Apologies if the title made no absolute sense. But, on the other hand, I would like to know if there is any programming model which would let us use Infinispan cache as a real datastore and not just a grid on top of an underlying rdbms.
I know Key-Value stores have real limitations but I couldn't stop thinking about the possibilities of an in-memory solution with all or a subset of RDBMS functionalities. For example: If I want to retrieve a particular set of Keys based on value>34.56%, just like how we would use a where clause in an sql stmt.
My doubt is not specific to infinispan but any IMKVS for that purpose. I know it's a shot in the dark considering the data structures and algorithms behind IMKVS specifications.
Any help or direction to resources which talk about these lines would be of great help.
I suggest you write down all the queries that you execute against SQL DB and check if these could be translated into KVS language.
In Infinispan you can index the values and execute queries for such filtering, but you can't do any table joins.
If you are in need for more powerful API, specifically using JPA, take a look at Hibernate OGM.
And while KVSs offer some level of reliability, in practice I wouldn't trust the documentation too much. You need to perform extensive testing of your system and check that you can retrieve the data even after various types of crashes and network failures (or that you can live with throwing the data away).
I am currently researching what database to use for a project I am working on. Hopefully you guys can give me some hints.
The project is an automated web crawler that checks websites as per a user's request, scrapes data under certain circumstances, and creates log files of what was done.
Requirements:
Only few tables with few columns; predefining columns is no problem
No overly complex associations between models
Huge amount of date & time based queries
Due to logging, database will grow rapidly and use up a lot of space
Should be able to scale over multiple servers
Fields contain mostly ids (int), strings (around 200-500 characters max), and unix timestamps
Two different types of servers will simultaneously read/write data directly to/from it:
One(/later more) rails app that takes user input and displays results upon request
One(/later more) Node.js server that functions as the executing crawler/scraper. It will have enough load to run continuously and make dozens of database queries every second.
I assume it will neither be a graph database (no complex associations), nor a memory based key/value store (too much data to hold in cached). I'm still on the fence for every other type of database I could find, each seems to have it's merits.
So, any advice from the pros how I should decide?
Thanks.
I would agree with Vladimir that you would want to consider a document-based database for this scenario. I am most familiar with MongoDB. My reasons for using it here are as follows:
Your 'schema requirements' of "only a few tables with few columns" fits well with the NoSQL nature of MongoDB.
Same as above for "no overly complex associations between nodes" -- you will want to decide whether you'd prefer nested documents or using dbref (I prefer the former)
Huge amount of time-based data (and other scaling requirements) - MongoDB scales well via sharding or partitioning
Read/write access - this is why I am recommending MongoDB over something like Hadoop. The interactive query requirement is best met by something other than a Hadoop-style store, as this type of storage is designed for batch (rather than interactive query) requirements.
Google built a database called "BigTable" for crawling, indexing and the search related business. They released a paper about it (google for "BigTable" if you're interested). There are several open source implementations for bigtable-like designs, one of them is Hypertable. We have a blog posting describing a crawler/indexer implementation (http://hypertable.com/blog/sehrchcom_a_structured_search_engine_powered_by_hypertable/) written by the guys from sehrch.com. And looking at your requirements: all of them are supported and are common use cases.
(disclaimer: i work for hypertable.)
Take a look at document-oriented database like a CouchDB or MongoDB.
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"
My project (in Ruby on Rails 3) is to develop a "social network" site with the following features:
Users can be friends. It's mutual friendships; not asymetric like Twitter.
Users can publish links, to share them. Friends of a user can see what this user has shared.
Friends can comment on those shared links.
So basically we have Users, Links, and Comments, and all that is connected. An interesting thing in social networks is that the User table has kind of a many-to-many relation with itself.
I think I can handle that level of complexity with SQL and RoR.
My question is: would it be a good idea to use MongoDB (or CouchDB) for such a site?
To be honest, I think the answer is no. MongoDB doesn't seem to fit really well with many-to-many relationships. I can't think of a good MongoDB way to implement the friendship relationships. And I've read that Diaspora started with MongoDB but then switched back to classic SQL.
But some articles on the web defend MongoDB for social networks, and above all I want to make a well-informed decision, and not miss a really cool aspect of MongoDB that would change my life.
Also, I've heard about graph DB, which are probably great, but they really seem too young to me, and I don't know how they'd fit with RoR (and not mentioning heroku).
So, am I missing something?
My advice would be to use whatever you're most familiar with so that you can get up and running quickly. From your question it sounds like that would be SQL rather than MongoDB.
I like MongoDB and use it a lot, but I am of the opinion that if you are dealing with relational data, you should use the right tool for it. We have relational databases for that. Mongo and Couch are document stores.
Mongo has a serious disadvantage if you are going to be maintaining a lot of inter-document links. Writes are only guaranteed to be atomic for one document. So you could have inconsistent updates for relations if you are not careful with your schema.
The good thing about MongoDB is that it is very good at scaling. You can shard and create replica sets. Foursquare currently uses MongoDB and it has been working pretty well for them. MongoDB also does map-reduce and has decent geospatial integration. The team that develops MongoDB is excellent, and I live in NY where they are based and have met them. You probably are not going to have scaling issues though I would think starting out.
As far as Diaspora switching... I would not want to follow anything they are doing :)
Your comment about graph dbs is interesting though. I would probably not use a graph DB as my primary DB either, but when dealing with relationships, you can do amazing things with them. In fact usually the demo the guys from graph DB companies will give you is extracting relationship knowledge from a social network. However, there is nothing preventing you from playing with these in the future for network analysis.
In conclusion, when you are starting out here, you are not running into the problems of massive scale yet, and are probably limited on time and money. Keep in mind that even Facebook does not use just one technology, they have basically expanded to NoSQL for certain functionality (like Facebook messaging). There is nothing stopping you in the future from using say Mongo and gridFS for handling image uploads or geo-location etc. It is good to grow as your needs change. I think your gut feeling that you have an SQL app here is right, and the benefits gained with MongoDB would not be realized for a while.
An interesting possibility for this is Riak. It is a cross between a key-value store and a graph database. The userID could be your key and comments and links could be stored in your value. But Riak also has key-to-key linking. This could be used for connecting up your users as friends. The linking is asymmetric so you would need to deal with adding and deleting in both directions, but that shouldn't be too hard.
But note that Riak is not a document datastore, which means it is value-agnostic, which means it won't help you extract internal parts of your value, which means if you want to pull a comment out you'll need to first retrieve every comment and link that's stored with the user.
You may also want to check out other graph databases. Social graphs are the prototypical use-case for a graph database.
Sorry, but you got to start learning about graphs. Use graph databases that spits out data in JSON format & write it to your Mongodb database.You are dealing with a network , which means there must be a graph of some sort that will allow you to create an ego(user, for example) or focal point or logical center, which is connected to other nodes around it.Nodes could be properties of a particular user such as name, likes,friends, pictures etc. An ego graph would resemble a hub and spokes if you were to draw it.
For further reading, you can refer to how Facebook implemented it's Graph API - https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/overview/
Here is an attempt to connect Mongodb and Neo4j graph database - https://neo4j.com/developer/mongodb/
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.