My client has an existing PostgreSQL database with around 100 tables and most every table has one or more relationships to other tables. He's got around a thousand customers who use an app that hits that database.
Recently he hired a new frontend web developer, and that person is trying to tell him that we should throw out the PostgreSQL database and replace it with a MongoDB solution. That seems odd to me, but I don't have experience with MongoDB.
Is there any clear reasons why he should, or should not, make the change? Obviously I'm arguing against it and the other guy for it, but I would like to remove the "I like this one better" from the argument and really hear from the community on their experience with such things.
1) Performance
During last years, there were several benchmarks comparing Postgres and Mongo.
Here you can find the most recent performance benchmark (Yahoo): https://www.slideshare.net/profyclub_ru/postgres-vs-mongo-postgres-professional (start with slide #58, where some overview of the past becnhmarks is given).
Notice, that traditionally, MongoDB provided benchmarks, where they didn't turn on write ahead logging or even turned fsync off, so their benchmarks were unfair -- in such states the database system doesn't wait for filesystem, so TPS are high but probability to lose data is also very high.
2) Flexibility – JSON
Postgres has non-structured and semistructured data types since 2003 (hstore, XML, array data types). And now has very strong JSON support with indexing (jsonb data type), you can create partial indexes, functional indexes, index only part of JSON documents, index whole documents in different manners (you can tweek index to reduce it's size and speed).
More interestingly, with Postgres, you can combine relational approach and non-relational JSON data – see this talk again https://www.slideshare.net/profyclub_ru/postgres-vs-mongo-postgres-professional for details. This gives you a lot of flexibility and power (I wouldn't keep money-related or basic accounts-related data in JSON format).
3) Standards and costs of support
SQL experiences new born now -- NoSQL products started to add SQL dialects, there is a lot of people making big data analysis with SQL, you can even run machine learning algorithms inside RDBMS (see MADlib project http://madlib.incubator.apache.org).
When you need to work with data, SQL was, is and will be for long time the best language – there are such many things included to it, so all other languages are lagging too much. I recommend http://modern-sql.com/ to learn modern SQL features and https://use-the-index-luke.com (from the same author) to learn how reach the best performance using SQL.
When Mongo needed to create "BI connector", they also needed to speak SQL, so guess what they chose? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-32-now-powered-postgresql-john-de-goes
SQL will go nowhere, it's extended with SQL/JSON now and this means that for future, Postgres is an excellent choice.
4) Scalability
If you data size is up to several terabytes -- it's easy to live on "single master - multiple replicas" architectuyre either on your own installation or in clouds (Amazon RDS, Heroku, Google Cloud Platform, and since recently, Azure – all them support Postgres). There is an increasing number of solutions which help you to work with microservice architecture, have automatic failover, and/or shard your data. Here is only few of them, which are actively developed and supported, without specific order:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PL/Proxy
https://github.com/zalando/spilo and https://github.com/zalando/patroni
https://github.com/dalibo/PAF
https://github.com/postgrespro/postgres_cluster
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/bdr/
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/postgres-fdw.html
5) Extensibility
There are much more additional projects built to work with Postgres than with Mongo. You can work with literally any data type (including but not limited to time ranges, geospatial data, JSON, XML, arrays), have index support for it, ACID and manipulate with it using standard SQL. You can develop your own functions, data types, operators, index structures and much more!
If your data is relational (and it appears that it is), it makes no sense whatsoever to use a non-relational db (like mongodb). You can't underestimate the power and expressiveness of standard SQL queries.
On top of that, postgres has full ACID. And it can handle free-form JSON reasonably well, if that is that guy's primary motivation.
Related
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.
What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).
Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.
If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.
In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.
It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.
NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.
NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.
Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.
As part of my university curriculum I ended up with a real project which consists in helping a company shifting from their relational data warehouse into a NoSQL data warehouse. The thing is that what they are looking for is better performance in large jobs but so far they have used a single machine and if they indeed migrate to NoSQL they still wish to keep using a single machine for cost reasons.
As far as I know the whole point of NoSQL is to run it in a large distributed system of several machines. So I don't see the point of this migration, specially since I am pretty sure (but not entirely) that if they do install NoSQL, they will probably end having even worst performance.
