Related
In one of my process I have this SQL query that take 10-20% of the total execution time. This SQL query does a filter on my Database, and load a list of PricingGrid object.
So I want to improve these performance.
So far I guessed 2 solutions :
Use a NoSQL solution, AFAIK these are good solutions for improving reading process.
But the migration seems hard and needs a lot of work (like import the data from sql server to nosql in a regular basis)
I don't have any knowledge , I even don't know which one I should use (the first I'd use is Ravendb because I follow ayende and it's done by the .net community).
I might have some stuff to change in my model to make my object ok for a nosql database
Load all my PricingGrid object in memory (in a static IEnumerable)
This might be a problem when my server won't have enough memory to load everything
I might reinvent the wheel (indexes...) invented by the NoSQL providers
I think I'm not the first one wondering this, so what would be the best solution ? Is there any tools that could help me ?
.net 3.5, SQL Server 2005, windows server 2005
Migrating your data from SQL is only the first step.
Moving to a document store (like RavenDB or MongoDB) also means that you need to:
Denormalize your data
Perform schema validation in your code
Handle concurrency of complex operations in your code since you no longer have transactions (at least not the same way)
Perform rollbacks in the event of partial commits (changes)
Depending on your updates, reads and network model you might also need to handle conflicts
You provided very limited information but it sounds like your needs include a single database server and that your data fits well in the relational model.
In such a case I would vote against a NoSQL solution, it is more likely that you can speed up your queries with database optimizations and still retain all the added value of a RDBMS.
Non-relational databases are tools for a specific job (no matter how they sell them), if you need them it is usually because your data doesn't fit well in the relational model or if you have a need to distribute your data over multiple machines (size or availability). For instance, I use MongoDB for a write-intensive high throughput job management application. It is centralized and the data is very transient so the "cost" of having low durability is acceptable. This doesn't sound like the case for you.
If prefer to use a NoSQL solution perhaps you should try using Memcached+MySQL (InnoDB) this will allow you to get the speed benefits of an in-memory cache (in the form of a memcached daemon plugin) with the underlying protection and capabilities of an RDBMS (MySQL). It should also ease data migration and somewhat reduce the amount of changes required in your code.
I myself have never used it, I find that I either need NoSQL for the reasons I stated above or that I can optimize the RDBMS using stored procedures, indexes and table views in a way which is sufficient for my needs.
Asaf has provided great information in regards to the usage of NoSQL and when it is most appropriate. Given that your main concern was performance, I would tend to agree with his opinion - it would take you much more time and effort to adopt a completely new (and very different) data persistence platform than it would to trick out your SQL Server cluster. That said, my answer is mainly to address the "how" part of your question.
Addressing misunderstandings:
Denormalizing Data - You do not need to manually denormalize your existing data. This will be done for you when it is migrated over. More than anything you need to simply think about your data in a different fashion - root aggregates, entity and value types, etc.
Concurrency/Transactions - Transactions are possible in both Mongo and Raven, they are simply done in a different fashion. One of the inherent ways Raven does this is by using an ORM-like "unit of work" pattern with its RavenSession objects. Yes, your data validation needs to be done in code, but you already should be doing it there anyway. In my experience this is an over-hyped con.
How:
Install Raven or Mongo on a primary server, run it as a service.
Create or extend an existing application that uses the database you intend to port. This application needs all the model classes/libraries that your SQL database provides persistence for.
a. In your "data layer" you likely have a repository class somewhere. Extract an interface form this, and use it to build another repository class for your Raven/Mongo persistence. Both DB's have plenty good documentation for using their APIs to push/pull/update changes in the document graphs. It's pretty damn simple.
b. Load your SQL data into C# objects in memory. Pull back your top-level objects (just the entities) and load their inner collections and related data in memory. Your repository is probably already doing this (ex. when fetching an Order object, ensure not only its properties but associated collections like Items are loaded in memory.
c. Instantiate your Raven/Mongo repository and push the data to it. Primary entities become "top level documents" or "root aggregates" serialized in JSON, and their collections' data nested within. Save changes and close the repository. Note: You may break this step down into as many little pieces as your data deems necessary.
Once your data is migrated, play around with it and ensure you are satisfied. You may want to modify your application Models a little to adjust the way they are persisted to Raven/Mongo - for instance you may want to make both Orders and Items top-level documents and simply use reference values (much like relationships in RDBMS systems). Watch out here though, as doing so sort-of goes against the principal and performance behind NoSQL as now you have to tap the DB twice to get the Order and the Items.
If satisfied, shard/replicate your mongo/raven servers across your remaining available server boxes.
Obviously there are tons of little details I did not explain, but that is the general process, and much of it depends on the applications already consuming the database and may be tricky if more than one app/system talks to it.
Lastly, just to reiterate what Asaf said... learn as much as you can about NoSQL and its best use-cases. It is an amazing tool, but not golden solution for all data persistence. In your case try to really find the bottlenecks in your current solution and see if they are solvable. As one of my systems guys says, "technology for technology's sake is bullshit"
I am currently working on a private project that is going to use Google's GTFS spec to get information about 100s of Public Transit agencies, their routers, stations, times, and other related information. I will be getting my information from here and the google code wiki page with similar info. There is a lot of data and its partitioned into multiple CSV formatted text files. These can be huge, some ranging in 80-100mb of data.
