What is best practice for storing large photos/text files in sql server. Baring the need for scalability and we are just working with 1 server.
I feel that storing a file path in sql as opposed to a blob is better. Is this true? If we had to scale the software should we still follow this method.
It depends on the size of the files.
There is a good Microsoft white paper on the subject, here.
objects smaller than 256K are best stored in a database while objects larger than 1M are best stored in the filesystem. Between 256K and 1M, the read:write ratio and rate of object overwrite or replacement are important factors
Of course, their conclusions are specific to SQL Server (2005 and 2008 R2).
It's a bad idea. Unless you have some very specific reason to store files in data. Already discussed here: Storing Images in DB - Yea or Nay?
If you still insist, read the best practice to do so :) here Best Practices for uploading files to database
It's mostly a question of using the right tool for the job. A lot of time and effort has been put into optimizing a relational database for the purpose of storing relational data. A lot of time and effort has been put into optimizing file systems for the purpose of storing files.
The former can be used to perform part of the job of the latter, but unless there's a really good reason not to use the latter then it's the tool more suited for the job. In nearly every case I've come across, storing the file path (and other relevant information about the file you may want) in the DB and the actual file on the FS is a more well-suited approach to using the tools available.
Related
We're approaching the migration of legacy OpenVMS RMS files into relational database (both MS SQL 2012 and Oracle 10g are available).
I wonder if there are:
Tools to retrieve schema of indexed files
Tools to parse indexed files
Tools to deal with custom RMS data formats (zoned decimals etc)
as a bundle/API/Library
Perhaps I should change the approach?
There are several tools available, notably through ODBC vendors (I work for one: Attunity).
1 >> Tools to retrieve schema of indexed files
Please clarify. Looking for just record/column layout and indexes within the files or also relationships between files.
1a) How are the files currently being used? Cobol, Basic, Fortran programs? Datatrieve?
They will be using some data definition method, so you want a tool which can exploit that.
Connx, and Attunity Connect can 'import' CDD definitions, BASIC - MAP files, Cobol Copybooks. Variants are typically covered as well. I have written many a (perl/awk) script to convert special definition to XML.
1b ) Analyze/RMS, or a program with calling RMS XAB's can get available index information. Atunity connect will know how to map those onto the fields from 1a)
1c ) There is no formal, stored, relationship between (indexed) files on OpenVMS. That's all in the program logic. However, some modestly smart Perl/Awk/DCL script can often generate a tablem of likely foreign/primary keys by looking at filed names and datatypes matches.
How many files / layouts / gigabytes are we talking about?
2 >> Tools to parse indexed files
Please clarify? Once the structure is known (question 1), the parsing is done by reading using that structure right? You never ever want to understand the indexed file internals. Just tell RMS to fetch records.
3 >> Tools to deal with custom RMS data formats (zoned decimals etc) as a bundle/API/Library
Again, please clarify. Once the structure is known just use the 'right' tool to read using that structure and surely it will honor the detailed data definitions.
(I know it is quite simple to write one yourself, just thought there would be something in the industry)
Famous last words... 'quite simple'. Entire companies have been build and thrive doing just that for general cases. I admit that for specific cases it can be relatively straightforward, but 'the devil is in the details'.
In the Attunity Connect case we have a UDT (User Defined data Type) to handle the 'odd' cases, often involving DATES. Dates in integers, in strings, as units since xxx are all available out of the box, but for example some have -1 meaning 'some high date' which needs some help to be stored in a DB.
All the databases have some bulk load tool (BCP, SQL$LOADER).
As long as you can deliver data conforming to what those expect (tabular, comma-seperated, quoted-or-not, escapes-or-not) you should be in good shape.
The EGH tool Vselect may be a handy, and high performance, way to bulk read indexed files, filter and format some and spit out sequential files for the DB loaders. It can read RMS indexed file faster than RMS can! (It has its own metadata language though!)
Attunity offers full access and replication services.
They include a CDC (change data capture) to not a only load the data, but to also keep it up to date in near-real-time. That's useful for 'evolution' versus 'revolution'.