But still I am not comfortable telling them this since I am still new to this area (less than a month), so I wonder, is there are any situation where using NoSQL in a single machine for a datawarehouse would be justifiable performance wise? Or is it just a plain bad idea?
The answer to your question, like the answer to so many questions, is "it depends."
Ignoring the commentary on the question, I think there may be legitimacy to your client's question. Both relational and non-relational databases ultimately hold data in key-value tuples, with indexes and such to ensure quick and speedy access to the data. The difference is that SQL/relational databases contain an incredible amount of overhead to attempt the optimal way to retrieve results given an unknown set of queries, as well as ensure stable concurrency. This overhead is both computationally expensive and rarely results in the optimal solution. As a result, SQL databases often perform significantly slower for simple repetitive queries.
No-sql databases, on the other hand, are more of a "bare-bones" database, relying on programmers and intelligent design to achieve success. They are optimized to retrieve a value for a given key very quickly, often sub-millisecond. As a result, increased up front investment in the design results in superior and near-optimal performance. It will be necessary to determine the cost-benefit of doing this up-front design, but it is all but guaranteed that the no-sql approach will perform better regardless of the number of machines involved (in fact, SQL databases are very difficult or impossible to cluster together and is one of the main reasons why NoSql was developed).
Eventually we will see relational-like solutions implemented on a no-sql platform. In fact, Mongo, Elasticsearch, and Couchbase (probably others) already have SQL-like query functionality. But right now, you are faced with this dilemma.
For a single machine if the load is write heavy e.g. your logging a lot of events you could do for cassandra. Also a good alternative is hbase but its heavy and not suggested for single node. If they expose api in json you could look into document based dbs such as couchbase, mongo db. If you have an idea about the load then selecting a nosql data store is much easier
If you're in a position where you need to pick one, I think you should look first at MongoDB. If you've never tried it, I really recommend you visit their live demo with tutorial and give it a try. If you like, download and follow the installation guide on their site. It's free, runs well on a single machine, and is incredibly easy to use.
In addition to MongoDB, I've used Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, SQLite, and HBase. I understand Cassandra should be in the list but I've not tried it. With MongoDB, I was fully deployed and executing reads and writes from an application in like two hours. I attribute most of that to their website's clear and concise instructional content. The biggest learning curve was figuring out how the queries work for things like updating a record or deleting a record without deleting the entire set of similar records.
Regarding NoSQL vs RDBMS, some points to consider:
Adding a new column to RDBMS table can lock the database in or degrade performance in another
MongoDB is schema-less so adding a new field, does not effect old documents and will be instant (think how flexible that really is - throw any dimension of data into this system without maintenance overhead)
You're less likely to require a DBA to solve your schema problems when an application changes
I think problems related to table size are irrelevant, so you won't run into a scaling problem - just a disk space problem on single machine
We recently are having major performance related issues in our current SQL Server DB.
Our application is pretty heavy on a single table we did some analysis and about 90% of our db data is in a single table. We run lot of queries on this table as well for analyticall purposes we are experiencing major performance issues now even with a single column addition sometimes slows our current Sp. Most of our teams are developers and we don't have access to a dba which might help in retuning our current db and make things work faster.
Cause of these constraints we are thinking of moving this part of the app to a NoSQL db.
My Questions are :
If this is the right direction we are heading ? As we are expecting exponential growth on this table. With loads of analytic's running on it.
Which would be best option for us CouchDB , Cassandra , MongoDB ? With stress on scalability and performance
For real time analysis and support similar to SQL how things work in a NoSQL is there a facility through which we can view current data being stored? I had read somewhere about Hadoop’s HIVE can be used to write and retreive data as SQL from NoSQL db's am I right?
What might be things which we would be losing out of while shifting from SQL to NoSQL ?
To your questions:
1.. If this is the right direction we are heading ? As we are expecting exponential growth on this table. With loads of analytic's running on it.
Yes, most of the noSQL systems are developed specifically to address scalability and availability, if you use them in the intended way.
2.. Which would be best option for us CouchDB , Cassandra , MongoDB ? With stress on scalability and performance
This depends entirely on what does your data looks like and how you will use it. The noSQL db you mentioned are implemented and behaves very differently from each other, see this link for a more detailed overview comparing the few you mentioned. Comparisons of noSQL solution
3.. For real time analysis and support similar to SQL how things work in a NoSQL is there a facility through which we can view current data being stored? I had read somewhere about Hadoop’s HIVE can be used to write and retreive data as SQL from NoSQL db's am I right?