With the data I have, I want to translate it all into a nice solid database that I can build layers on top of to use for my project. I will be using GPS positioning to pinpoint a location and all surrounding stations/stops.
My goal is to access all the information for all these stops and stations with as few calls as possible, while keeping datasets small for queried results.
I am currently leaning towards MongoDB and CouchDB for their GeoSpatial support that can really optimize getting small datasets. But I also need to be sure to link all the stops on a route because I will be propagating information along a transit route for that line. In this case I have found that I can benefit from a Graph DB like Neo4j and OrientDB, but from what I know, neither has GeoSpatial support nor am I 100% sure that a Graph DB would be what I need.
The perfect solution might not exist, but I come here asking for help on finding the best possible for my situation. I know I will possible have to work around limitations of whatever I choose, but I want to at least have done my research and know that its the best I can get at the moment.
I have also been suggested to splinter the data into multiple DBs, but that could get very messy because all the information is very tightly interconnected through IDs.
Any help would be appreciated.
Obviously a graph database fits 100% your problem. My advice here is to go for some geo spatial module over neo4j or orientdb, althought you have some others free and open source implementation.
I think the best one right now, with all the geo spatial thing implemented is neo4j-spatial package. But as far as I know, you can also reproduce most of the geo spatial thing on your own if necessary.
BTW talking about splitting, if the amount of data/queries will be high, I strongly recommend you to share the load and think the model in this terms. Sure you can do something.
I've used Mongo's GeoSpatial features and can offer some guidance if you need help with a C# or javascript implementation - I would recommend it to start because it's super easy to use. I'm learning all about Neo4j right now and I am working on a hybrid approach that takes advantage of both Mongo and Neo4j. You might want to cross reference the documents in Mongo to the nodes in Neo4j using the Mongo object id.
For my hybrid implementation, I'm storing profiles and any other large static data in Mongo. In Neo4j, I'm storing relationships like friend and friend-of-friend. If I wanted to analyze movies two friends are most likely to want to watch together (or really any other relationship I hadn't thought of initially), by keeping that object id reference I can simply add some code instructing each node go out and grab a list of movies from the related profile.
Added 2011-02-12:
Just wanted to follow up on this "hybrid" idea as I created prototypes for and implemented a few more solutions recently where I ended up using more than one database. Martin Fowler refers to this as "Polyglot Persistence."
I'm finding that I am often using a combination of a relational database, document database and a graph database (in my case this is generally SQL Server, MongoDB and Neo4j). Since the question is related to data modeling as much as it is to geospatial, I thought I would touch on that here:
I've used Neo4j for site organization (similar to the idea of hypermedia in the REST model), modeling social data and building recommendations (often based on social data). As a result, I will generally model this part of the application before I begin programming.
I often end up using MongoDB for prototyping the rest of the application because it provides such a simple persistence mechanism. I like to start developing an application with the user interface, so this ends up working well.
When I start moving entities from Mongo to SQL Server, the context is usually important - for instance, if I have an application that allows users to build daily reports based on periodically collected data, it may make sense to run a procedure that builds those reports each night and stores daily report objects in Mongo that may be combined into larger aggregate reports as needed (obviously this doesn't consider a few special cases, but that is not relevant to the point)...on the other hand, if users need to pull on-demand reports limited to very specific time periods, it may make sense to keep everything in SQL server and build those reports as needed.
That said, and this deserves more intense thought, here are some considerations that may be helpful:
I generally try to store entities in a relational database if I find that pulling an entity from the database [in other words(in the context of a relational database) - querying data from the database that provides the data required to generate an entity or list of entities that fulfills the requested parameters] does not require significant processing (multiple joins, for instance)
Do you require ACID compliance(aside:if you have a graph problem, you can leverage Neo4j for this)? There are document databases with ACID compliance, but there's a reason Mongo is not: What does MongoDB not being ACID compliant really mean?
One use of Mongo I saw in the wild that I thought was worthy of mention - Hadoop was being used to compute massive hash tables that were then stored in Mongo. I believe a similar approach is used by TripAdvisor for user based customization in terms of targeting offers, advertising, etc..
NoSQL only exists because MySQL users assume that all databases have their performance problems when their database grows large and/or becomes complex.
I suggest that you use PostGIS. You can use the same database for the rest of your data needs as well.
http://postgis.refractions.net/
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm not quite sure stackoverflow is a place for such a general question, but let's give it a try.
Being exposed to the need of storing application data somewhere, I've always used MySQL or sqlite, just because it's always done like that. As it seems like the whole world is using these databases (most of all software products, frameworks, etc), it is rather hard for a beginning developer like me to start thinking about whether this is a good solution or not.
Ok, say we have some object-oriented logic in our application, and objects are related to each other somehow. We need to map this logic to the storage logic, so relations between database objects are required too. This leads us to using relational database, and I'm ok with that - to put it simple, our database table rows sometimes will need to have references to other tables' rows. But why use SQL language for interaction with such a database?
SQL query is a text message. I can understand this is cool for actually understanding what it does, but isn't it silly to use text table and column names for a part of application that no one ever seen after deploynment? If you had to write a data storage from scratch, you would have never used this kind of solution. Personally, I would have used some 'compiled db query' bytecode, that would be assembled once inside a client application and passed to the database. And it surely would name tables and colons by id numbers, not ascii-strings. In the case of changes in table structure those byte queries could be recompiled according to new db schema, stored in XML or something like that.
