data replication and high-availability failover. Doable, but not pleasant or easy for SQL databases. Other types of sharding strategies (key, lookup service, etc) have the same challenges.
Many NoSQL databases will automatically handle replication and failovers. Some will do it out of the box, with very little configuration. That's a huge benefit from an operational point of view.
Full disclosure: I'm an engineer at FoundationDB, a NoSQL database that automatically handles sharding, replication, and fail-over with very little configuration. It also has a SQL layer so you you don't have to give up structured data.
I have read great things about key/value stores such as Redis but I can't seem to figure out when it's time to use it in an application.
Say I am architecting a web-based application; I know what stack I am going to use for the front-end, back-end, database(s), etc..what are some scenarios where I would go "oh we also need Redis for X,Y, or Z."
I would appreciate node.js examples as well as non-node.js examples.
I can't seem to figure out when it's time to use it in an application.
I would recommend you to read this tutorial which contains also use cases. Since redis is rather memory oriented it's really good for frequently updated real-time data, such as session store, state database, statistics, caching and its advanced data structures offers versatility to many other scenarios.
Redis, however, isn't NoSQL replacement for classic relational databases since it doesn't support many standard features of RDBMS world such as querying of your data which might slow it down. Replacement are rather document databases like MongoDB or CouchDB and redis is great at supplementing specific functionality where speed and support for advanced data structures comes handy.
I think nothing explains better the use cases for Redis than this article:
http://antirez.com/post/take-advantage-of-redis-adding-it-to-your-stack.html
I bet you'll have an aha! moment. ;)
A quote from a previous reader:
I've read about Redis before and heard how companies are using it, but never completely understood it's purpose. After reading this I can actually say I understand Redis now and how it's useful. Amazing that after hearing so much about it all it took was a relatively simple article.
A quote from the article:
Redis is different than other database solutions in many ways: it uses memory as main storage support and disk only for persistence, the data model is pretty unique, it is single threaded and so forth. I think that another big difference is that in order to take advantage of Redis in your production environment you don't need to switch to Redis. You can just use it in order to do new things that were not possible before, or in order to fix old problems.
Use cases the article touches on:
Slow latest items listings in your home page
Leaderboards and related problems
Order by user votes and time
Implement expires on items
Counting stuff
Unique N items in a given amount of time
Real time analysis of what is happening, for stats, anti spam, or whatever
Pub/Sub
Queues
Caching
I would love to use redis on the real time projects. I did recently
for one gps tracking system which was previously built on mysql as a
database.
ADVANTAGE
Every time the tracker broadcast data I do not need to open mysql connection and store on it. We can save it on redis and later migrate
to mysql using some other process. This will avoid concurrent
connection from mutiple tracker to mysql.
I can publish all those gps data and other clients(javascript/android) can subscribe in a real time using message queue based on redis
I can trigger real time alerts
One thing off hand is that Redis isn't a relational database. If you're going to be needing an SQL "JOIN" then you won't want to use Redis, nor any other non-relational database. Redis is faster though than most relational databases. If you're only going to be doing key:value pair queries, then you'll want to use Redis.
I am considering the option of neo4j for some of the new projects I am working for. For the given data needs (inherently graph based) neo4j fits well and a quick prototype is giving good response time for me. What I want to understand is how to scale a neo4j deployment. Specifically:
How do I shard my data across neo4j deployments. Since neo4j is deployed on a single machine, there is a limit to how much data I can store in a single machine and hence I would like to know how to distribute it. Clearly if I split it on users, then relationships between disconnected users (across shards) cannot be maintained.
How do I replicate the neo4j data? I am potentially thinking of putting up a sql-like-setup with masters used for write and slaves used for reads so that we can both scale up our potentially readers and writers, but also have a backup of our data in real time. I understand that all the neo4j data is stored in a filesystem - which is inherently non-replicatable. Is there a way I can do it here? Perhaps, something akin to a mysql bin log?
sharding is as of now not handled by Neo4j itself, but by the domain, much as you describe. Neo4j 2.0 is going to target that problem.
For replication, Online Backup is working and real High Availability with Master failover is in the works, using ZooKeeper to track the cluster nodes and elect new masters, etc.
Any more details on your app sharding requirements? What domain etc?
I am developing a system that is all about media archiving, searching, uploading, distributing and thus about handling BLOBs.
I am currently trying to find out the best way how to handle the BLOB's. I have limited resources for high end servers with a lot of memory and huge disks, but I can access a large array of medium performance off-the-shelf computers and hook them to the Internet.
Therefore I decided to not store the BLOBs in a central Relational Database, because I would then have, in the worst case, one very heavy Database Instance, possibly on a single average machine. Not an option.
Storing the BLOBs as files directly on the filesystem and storing their path in the database is also somewhat ugly and distribution would have to be managed manually, keeping track of the different copies myself. I don't even want to get close to that.
I looked at CouchDB and I really like their peer-to-peer based design. This would allow me to run a distributed cluster of machines across the Internet, implies:
Low cost Hardware
Distribution for Redundancy and Failover out of the box
Lightweight REST Interface
So if I got it right, one could summarize it like this: Cloud like API and self managed, distributed, replicated system
The rest of the system does the normal stuff any average web application does: handling session, security, users, searching and the like. For this part I still want to use a relational datamodel. (CouchDB claims not to be a replacement for relational databases).
So I would have all the standard data, including the BLOB's meta data in the relational database but the BLOBs themselves in CouchDB.
Do you see a problem with this approach? Am I missing something important? Can you think of better solutions?
Thank you!
You could try Amazon's relational database SimpleDB and S3 toghether with SimpleJPA. SimpleJPA is a JPA-implementation on top of SimpleDB. SimpleJPA uses SimpleDB for the relational structure and S3 to store BLOBs.
Take a look at MongoDB, it supports storing binary data in an efficient format and is incredibly fast
No problem. I have done a design very similar to that one. You may also want to take a peek to HBase as an alternative to CouchDB and to the Adaptive Object-Model architectural pattern, as a way to manage your data and meta-data.