This depends on the system you go with, because some noSQL db doesn't support range queries or joins, you are restricted in what you can view and how fast you can view.
4.. What might be things which we would be losing out of while shifting from SQL to NoSQL?
There are two major considerations for noSQL:
Query/Structure: NoSQL means no SQL. If your system actually requires structured and complex queries but you went with one of these cool new solution (especially a key-value storage, which is basically a giant hash table), you may soon find yourself in the middle of re-implementing a amateurish, ill-designed RDBMS, with all of your original problems.
Consistency: If you choose a eventual consistent system to scale horizontally, then you will have to accept your data being outdated, which may be harmless to some applications (forums?) or horrible in some other systems (bank).
I think you should stay relational and tune the table, its indexes, and the tables it joins to. You should also consider the use of aggregated (summarized data). Perhaps a more denormalized design would help or even re-designing the data into more of a star structure. Also, operational processing and decision support (or reporting) analyses should not be run on the same tables.
It might be possible to improve the SQL approach by checking for missing indexes etc and also seeing if the isolation level you are using is optimal. It may be possible to use snapshot isolation etc to improve performance. MSDN link
Read up on OLTP vs OLAP also.
NoSQL may still be a better option but you would still need to learn how to work with the database properly, it will come with another different set of issues.
I'm working on a real-time advertising platform with a heavy emphasis on performance. I've always developed with MySQL, but I'm open to trying something new like MongoDB or Cassandra if significant speed gains can be achieved. I've been reading about both all day, but since both are being rapidly developed, a lot of the information appears somewhat dated.
The main data stored would be entries for each click, incremented rows for views, and information for each campaign (just some basic settings, etc). The speed gains need to be found in inserting clicks, updating view totals, and generating real-time statistic reports. The platform is developed with PHP.
Or maybe none of these?
There are several ways to achieve this with all of the technologies listed. It is more a question of how you use them. Your ideal solution may use a combination of these, with some consideration for usage patterns. I don't feel that the information out there is that dated because the concepts at play are very fundamental. There may be new NoSQL databases and fixes to existing ones, but your question is primarily architectural.
NoSQL solutions like MongoDB and Cassandra get a lot of attention for their insert performance. People tend to complain about the update/insert performance of relational databases but there are ways to mitigate these issues.
Starting with MySQL you could review O'Reilly's High Performance MySQL, optimise the schema, add more memory perhaps run this on different hardware from the rest of your app (assuming you used MySQL for that), or partition/shard data. Another area to consider is your application. Can you queue inserts and updates at the application level before insertion into the database? This will give you some flexibility and is probably useful in all cases. Depending on how your final schema looks, MySQL will give you some help with extracting the data as long as you are comfortable with SQL. This is a benefit if you need to use 3rd party reporting tools etc.
MongoDB and Cassandra are different beasts. My understanding is that it was easier to add nodes to the latter but this has changed since MongoDB has replication etc built-in. Inserts for both of these platforms are not constrained in the same manner as a relational database. Pulling data out is pretty quick too, and you have a lot of flexibility with data format changes. The tradeoff is that you can't use SQL (a benefit for some) so getting reports out may be trickier. There is nothing to stop you from collecting data in one of these platforms and then importing it into a MySQL database for further analysis.
Based on your requirements there are tools other than NoSQL databases which you should look at such as Flume. These make use of the Hadoop platform which is used extensively for analytics. These may have more flexibility than a database for what you are doing. There is some content from Hadoop World that you might be interested in.
Characteristics of MySQL:
Database locking (MUCH easier for financial transactions)
Consistency/security (as above, you can guarantee that, for instance, no changes happen between the time you read a bank account balance and you update it).
Data organization/refactoring (you can have disorganized data anywhere, but MySQL is better with tables that represent "types" or "components" and then combining them into queries -- this is called normalization).
MySQL (and relational databases) are more well suited for arbitrary datasets and requirements common in AGILE software projects.
Characteristics of Cassandra:
Speed: For simple retrieval of large documents. However, it will require multiple queries for highly relational data – and "by default" these queries may not be consistent (and the dataset can change between these queries).