What are the problems of my idea? Is there any reason for me not to write it myself and to use SQL database instead?
EDIT To make my question more clear. Most of answers claim that SQL, being a text query, helps developers better understand the query itself and debug it more easily. Personally, I haven't seen people writing SQL queries by hand for a while. Everyone I know, including me, is using ORM. This situation, in which we build up a new level of abstraction to hide SQL, leads to thinking if we need SQL or not. I would be very grateful if you could give some examples in which SQL is used without ORM purposely, and why.
EDIT2 SQL is an interface between a human and a database. The question is why do we have to use it for application/database interaction? I still ask for examples of human beings writing/debugging SQL.
Everyone I know, including me, is using ORM
Strange. Everyone I know, including me, still writes most of the SQL by hand. You typically end up with tighter, more high performance queries than you do with a generated solution. And, depending on your industry and application, this speed does matter. Sometimes a lot. yeah, I'll sometimes use LINQ for a quick-n-dirty where I don't really care what the resulting SQL looks like, but thus far nothing automated beats hand-tuned SQL for when performance against a large database in a high-load environment really matters.
If all you need to do is store some application data somewhere, then a general purpose RDBMS or even SQLite might be overkill. Serializing your objects and writing them to a file might be simpler in some cases. An advantage to SQLite is that if you have a lot of this kind of information, it is all contained in one file. A disadvantage is that it is more difficult to read it. For example, if you serialize you data to YAML, you can read the file with any text editor or shell.
Personally, I would have used some
'compiled db query' bytecode, that
would be assembled once inside a
client application and passed to the
database.
This is how some database APIs work. Check out static SQL and prepared statements.
Is there any reason for me not to
write it myself and to use SQL
database instead?
If you need a lot of features, at some point it will be easier to use an existing RDMBS then to write your own database from scratch. If you don't need many features, a simpler solution may be wiser.
The whole point of database products is to avoid writing the database layer for every new program. Yes, a modern RDMBS might not always be a perfect fit for every project. This is because they were designed to be very general, so in practice, you will always get additional features you don't need. That doesn't mean it is better to have a custom solution. The glove doesn't always need to be a perfect fit.
UPDATE:
But why use SQL language for
interaction with such a database?
Good question.
The answer to that may be found in the original paper describing the relational model A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks, by E. F. Codd, published by IBM in 1970. This paper describes the problems with the existing database technologies of the time, and explains why the relational model is superior.
The reason for using the relational model, and thus a logical query language like SQL, is data independence.
Data independence is defined in the paper as:
"... the independence of application programs and terminal activities from the growth in data types and changes in data representations."
Before the relational model, the dominate technology for databases was referred to as the network model. In this model, the programmer had to know the on-disk structure of the data and traverse the tree or graph manually. The relational model allows one to write a query against the conceptual or logical scheme that is independent of the physical representation of the data on disk. This separation of logical scheme from the physical schema is why we use the relational model. For a more on this issue, here are some slides from a database class. In the relational model, we use logic based query languages like SQL to retrieve data.
Codd's paper goes into more detail about the benefits of the relational model. Give it a read.
SQL is a query language that is easy to type into a computer in contrast with the query languages typically used in a research papers. Research papers generally use relation algebra or relational calculus to write queries.
In summary, we use SQL because we happen to use the relational model for our databases.
If you understand the relational model, it is not hard to see why SQL is the way it is. So basically, you need to study the relation model and database internals more in-depth to really understand why we use SQL. It may be a bit of a mystery otherwise.
UPDATE 2:
SQL is an interface between a human
and a database. The question is why do
we have to use it for
application/database interaction? I
still ask for examples of human beings
writing/debugging SQL.
Because the database is a relational database, it only understands relational query languages. Internally it uses a relational algebra like language for specifying queries which it then turns into a query plan. So, we write our query in a form we can understand (SQL), the DB takes our SQL query and turns it into its internal query language. Then it takes the query and tries to find a "query plan" for executing the query. Then it executes the query plan and returns the result.
At some point, we must encode our query in a format that the database understands. The database only knows how to convert SQL to its internal representation, that is why there is always SQL at some point in the chain. It cannot be avoided.
When you use ORM, your just adding a layer on top of the SQL. The SQL is still there, its just hidden. If you have a higher-level layer for translating your request into SQL, then you don't need to write SQL directly which is beneficial in some cases. Some times we do not have such a layer that is capable of doing the kinds of queries we need, so we must use SQL.
Given the fact that you used MySQL and SQLite, I understand your point of view completely. Most DBMS have features that would require some of the programming from your side, while you get it from database for free:
Indexes - you can store large amounts of data and still be able to filter and search very quickly because of indexes. Of course, you could implement you own indexing, but why reinvent the wheel
data integrity - using database features like cascading foreign keys can ensure data integrity across the system. You only need to declare relationship between data, and system takes care of the rest. Of course, once more, you could implement constraints in code, but it's more work. Consider, for example, deletion, where you would have to write code in object's destructor to track all dependent objects and act accordingly
ability to have multiple applications written in different programming languages, working on different operating systems, some even distributed across the network - all using the same data stored in a common database
dead easy implementation of observer pattern via triggers. There are many cases where only some data depends on some other data and it does not affect UI aspect of application. Ensuring consistency can be very tricky or require a lot of programming. Of course, you could implement trigger-like behavior with objects but it requires more programming than simple SQL definition
There are some good answers here. I'll attempt to add my two cents.