Check out Attunity 'Replicate'. Once you have a data dictionary, just point to the tables desired (include, exlude filters), point to a target DB and click to replicate. Of course there are options for (global or per-table) transformations (like an AREA-CODE+EXHANGE+NUMBER to single phone number, or adding a modified date columns ).
Will this be a single big switch conversion, or is there desire to migrate the data and keep the old systems alive for days, months, years perhaps, all along keeping the data in close sync?
Hope this helps some,
Hein van den Heuvel.
OP: Perhaps I should change the approach? Probably.
You might consider finding data migration vendors, some which likely have off-the-shelf solutions, if not as a COTS tool, more likely packaged as a service (I don't think this is a big market).
What this won't help you with is what I think of as much bigger problem with the application code: who is going to change all the code that is making RMS calls, in the corresponding code that makes relational DB calls? How will the entity ("Joe Programmer", or some tool), know where the data migrated to, so that he can write the correct call? What are you doing to do about the fact that the data representation is like to change?
Ideally you'd like an automated migration tool, that will move the data itself (therefore knows that datalayouts and representation changes), and will make the code changes that correspond. You can look for these kind of vendors, too.
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'm building a web app that requires me to store metadata about files, approximately 15-20 "characteristics" for each file, including some shared ones (i.e. user1 & user2 should have access).
Would you recommend using a relational database for this? or is one of the newer more scalable noSQL databases a better option?
It should be something that scales quickly - and allows us to read and write fast.
Not sure how that would work with a relational DB in terms of performance (say im trying to find all the files that are owned by user1 and shared to user2 that have a certain property - I would essentially have to join 3-4 tables together... which is probably bad for performance?!)
Thanks for your feedback!
I don't think JOINing 3 or 4 tables would cause bad performance. If you are considering open-source relational solutions, I would suggest PostgreSQL, which is the richest SQL implementation currently. But MySQL will work, too, or even SQLite. They all have decent performance.
On the other hand, if the metadata that you need to store will expand in the future, a schema-based database will be a hassle. In that case I would instead suggest a schema-less (aka document-based, NoSQL, etc) database, like the open-source MongoDB. With indexes, it will also have excellent query performance. CouchDB is a richer implementation, but they don't pay as much attention to speed.
I think a relational database is a good fit for this. NoSQL databases typically don't allow easy and flexible querying. That is a strength of good old SQL databases.
Storing documents and some info for them isn't the strength of SQL databases.
I wouldn't choose MySQL, because of its license (or rather that of its data providers), and because you cannot say what Oracle is going to do with it in the future.
You are looking for a NoSQL database that is optimized for storing documents, that is extremely fast, and easy to setup (and use).
One that was written in C++ and not Java, and that non-the-less has bindings for .NET and Java, I assume.
I would say MongoDB would be the ideal choice.
Why not use a vcs such us svn or hg where you can assign attributes to files?
This all depends upon what you want to do with the information.
Basically, I'm still working on a puzzle-related website (micro-site really), and I'm making a tool that lets you input a word pattern (e.g. "r??n") and get all the matching words (in this case: rain, rein, ruin, etc.). Should I store the words in local text files (such as words5.txt, which would have a return-delimited list of 5-letter words), or in a database (such as the table Words5, which would again store 5-letter words)?
I'm looking at the problem in terms of data retrieval speeds and CPU server load. I could definitely try it both ways and record the times taken for several runs with both methods, but I'd rather hear it from people who might have had experience with this.
Which method is generally better overall?
The database will give you the best performance with the least amount of work. The built in index support and query analyzers will give you good performance for free while a textfile might give you excellent performance for a ton of work.
In the short term, I'd recommend creating a generic interface which would hide the difference between a database and a flat-file. Later on, you can benchmark which one will provide the best performance but I think the database will give you the best bang per hour of development.
For fast retrieval you certainly want some kind of index. If you don't want to write index code yourself, it's certainly easiest to use a database.
If you are using Java or .NET for your app, consider looking into db4o. It just stores any object as is with a single line of code and there are no setup costs for creating tables.
Storing data in a local text file (when you add new records to end of the file) always faster then storing in database. So, if you create high load application, you can save the data in a text file and copy data to a database later. However in most application you should use a database instead of text file, because database approach has many benefits.
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.