Availability: The opposite of "consistency". Data is always available, regardless of being 100% "correct".[1]
Optional fields (wide columns): This CAN be done in MySQL with meta tables etc., but it's for-free and by-default in Cassandra.
Cassandra is key-value or document-based storage. Think about what that means. TYPICALLY I give Cassandra ONE KEY and I get back ONE DATASET. It can branch out from there, but that's basically what's going on. It's more like accessing a static file. Sure, you can have multiple indexes, counter fields etc. but I'm making a generalization. That's where Cassandra is coming from.
MySQL and SQL is based on group/set theory -- it has a way to combine ANY relationship between data sets. It's pretty easy to take a MySQL query, make the query a "key" and the response a "value" and store it into Cassandra (e.g. make Cassandra a cache). That might help explain the trade-off too, MySQL allows you to always rearrange your data tables and the relationships between datasets simply by writing a different query. Cassandra not so much. And know that while Cassandra might PROVIDE features to do some of this stuff, it's not what it was built for.
MongoDB and CouchDB fit somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I think MySQL can be a bit verbose[2] and annoying to deal with especially when dealing with optional fields, and migrations if you don't have a good model or tools. Also with scalability, I'm sure there are great technologies for scaling a MySQL database, but Cassandra will always scale, and easily, due to limitations on its feature set. MySQL is a bit more unbounded. However, NoSQL and Cassandra do not do joins, one of the critical features of SQL that allows one to combine multiple tables in a single query. So, complex relational queries will not scale in Cassandra.
[1] Consistency vs. availability is a trade-off within large distributed dataset. It takes a while to make all nodes aware of new data, and eg. Cassandra opts to answer quickly and not to check with every single node before replying. This can causes weird edge cases when you base you writes off previously read data and overwriting data. For more information look into the CAP Theorem, ACID database (in particular Atomicity) as well as Idempotent database operations. MySQL has this issue too, but the idea of high availability over correctness is very baked into Cassandra and gives it many of its scalability and speed advantages.
[2] SQL being "verbose" isn't a great reason to not use it – plus most of us aren't going to (and shouldn't) write plain-text SQL statements.
Nosql solutions are better than Mysql, postgresql and other rdbms techs for this task. Don't waste your time with Hbase/Hadoop, you've to be an astronaut to use it. I recommend MongoDB and Cassandra. Mongo is better for small datasets (if your data is maximum 10 times bigger than your ram, otherwise you have to shard, need more machines and use replica sets). For big data; cassandra is the best. Mongodb has more query options and other functionalities than cassandra but you need 64 bit machines for mongo. There are some works around for analytics in both sides. There is atomic counters in both sides. Both can scale well but cassandra is much better in scaling and high availability. Both have php clients, both have good support and community (mongo community is bigger).
Cassandra analytics project sample:Rainbird http://www.slideshare.net/kevinweil/rainbird-realtime-analytics-at-twitter-strata-2011
mongo sample: http://www.slideshare.net/jrosoff/scalable-event-analytics-with-mongodb-ruby-on-rails
http://axonflux.com/how-superfeedr-built-analytics-using-mongodb
doubleclick developers developed mongo http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/info_management/224200878
Cassandra vs. MongoDB
Are you considering Cassandra or MongoDB as the data store for your next project? Would you like to compare the two databases? Cassandra and MongoDB are both “NoSQL” databases, but the reality is that they are very different. They have very different strengths and value propositions – so any comparison has to be a nuanced one. Let’s start with initial requirements… Neither of these databases replaces RDBMS, nor are they “ACID” databases. So If you have a transactional workload where normalization and consistency are the primary requirements, neither of these databases will work for you. You are better off sticking with traditional relational databases like MySQL, PostGres, Oracle etc. Now that we have relational databases out of the way, let’s consider the major differences between Cassandra and MongoDB that will help you make the decision. In this post, I am not going to discuss specific features but will point out some high-level strategic differences to help you make your choice.
Expressive Object Model
MongoDB supports a rich and expressive object model. Objects can have properties and objects can be nested in one another (for multiple levels). This model is very “object-oriented” and can easily represent any object structure in your domain. You can also index the property of any object at any level of the hierarchy – this is strikingly powerful! Cassandra, on the other hand, offers a fairly traditional table structure with rows and columns. Data is more structured and each column has a specific type which can be specified during creation.