I like SQL, I can think in it pretty easily. The queries produced by layers on top of the DB (like ORM frameworks) are usually hideous. They'll select tons of extra stuff, join in things you don't need, etc.; all because they don't know that you only want a small part of the object in this code. When you need high performance, you'll often end up going in and using at least some custom SQL queries in an ORM system just to speed up a few bottlenecks.
Why SQL? As others have said, it's easy for humans. It makes a good lowest common denominator. Any language can make SQL and call command line clients if necessary, and they is pretty much always a good library.
Is parsing out the SQL inefficient? Somewhat. The grammar is pretty structured, so there aren't tons of ambiguities that would make the parser's job really hard. The real thing is that the overhead of parsing out SQL is basically nothing.
Let's say you run a query like "SELECT x FROM table WHERE id = 3", and then do it again with 4, then 5, over and over. In that case, the parsing overhead may exist. That's why you have prepared statements (as others have mentioned). The server parses the query once, and can swap in the 3 and 4 and 5 without having to reparse everything.
But that's the trivial case. In real life, your system may join 6 tables and have to pull hundreds of thousands of records (if not more). It may be a query that you let run on a database cluster for hours, because that's the best way to do things in your case. Even with a query that takes only a minute or two to execute, the time to parse the query is essentially free compared to pulling records off disk and doing sorting/aggregation/etc. The overhead of sending the ext "LEFT OUTER JOIN ON" is only a few bytes compared to sending special encoded byte 0x3F. But when your result set is 30 MB (let alone gigs+), those few extra bytes are worthless compared to not having to mess with some special query compiler object.
Many people use SQL on small databases. The biggest one I interact with is only a few dozen gigs. SQL is used on everything from tiny files (like little SQLite DBs may be) up to terabyte size Oracle clusters. Considering it's power, it's actually a surprisingly simple and small command set.
It's an ubiquitous standard. Pretty much every programming language out there has a way to access SQL databases. Try that with a proprietary binary protocol.
Everyone knows it. You can find experts easily, new developers will usually understand it to some degree without requiring training
SQL is very closely tied to the relational model, which has been thoroughly explored in regard to optimization and scalability. But it still frequently requires manual tweaking (index creation, query structure, etc.), which is relatively easy due to the textual interface.
But why use SQL language for interaction with such a database?
I think it's for the same reason that you use a human-readable (source code) language for interaction with the compiler.
Personally, I would have used some 'compiled db query' bytecode, that would be assembled once inside a client application and passed to the database.
This is an existing (optional) feature of databases, called "stored procedures".
Edit:
I would be very grateful if you could give some examples in which SQL is used without ORM purposely, and why
When I implemented my own ORM, I implemented the ORM framework using ADO.NET: and using ADO.NET includes using SQL statements in its implementation.
After all the edits and comments, the main point of your question appears to be : why is the nature of SQL closer to being a human/database interface than to being an application/database interface ?
And the very simple answer to that question is : because that is exactly what it was originally intended to be.
The predecessors of SQL (QUEL being presumably the most important one) were intended to be exactly that : a QUERY language, i.e. one that didn't have any of INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE.
Moreover, it was intended to be a query language that could be used by any user, provided that user was aware of the logical structure of the database, and obviously knew how to express that logical structure in the query language he was using.
The original ideas behind QUEL/SQL were that a database was built using "just any mechanism conceivable", that the "real" database could be really just anything (e.g. one single gigantic XML file - allthough 'XML' was not considered a valid option at the time), and that there would be "some kind of machinery" that understood how to transform the actual structure of that 'just anything' into the logical relational structure as it was perceived by the SQL user.
The fact that in order to actually achieve that, the underlying structures are required to lend themselves to "viewing them relationally", was not understood as well in those days as it is now.
Yes, it is annoying to have to write SQL statements to store and retrieve objects.
That's why Microsoft have added things like LINQ (language integrated query) into C# and VB.NET to make it possible to query databases using objects and methods instead of strings.
Most other languages have something similar with varying levels of success depending on the abilities of that language.
On the other hand, it is useful to know how SQL works and I think it is a mistake to shield yourself entirely from it. If you use the database without thinking you can write extremely inefficient queries and index the database incorrectly. But once you understand how to use SQL correctly and have tuned your database, you have a very powerful tried-and-tested tool available for finding exactly the data you need extremely quickly.
My biggest reason for SQL is Ad-hoc reporting. That report your business users want but don't know that they need it yet.
SQL is an interface between a human
and a database. The question is why do
we have to use it for
application/database interaction? I
still ask for examples of human beings
writing/debugging SQL.
I use sqlite a lot right from the simplest of tasks (like logging my firewall logs directly to a sqlite database) to more complex analytic and debugging tasks in my day-to-day research. Laying out my data in tables and writing SQL queries to munge them in interesting ways seems to be the most natural thing to me in these situations.
On your point about why it is still used as an interface between application/database, this is my simple reasoning:
There is about 3-4 decades of
serious research in that area
starting in 1970 with Codd's seminal
paper on Relational Algebra.
Relational Algebra forms the
mathematical basis to SQL (and other
QLs), although SQL does not
completely follow the relational
model.
The "text" form of the language
(aside from being easily
understandable to humans) is also
easily parsable by machines (say
using a grammar parser like like
lex) and is easily convertable to whatever "bytecode" using any number of optimizations.
I am not sure if doing this in any
other way would have yielded
compelling benefits in the generic cases. Otherwise it
would have been probably discovered
and adopted in the 3 decades of
research. SQL probably provides the
best tradeoffs when bridging the
divide between humans/databases and
applications/databases.
The question that then becomes interesting to ask is, "What are the real benefits of doing SQL in any other "non-text" way?" Will google for this now:)
SQL is a common interface used by the DBMS platform - the entire point of the interface is that all database operations can be specified in SQL without needing supplementary API calls. This means that there is a common interface across all clients of the system - application software, reports and ad-hoc query tools.
Secondly, SQL gets more and more useful as queries get more complex. Try using LINQ to specify a 12-way join a with three conditions based on existential predicates and a condition based on an aggregate calculated in a subquery. This sort of thing is fairly comprehensible in SQL but unlikely to be possible in an ORM.
In many cases an ORM will do 95% of what you want - most of the queries issued by applications are simple CRUD operations that an ORM or other generic database interface mechanism can handle easily. Some operations are best done using custom SQL code.
However, ORMs are not the be-all and end-all of database interfacing. Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture has quite a good section on other types of database access strategy with some discussion of the merits of each.
There are often good reasons not to use an ORM as the primary database interface layer. An example of a good one is that platform database libraries like ADO.Net often do a good enough job and integrate nicely with the rest of the environment. You might find that the gain from using some other interface doesn't really outweigh the benefits from the integration.
However, the final reason that you can't really ignore SQL is that you are ultimately working with a database if you are doing a database application. There are many, many WTF stories about screw-ups in commercial application code done by people who didn't understand databases properly. Poorly thought-out database code can cause trouble in so many ways, and blithely thinking that you don't need to understand how the DBMS works is an act of Hubris that is bound to come and bite you some day. Worse yet, it will come and bite some other poor schmoe who inherits your code.
While I see your point, SQL's query language has a place, especially in large applications with a lot of data. And to point out the obvious, if the language wasn't there, you couldn't call it SQL (Structured Query Language). The benefit of having SQL over the method you described is SQL is generally very readable, though some really push the limits on their queries.
I whole heartly agree with Mark Byers, you should not shield yourself from SQL. Any developer can write SQL, but to really make your application perform well with SQL interaction, understanding the language is a must.
If everything was precompiled with bytecode as you described, I'd hate to be the one to have to debug the application after the original developer left (or even after not seeing the code for 6 months).
I think the premise of the question is incorrect. That SQL can be represented as text is immaterial. Most modern databases would only compile queries once and cache them anyway, so you already have effectively a 'compiled bytecode'. And there's no reason this couldn't happen client-wise though I'm not sure if anyone's done it.
You said SQL is a text message, well I think of him as a messenger, and, as we know, don't shoot the messenger. The real issue is that relations are not a good enough way of organising real world data. SQL is just lipstick on the pig.
If the first part you seem to refer to what is usually called the Object - relational mapping impedance. There are already a lot of frameworks to alleviate that problem. There are tradeofs as well. Some things will be easier, others will get more complex, but in the general case they work well if you can afford the extra layer.
In the second part you seem to complain about SQL being text (it uses strings instead of ids, etc)... SQL is a query language. Any language (computer or otherwise) that is meant to be read or written by humans is text oriented for that matter. Assembly, C, PHP, you name it. Why? Because, well... it does make sense, doesn't it?
If you want precompiled queries, you already have stored procedures. Prepared statements are also compiled once on the fly, IIRC. Most (if not all) db drivers talk to the database server using a binary protocol anyway.
yes, text is a bit inefficient. But actually getting the data is a lot more costly, so the text based sql is reasonably insignificant.
SQL was created to provide an interface to make ad hoc queries against a relational database.
Generally, most relational databases understand some form of SQL.
Object-oriented databases exist, and (presumably) use objects to do their querying... but as I understand it, OO databases have a lot more overheard, and relational databases work just fine.
Relational Databases also allow you to operate in a "disconnected" state. Once you have the information you asked for, you can close the database connection. With an OO database, you either need to return all objects related to the current one (and the ones they're related to... and the... etc...) or reopen the connection to retrieve new objects as they are accessed.
In addition to SQL, you also have ORMs (object-relational mappings) that map objects to SQL and back. There are quite a few of them, including LINQ (.NET), the MS Entity Framework (.NET), Hibernate (Java), SQLAlchemy (Python), ActiveRecord (Ruby), Class::DBI (Perl), etc...
A database language is useful because it provides a logical model for your data independent of any applications that use it. SQL has a lot of shortcomings however, not the least being that its integration with other languages is poor, type support is about 30 years behind the rest of the industry and it has never been a truly relational language anyway.
SQL has survived mostly because the database market has been and remains dominated by the three mega-vendors who have a vested interest in protecting their investment. That's changing and SQL's days are probably numbered but the model that will finally replace it probably hasn't arrived yet - although there are plenty of contenders around these days.
I don't think most people are getting your question, though I think it's very clear. Unfortunately I don't have the "correct" answer. I would guess it's a combination of several things:
Semi-arbitrary decisions when it was designed such as ease of use, not needing a SQL compiler (or IDE), portability, etc.