Verdict: If your problem domain needs a rich data model then MongoDB is a better fit for you.
Secondary Indexes
Secondary indexes are a first-class construct in MongoDB. This makes it easy to index any property of an object stored in MongoDB even if it is nested. This makes it really easy to query based on these secondary indexes. Cassandra has only cursory support for secondary indexes. Secondary indexes are also limited to single columns and equality comparisons. If you are mostly going to be querying by the primary key then Cassandra will work well for you.
Verdict: If your application needs secondary indexes and needs flexibility in the query model then MongoDB is a better fit for you.
High Availability
MongoDB supports a “single master” model. This means you have a master node and a number of slave nodes. In case the master goes down, one of the slaves is elected as master. This process happens automatically but it takes time, usually 10-40 seconds. During this time of new leader election, your replica set is down and cannot take writes. This works for most applications but ultimately depends on your needs. Cassandra supports a “multiple master” model. The loss of a single node does not affect the ability of the cluster to take writes – so you can achieve 100% uptime for writes.
Verdict: If you need 100% uptime Cassandra is a better fit for you.
Write Scalability
MongoDB with its “single master” model can take writes only on the primary. The secondary servers can only be used for reads. So essentially if you have three node replica set, only the master is taking writes and the other two nodes are only used for reads. This greatly limits write scalability. You can deploy multiple shards but essentially only 1/3 of your data nodes can take writes. Cassandra with its “multiple master” model can take writes on any server. Essentially your write scalability is limited by the number of servers you have in the cluster. The more servers you have in the cluster, the better it will scale.
Verdict: If write scalability is your thing, Cassandra is a better fit for you.
Query Language Support
Cassandra supports the CQL query language which is very similar to SQL. If you already have a team of data analysts they will be able to port over a majority of their SQL skills which is very important to large organizations. However CQL is not full blown ANSI SQL – It has several limitations (No join support, no OR clauses) etc. MongoDB at this point has no support for a query language. The queries are structured as JSON fragments.
Verdict: If you need query language support, Cassandra is the better fit for you.
Performance Benchmarks
Let’s talk performance. At this point, you are probably expecting a performance benchmark comparison of the databases. I have deliberately not included performance benchmarks in the comparison. In any comparison, we have to make sure we are making an apples-to-apples comparison.
Database model - The database model/schema of the application being tested makes a big difference. Some schemas are well suited for MongoDB and some are well suited for Cassandra. So when comparing databases it is important to use a model that works reasonably well for both databases.
Load characteristics – The characteristics of the benchmark load are very important. E.g. In write-heavy benchmarks, I would expect Cassandra to smoke MongoDB. However, in read-heavy benchmarks, MongoDB and Cassandra should be similar in performance.
Consistency requirements - This is a tricky one. You need to make sure that the read/write consistency requirements specified are identical in both databases and not biased towards one participant. Very often in a number of the ‘Marketing’ benchmarks, the knobs are tuned to disadvantage the other side. So, pay close attention to the consistency settings.
One last thing to keep in mind is that the benchmark load may or may not reflect the performance of your application. So in order for benchmarks to be useful, it is very important to find a benchmark load that reflects the performance characteristics of your application. Here are some benchmarks you might want to look at:
- NoSQL Performance Benchmarks
- Cassandra vs. MongoDB vs. Couchbase vs. HBase
Ease of Use
If you had asked this question a couple of years ago MongoDB would be the hands-down winner. It’s a fairly simple task to get MongoDB up and running. In the last couple of years, however, Cassandra has made great strides in this aspect of the product. With the adoption of CQL as the primary interface for Cassandra, it has taken this a step further – they have made it very simple for legions of SQL programmers to use Cassandra very easily.
Verdict: Both are fairly easy to use and ramp up.
Native Aggregation
MongoDB has a built-in Aggregation framework to run an ETL pipeline to transform the data stored in the database. This is great for small to medium jobs but as your data processing needs become more complicated the aggregation framework becomes difficult to debug. Cassandra does not have a built-in aggregation framework. External tools like Hadoop, Spark are used for this.