It happened to catch on well (probably due to similar reasons)
And now due to historical reasons (compatibility, well known, proven, etc.) continues to be used.
I don't think most companies have bothered with another solution because it works well, isn't much of a bottleneck, it's a standard, blah, blah..
One of the Unix design principles can be said thusly, "Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.".
And that, I believe, is why we typically use SQL instead of some 'byte-SQL' that only has a compilation interface. Even if we did have a byte-SQL, someone would write a "Text SQL", and the loop would be complete.
Also, MySQL and SQLite are less full-featured than, say, MSSQL and Oracle SQL. So you're still in the low end of the SQL pool.
Actually there are a few non-SQL database (like Objectivity, Oracle Berkeley DB, etc.) products came but non of them succeeded. In future if someone finds intuitive alternative for SQL, that will answer your question.
There are a lot of non relational database systems. Here are just a few:
Memcached
Tokyo Cabinet
As far as finding a relational database that doesn't use SQL as its primary interface, I think you won't find it. Reason: SQL is a great way to talk about relations. I can't figure out why that's a big deal to you: if you don't like SQL, put an abstraction over it (like an ORM) so you don't have to worry about it. Let the abstraction worry about it. It gets you to the same place.
However, the problem your'e really mentioning here is the object-relation disconnect - the problem is with the relation itself. Objects and relational-tuples don't always lend themselves to be a 1-1 relationship, which is the reason why a developer can frustrated with a database. The solution to that is to use a different database type.
Because often, you cannot be sure that (citing you) "no one ever seen after deployment". Knowing that there is an easy interface for reporting and for dataset level querying is a good path for evolution of your app.
You're right, that there are other solutions that may be valid in some situations: XML, plain text files, OODB...
But having a set of common interfaces (like ODBC) is a huge plus for the life of data.
I think the reason might be the search/find/grab algorithms the sql laungage is connected to do. Remember that sql has been developed for 40 years - and the goal has been both preformence wise and user firendly wise.
Ask yourself what the best way of finding 2 attibutes is. Now why investigating that each time you would want to do something that includes that each time you develope your application. Assuming the main goal is the developing of your application when developing an application.
An application has similarities with other applications, a database has similarities with other databases. So there should be a "best way" of these to interact, logically.
Also ask yourself how you would develop a better console only application that does not use sql laungage. If you cannot do that I think you need to develope a new kind of GUI that are even more fundamentally easier to use than with a console - to develope things from it. And that might actually be possible. But still most development of applications is based around console and typing.
Then when it comes to laungage I don´t think you can make a much more fundamentally easier text laungage than sql. And remember that each word of anything is inseperatly connected to its meaning - if you remove the meaning the word cannot be used - if you remove the word you cannot communicate the meaning. You have nothing to describe it with (And maybe you cannot even think it beacuse it woulden´t be connected to anything else you have thought before...).
So basically the best possible algorithms for database manipulation are assigned to words - if you remove these words you will have to assign these manipulations something else - and what would that be?
i think you can use ORM
if and only if you know the basic of sql.
else the result there isn't the best
The reason why I ask this is because I need to know whether not using ORM for a social networking site makes any sense at all.
My argument why ORM does not fit into social networking sites are:
Social networking sites are not a product, thus you don't need to support multiple database. You know what database to use, and you most likely won't change it every now and then.
Social networking sites requires many-to-many relationship between users, and in the end sometimes you will need to write plain SQL to get those relations. The value of ORM is thus decreased again.
Related to the previous point, ORM sometimes do multiple queries in the backend to fetch its record, which sometimes may be inefficient and may cause bottleneck in the database. In the end you have to write down plain SQL query. If we know we are going to write plain SQL anyway, what is the point using ORM?
This is my limited understanding based on my limited experience. What are you're experience with building a social networking sites? Are my points valid? Is it lame to use bare SQL without worrying about using ORM? What are the points where ORM may help in building a social networking sites?
The value of using an ORM is to help speed up development, by automating the tedious work of assigning query results to object fields, and tracking changes to object fields so you can save them to the database. Hence the term Object-Relational Mapping.
An ORM has little value for you regarding database portability, since you only use the one database you deploy on.
The runtime performance aspect of an ORM is no better than, and typically much worse than writing plain SQL yourself. The generic methods of query generation often make naive mistakes and result in redundant queries, as you have mentioned. Again, the benefit is in development time, not runtime efficiency.
Using an ORM versus not using an ORM doesn't seem to make a huge difference for scalability. Other techniques with more bang-for-the-buck for scalability include:
Managing indexes in the RDBMS. Improve as many algorithms as possible from O(n) to O(log2n).
Intelligent caching architecture.
Horizontal scaling by database partitioning/sharding.
Database load-balancing and replication. Read from slave databases where possible, and write to a single master database. Index slaves and masters differently.
Supplement the RDBMS with complementary technology, such as Sphinx Search.
Vertical scaling by throwing hardware at the problem. Jeff Atwood has commented about this on the StackOverflow podcast.
Some people advocate moving your data management to a distributed architecture using cloud computing or distributed non-relational databases. This is probably not necessary until you get a very large number of users. Once you grow to a certain level of magnitude, all the rules change and you probably can't use an RDBMS anyway. But unless you are the data architect at Yahoo or Facebook or LinkedIn, don't worry about it -- cloud computing is over-hyped.
There's a common wisdom that the database is always the bottleneck in web apps, but there's also a case that improving efficiency on the front-end is at least as important. Cf. books by Steve Souders.
Julia Lerman in Programming Entity Framework (2009), p.503 shows that there's a 220% increase in query execution cost between using a DataReader directly and using Microsoft’s LINQ to Entities.
Also see Jeff Atwood's post on All Abstractions are Failed Abstractions, where he shows that using LINQ is at least double the cost of using plain SQL even in a naive way.
Here's my response to your points:
ORM does not need multiple database to be effective, in fact most cases of ORM usage are not due to the ability to adapt to different databases.
Most modern ORM frameworks are flexible enough to fetch 'lightweight' variants of mapped classes, it really depends on how you implement them.
If really required to, you can write native SQL queries within the ORM frameworks. Do note that caching and performance related algorithms are often part of the these frameworks.
IMO, an ORM helps you write cleaner, clearer code. If you use it sloppily you can cause excessive queries, but that isn't a rule by any means. If I were you I would start using the ORM and best practices of a framework, and only drop to SQL if you find yourself needing functionality that the ORM does not provide.
Also note that in web applications, many people are moving away from SQL databases. An ORM might help you to migrate to a non-relational database (precisely because you do not have SQL in your application code). Look at the use of JDO and JPA in Google's App Engine.
IMHO. ORM is need.
It allow you to access database in OOP way, no matter multiple database or not.
Cleaner code, you can define all method related to a particular table in the table class file, if you need raw sql join query, no problem, define there. it follows DRY and KISS. It is much better than you write similar raw sql query again and again.
The odds of your site being big enough that scaling becomes an issue are quite small so why prematurely optimize by doing everything in raw SQL instead of an ORM? You can get fairly far by throwing better hardware at a database assuming the database and application design are decent. While you may need to write raw SQL for things like creating friend graphs what about all the little things like updating the database when someone changes there email, sends a private message, uploads a photo, etc? Using an ORM can simplify all the simple database tasks you will have to do while still allowing you to hand code where absolutely necessary.
Can you please point to alternative data storage tools and give good reasons to use them instead of good-old relational databases? In my opinion, most applications rarely use the full power of SQL--it would be interesting to see how to build an SQL-free application.
Plain text files in a filesystem
Very simple to create and edit
Easy for users to manipulate with simple tools (i.e. text editors, grep etc)
Efficient storage of binary documents
XML or JSON files on disk
As above, but with a bit more ability to validate the structure.
Spreadsheet / CSV file
Very easy model for business users to understand
Subversion (or similar disk based version control system)
Very good support for versioning of data
Berkeley DB (Basically, a disk based hashtable)
Very simple conceptually (just un-typed key/value)
Quite fast
No administration overhead
Supports transactions I believe
Amazon's Simple DB
Much like Berkeley DB I believe, but hosted
Google's App Engine Datastore
Hosted and highly scalable
Per document key-value storage (i.e. flexible data model)
CouchDB
Document focus
Simple storage of semi-structured / document based data
Native language collections (stored in memory or serialised on disk)
Very tight language integration
Custom (hand-written) storage engine
Potentially very high performance in required uses cases
I can't claim to know anything much about them, but you might also like to look into object database systems.
Matt Sheppard's answer is great (mod up), but I would take account these factors when thinking about a spindle:
Structure : does it obviously break into pieces, or are you making tradeoffs?
Usage : how will the data be analyzed/retrieved/grokked?
Lifetime : how long is the data useful?
Size : how much data is there?
One particular advantage of CSV files over RDBMSes is that they can be easy to condense and move around to practically any other machine. We do large data transfers, and everything's simple enough we just use one big CSV file, and easy to script using tools like rsync. To reduce repetition on big CSV files, you could use something like YAML. I'm not sure I'd store anything like JSON or XML, unless you had significant relationship requirements.
As far as not-mentioned alternatives, don't discount Hadoop, which is an open source implementation of MapReduce. This should work well if you have a TON of loosely structured data that needs to be analyzed, and you want to be in a scenario where you can just add 10 more machines to handle data processing.
For example, I started trying to analyze performance that was essentially all timing numbers of different functions logged across around 20 machines. After trying to stick everything in a RDBMS, I realized that I really don't need to query the data again once I've aggregated it. And, it's only useful in it's aggregated format to me. So, I keep the log files around, compressed, and then leave the aggregated data in a DB.
Note I'm more used to thinking with "big" sizes.
The filesystem's prety handy for storing binary data, which never works amazingly well in relational databases.
Try Prevayler:
http://www.prevayler.org/wiki/
Prevayler is alternative to RDBMS. In the site have more info.
If you don't need ACID, you probably don't need the overhead of an RDBMS. So, determine whether you need that first. Most of the non-RDBMS answers provided here do not provide ACID.
Custom (hand-written) storage engine / Potentially very high performance in required uses cases
http://www.hdfgroup.org/
If you have enormous data sets, instead of rolling your own, you might use HDF, the Hierarchical Data Format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Data_Format:
HDF supports several different data models, including multidimensional arrays, raster images, and tables.
It's also hierarchical like a file system, but the data is stored in one magic binary file.
HDF5 is a suite that makes possible the management of extremely large and complex data collections.
Think petabytes of NASA/JPL remote sensing data.
G'day,
One case that I can think of is when the data you are modelling cannot be easily represented in a relational database.