Schema-less Models
In MongoDB, you can choose to not enforce any schema on your documents. While this was the default in prior versions in the newer version you have the option to enforce a schema for your documents. Each document in MongoDB can be a different structure and it is up to your application to interpret the data. While this is not relevant to most applications, in some cases the extra flexibility is important. Cassandra in the newer versions (with CQL as the default language) provides static typing. You need to define the type of very column upfront.
I'd also like to add Membase (www.couchbase.com) to this list.
As a product, Membase has been deployed at a number of Ad Agencies (AOL Advertising, Chango, Delta Projects, etc). There are a number of public case studies and examples of how these companies have used Membase successfully.
While it's certainly up for debate, we've found that Membase provides better performance and scalability than any other solution. What we lack in indexing/querying, we are planning on more than making up for with the integration of CouchDB as our new persistence backend.
As a company, Couchbase (the makers of Membase) has a large amount of knowledge and experience specifically serving the needs of Ad/targeting companies.
Would certainly love to engage with you on this particular use case to see if Membase is the right fit.
Please shoot me an email (perry -at- couchbase -dot- com) or visit us on the forums: http://www.couchbase.org/forums/
Perry Krug
I would look at New Relic as an example of a similar workload. They capture over 200 Billion data points a day to disk and are using MySQL 5.6 (Percona) as a backend.
A blog post is available here:
http://blog.newrelic.com/2014/06/13/store-200-billion-data-points-day-disk/
I would like to test the NoSQL world. This is just curiosity, not an absolute need (yet).
I have read a few things about the differences between SQL and NoSQL databases. I'm convinced about the potential advantages, but I'm a little worried about cases where NoSQL is not applicable. If I understand NoSQL databases essentially miss ACID properties.
Can someone give an example of some real world operation (for example an e-commerce site, or a scientific application, or...) that an ACID relational database can handle but where a NoSQL database could fail miserably, either systematically with some kind of race condition or because of a power outage, etc ?
The perfect example will be something where there can't be any workaround without modifying the database engine. Examples where a NoSQL database just performs poorly will eventually be another question, but here I would like to see when theoretically we just can't use such technology.
Maybe finding such an example is database specific. If this is the case, let's take MongoDB to represent the NoSQL world.
Edit:
to clarify this question I don't want a debate about which kind of database is better for certain cases. I want to know if this technology can be an absolute dead-end in some cases because no matter how hard we try some kind of features that a SQL database provide cannot be implemented on top of nosql stores.
Since there are many nosql stores available I can accept to pick an existing nosql store as a support but what interest me most is the minimum subset of features a store should provide to be able to implement higher level features (like can transactions be implemented with a store that don't provide X...).
This question is a bit like asking what kind of program cannot be written in an imperative/functional language. Any Turing-complete language and express every program that can be solved by a Turing Maching. The question is do you as a programmer really want to write a accounting system for a fortune 500 company in non-portable machine instructions.
In the end, NoSQL can do anything SQL based engines can, the difference is you as a programmer may be responsible for logic in something Like Redis that MySQL gives you for free. SQL databases take a very conservative view of data integrity. The NoSQL movement relaxes those standards to gain better scalability, and to make tasks that are common to Web Applications easier.
MongoDB (my current preference) makes replication and sharding (horizontal scaling) easy, inserts very fast and drops the requirement for a strict scheme. In exchange users of MongoDB must code around slower queries when an index is not present, implement transactional logic in the app (perhaps with three phase commits), and we take a hit on storage efficiency.
CouchDB has similar trade-offs but also sacrifices ad-hoc queries for the ability to work with data off-line then sync with a server.
Redis and other key value stores require the programmer to write much of the index and join logic that is built in to SQL databases. In exchange an application can leverage domain knowledge about its data to make indexes and joins more efficient then the general solution the SQL would require. Redis also require all data to fit in RAM but in exchange gives performance on par with Memcache.
In the end you really can do everything MySQL or Postgres do with nothing more then the OS file system commands (after all that is how the people that wrote these database engines did it). It all comes down to what you want the data store to do for you and what you are willing to give up in return.
Good question. First a clarification. While the field of relational stores is held together by a rather solid foundation of principles, with each vendor choosing to add value in features or pricing, the non-relational (nosql) field is far more heterogeneous.