Once such example is the database used by mobile phone operators to monitor and control base stations for mobile telephone networks.
I almost all of these cases, an OO DB is used, either a commercial product or a self-rolled system that allows heirarchies of objects.
I've worked on a 3G monitoring application for a large company who will remain nameless, but whose logo is a red wine stain (-: , and they used such an OO DB to keep track of all the various attributes for individual cells within the network.
Interrogation of such DBs is done using proprietary techniques that are, usually, completely free from SQL.
HTH.
cheers,
Rob
Object databases are not relational databases. They can be really handy if you just want to stuff some objects in a database. They also support versioning and modify classes for objects that already exist in the database. db4o is the first one that comes to mind.
In some cases (financial market data and process control for example) you might need to use a real-time database rather than a RDBMS. See wiki link
There was a RAD tool called JADE written a few years ago that has a built-in OODBMS. Earlier incarnations of the DB engine also supported Digitalk Smalltalk. If you want to sample application building using a non-RDBMS paradigm this might be a start.
Other OODBMS products include Objectivity, GemStone (You will need to get VisualWorks Smalltalk to run the Smalltalk version but there is also a java version). There were also some open-source research projects in this space - EXODUS and its descendent SHORE come to mind.
Sadly, the concept seemed to die a death, probably due to the lack of a clearly visible standard and relatively poor ad-hoc query capability relative to SQL-based RDMBS systems.
An OODBMS is most suitable for applications with core data structures that are best represented as a graph of interconnected nodes. I used to say that the quintessential OODBMS application was a Multi-User Dungeon (MUD) where rooms would contain players' avatars and other objects.
You can go a long way just using files stored in the file system. RDBMSs are getting better at handling blobs, but this can be a natural way to handle image data and the like, particularly if the queries are simple (enumerating and selecting individual items.)
Other things that don't fit very well in a RDBMS are hierarchical data structures and I'm guessing geospatial data and 3D models aren't that easy to work with either.
Services like Amazon S3 provide simpler storage models (key->value) that don't support SQL. Scalability is the key there.
Excel files can be useful too, particularly if users need to be able to manipulate the data in a familiar environment and building a full application to do that isn't feasible.
There are a large number of ways to store data - even "relational databse" covers a range of alternatives from a simple library of code that manipulates a local file (or files) as if it were a relational database on a single user basis, through file based systems than can handle multiple-users to a generous selection of serious "server" based systems.
We use XML files a lot - you get well structured data, nice tools for querying same the ability to do edits if appropriate, something that's human readable and you don't then have to worry about the db engine working (or the workings of the db engine). This works well for stuff that's essentially read only (in our case more often than not generated from a db elsewhere) and also for single user systems where you can just load the data in and save it out as required - but you're creating opportunities for problems if you want multi-user editing - at least of a single file.
For us that's about it - we're either going to use something that will do SQL (MS offer a set of tools that run from a .DLL to do single user stuff all the way through to enterprise server and they all speak the same SQL (with limitations at the lower end)) or we're going to use XML as a format because (for us) the verbosity is seldom an issue.
We don't currently have to manipulate binary data in our apps so that question doesn't arise.
Murph
One might want to consider the use of an LDAP server in the place of a traditional SQL database if the application data is heavily key/value oriented and hierarchical in nature.
BTree files are often much faster than relational databases. SQLite contains within it a BTree library which is in the public domain (as in genuinely 'public domain', not using the term loosely).
Frankly though, if I wanted a multi-user system I would need a lot of persuading not to use a decent server relational database.
Full-text databases, which can be queried with proximity operators such as "within 10 words of," etc.
Relational databases are an ideal business tool for many purposes - easy enough to understand and design, fast enough, adequate even when they aren't designed and optimized by a genius who could "use the full power," etc.
But some business purposes require full-text indexing, which relational engines either don't provide or tack on as an afterthought. In particular, the legal and medical fields have large swaths of unstructured text to store and wade through.
Also:
* Embedded scenarios - Where usually it is required to use something smaller then a full fledged RDBMS. Db4o is an ODB that can be easily used in such case.
* Rapid or proof-of-concept development - where you wish to focus on the business and not worry about persistence layer
CAP theorem explains it succinctly. SQL mainly provides "Strong Consistency: all clients see the same view, even in presence of updates".
K.I.S.S: Keep It Small and Simple
I would offer RDBMS :)
If you do not wont to have troubles with set up/administration go for SQLite.
Built in RDBMS with full SQL support. It even allows you to store any type of data in any column.
Main advantage against for example log file: If you have huge one, how are you going to search in it? With SQL engine you just create index and speed up operation dramatically.
About full text search: SQLite has modules for full text search too..
Just enjoy nice standard interface to your data :)
One good reason not to use a relational database would be when you have a massive data set and want to do massively parallel and distributed processing on the data. The Google web index would be a perfect example of such a case.
Hadoop also has an implementation of the Google File System called the Hadoop Distributed File System.
I would strongly recommend Lua as an alternative to SQLite-kind of data storage.
Because:
The language was designed as a data description language to begin with
The syntax is human readable (XML is not)
One can compile Lua chunks to binary, for added performance
This is the "native language collection" option of the accepted answer. If you're using C/C++ as the application level, it is perfectly reasonable to throw in the Lua engine (100kB of binary) just for the sake of reading configs/data or writing them out.