There are document stores (MongoDB, CouchDB) which are great for content management and similar situations where you have a flat set of variable attributes that you want to build around a topic. Take site-customization. Using a document store to manage custom attributes that define the way a user wants to see his/her page is well suited to the platform. Despite their marketing hype, these stores don't tend to scale into terabytes that well. It can be done, but it's not ideal. MongoDB has a lot of features found in relational databases, such as dynamic indexes (up to 40 per collection/table). CouchDB is built to be absolutely recoverable in the event of failure.
There are key/value stores (Cassandra, HBase...) that are great for highly-distributed storage. Cassandra for low-latency, HBase for higher-latency. The trick with these is that you have to define your query needs before you start putting data in. They're not efficient for dynamic queries against any attribute. For instance, if you are building a customer event logging service, you'd want to set your key on the customer's unique attribute. From there, you could push various log structures into your store and retrieve all logs by customer key on demand. It would be far more expensive, however, to try to go through the logs looking for log events where the type was "failure" unless you decided to make that your secondary key. One other thing: The last time I looked at Cassandra, you couldn't run regexp inside the M/R query. Means that, if you wanted to look for patterns in a field, you'd have to pull all instances of that field and then run it through a regexp to find the tuples you wanted.
Graph databases are very different from the two above. Relations between items(objects, tuples, elements) are fluid. They don't scale into terabytes, but that's not what they are designed for. They are great for asking questions like "hey, how many of my users lik the color green? Of those, how many live in California?" With a relational database, you would have a static structure. With a graph database (I'm oversimplifying, of course), you have attributes and objects. You connect them as makes sense, without schema enforcement.
I wouldn't put anything critical into a non-relational store. Commerce, for instance, where you want guarantees that a transaction is complete before delivering the product. You want guaranteed integrity (or at least the best chance of guaranteed integrity). If a user loses his/her site-customization settings, no big deal. If you lose a commerce transation, big deal. There may be some who disagree.
I also wouldn't put complex structures into any of the above non-relational stores. They don't do joins well at-scale. And, that's okay because it's not the way they're supposed to work. Where you might put an identity for address_type into a customer_address table in a relational system, you would want to embed the address_type information in a customer tuple stored in a document or key/value. Data efficiency is not the domain of the document or key/value store. The point is distribution and pure speed. The sacrifice is footprint.
There are other subtypes of the family of stores labeled as "nosql" that I haven't covered here. There are a ton (122 at last count) different projects focused on non-relational solutions to data problems of various types. Riak is yet another one that I keep hearing about and can't wait to try out.
And here's the trick. The big-dollar relational vendors have been watching and chances are, they're all building or planning to build their own non-relational solutions to tie in with their products. Over the next couple years, if not sooner, we'll see the movement mature, large companies buy up the best of breed and relational vendors start offering integrated solutions, for those that haven't already.
It's an extremely exciting time to work in the field of data management. You should try a few of these out. You can download Couch or Mongo and have them up and running in minutes. HBase is a bit harder.
In any case, I hope I've informed without confusing, that I have enlightened without significant bias or error.
RDBMSes are good at joins, NoSQL engines usually aren't.
NoSQL engines is good at distributed scalability, RDBMSes usually aren't.
RDBMSes are good at data validation coinstraints, NoSQL engines usually aren't.
NoSQL engines are good at flexible and schema-less approaches, RDBMSes usually aren't.
Both approaches can solve either set of problems; the difference is in efficiency.
Probably answer to your question is that mongodb can handle any task (and sql too). But in some cases better to choose mongodb, in others sql database. About advantages and disadvantages you can read here.
Also as #Dmitry said mongodb open door for easy horizontal and vertical scaling with replication & sharding.
RDBMS enforce strong consistency while most no-sql are eventual consistent. So at a given point in time when data is read from a no-sql DB it might not represent the most up-to-date copy of that data.
A common example is a bank transaction, when a user withdraw money, node A is updated with this event, if at the same time node B is queried for this user's balance, it can return an outdated balance. This can't happen in RDBMS as the consistency attribute guarantees that data is updated before it can be read.
RDBMs are really good for quickly aggregating sums, averages, etc. from tables. e.g. SELECT SUM(x) FROM y WHERE z. It's something that is surprisingly hard to do in most NoSQL databases, if you want an answer at once. Some NoSQL stores provide map/reduce as a way of solving the same thing, but it is not real time in the same way it is in the SQL world.