I noticed Storing relational data in MongoDB (NoSQL).
I've been trying to get my head around NoSQL, and I do see the benefits [...]
What I can't understand, and hope someone can clear up, is how to store data if it must be relational.
User David commented, "If data is relational, store it in a relational database."
What useful or significant data isn't relational?
You never just have, say, users with maybe addresses, end of story.
users always have associated comments/posts/favorites/reviews/friends, or whatever.
Look at any app. Look at Zillow. houses have one address. But they're also in school_districts, which contains many other houses. Now it's relational.
I've never seen an application where associations within the data model were dispensable. Or that lacked any entities that needed to be associated with more than one other entity.
What type of data is like that?
An example I can provide is something I'm working on right now. It's pure binary data blobs taken from measurements, which also has to be stored somewhere in a database. MongoDB is one of the more popular databases for such data. The only relation that could be necessary is keeping metadata about said measurement, like the Date/Time of recording.
To answer to your question, I think that data model with no relation between the different entities is very unlikely. MongoDB can handle relational data model but if your data model have a lot of relations, I recommend to not use Document-Oriented NoSQL database such as MongoDB.
I suggest you to take a look the following MongoDB documentation. These MongoDB docs explain how to represent data your MongoDB database.
Data Modeling Introduction (link)
Thinking in Documents: Part 1 (link)
Thinking in Documents: Part 2 (link)
Related
Consider this picture:
The book says documents store database struggle with highly connected domains because "relationships between aggregates aren’t firstclass citizens in the data model, most aggregate stores furnish only the insides of aggregates with structure, in the form of nested maps.
".
And besides: "Instead, the application that uses the database must build relationships from these flat, disconnected data structures."
I'm sorry, I don't understand what does it mean. Why documents store database struggle with a context based on highly relationships?
Because document stores do not support joins. Each time you need to get more data it is a separate query. Instead, document stores support the idea of nesting data within documents.
I have read that one of the differences between rdbms and nosql databases is storing unstructured data,I know each nosql database has its own architecture and algorithms,but I want to know why rdbms cant store unstructured data?
and why nosql databases can do that,I will be really thankful if you show me a simple example so that I can understand how nosql databases do that,and what makes rdbms unable to store unstructured data.
Relational databases are based on Edgar F. Codd's relational data model which assumes strictly structured data. The whole SQL language is constructed around this model and the databases which implement it are optimized for working that way.
But in the past few years, there were attempts to add features to SQL which allow to work with unstructured data, like the SQL/XML extension which allows to store XML documents in fields of SQL tables and query their document-trees transparently.
Document-oriented databases like MongoDB or CouchDB, on the other hand, were designed from the start to work with unstructured data and their query languages were designed around this concept, so when working with unstructured data they are usually much faster and more convenient to use.
I read this question totally wrong and thought about the problem totally wrong at first (multiple locale definitions of "structured") so ignore my comments, however, MongoDB does actually store structured data. The Wikipedia definition (which may I say seems to differ across the internet in itself) is that ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstructured_data ):
Unstructured Data (or unstructured information) refers to information that either does not have a pre-defined data model or is not organized in a pre-defined manner.
But that is untrue for MongoDB since it actually does have one:
{
_id:{}
}
Since the _id is always required, as such it has been more accurately said by MongoDB users recently that MongoDB has a "flexible" schema and not nessecarily schemaless which is why most people say it stores unstructured data.
So yes, it does kind of store unstructured data but not totally...
Simply put, NOSQL data stores are hierarchical, variable length, highly distributed file based systems with eventual consistency. The schema is embedded in the data (or in the code but NOSQLs are not schemaless), the columns can vary from one instance to the next even in the same structure, and the size of the columns is not fixed.
What would be the equivalent of ERD for a NoSQL database such as MongoDB?
It looks like you asked a similar question on Quora.
As mentioned there, the ERD is simply a mapping of the data you intend to store and the relations amongst that data.
You can still make an ERD with MongoDB as you still want to track the data and the relations. The big difference is that MongoDB has no joins, so when you translate the ERD into an actual schema you'll have to make some specific decisions about implement the relationships.
In particular, you'll need to make the "embed vs. reference" decision when deciding how this data will actually be stored. Relations are still allowed, just not enforced. Many of the wrappers for MongoDB actually provide lookups across collections to abstract some of this complexity.
Even though MongoDB does not enforce a schema, it's not recommended to proceed completely at random. Modeling the data you expect to have in the system is still a really good idea and that's what the ERD provides you.
So I guess the equivalent to the ERD is the ERD?
You could just use a UML class diagram instead too.
Moon Modeler supports schema design for MongoDB. It allows users to define diagrams with nested structures.
I know of no standard means of diagramming document-oriented "schema".
I'm sure you could use an ERD to map out your schemata but since document databases do not truly support--or more importantly enforce--relationships between data, it would only be as useful as your code was disciplined to internally enforce such relationships.
I have been thinking about the same issue for quite some time.
And I came to the following conclusion:
If NoSQL databases are generally schemaless, you don't actually have a 'schema' to illustrate in a diagram.
Thus, I think you should take a "by example" approach.
You could draw some mindmaps exemplifying how your data would look like when stored in a NoSQL DB such as MongoDB.
And since these databases are very dynamic you could also create some derived mindmaps to show how the data from today could evolve in time.
Take a look at this topic too.
Confusion about NoSQL Design
MongoDB does support 'joins', just not in the SQL sense of INNER JOIN (the default SQL join). While the concept of 'join' is typically associated with SQL, MongoDB does have the aggregation framework with its data processing pipeline stages. The $lookup pipeline stage is used to create the equivalent of a LEFT JOIN in SQL. That is, all documents on the left of a relationship will be pass through the pipeline, as well as any relating documents on the right side of the relationship. The documents are modified to include the relationship as part of the new documents.
Consequently, I postulate that Entity Relationship Diagrams do have a role in MongoDB. Documents are certainly related to each other in the db, and we should have a visualization of these relationships, including the cardinality relationship, e.g. full participation, partial participation, weak/strong entities, etc.
Of course, MongoDB also introduces the concept of embedded documents and referenced documents, and so I argue it adds additional flavor to the model of the ERD. And I certainly would want to see embedded and referenced relationships mapped out in a visual diagram.
The remaining question is so what is out there? What is out there for Mongoose for NodeJS? Mongoid for Ruby? etc. If you check the respective repositories for their corresponding ORMs (Object Relational Mappers), then you will see there are ERDs for them. But in terms of their completeness, perhaps there is a lot to be desired and the open source community is welcome to make contributions.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/mongoose-erd
https://rubygems.org/gems/railroady
I have an MSSQL database which I am considering porting to CouchDB or MongoDB. I have a many-to-many relationship within the SQL db which has hundreds of thousands rows in the xref table, corresponding to tens of thousands of rows in the tables on each side of the relationship. Will CouchDB and/or MongoDB be able to handle this data, and what would be the best way of formatting the relevant documents for performant querying? Thanks very much.
For CouchDB, I would highly recommend reading this article about Entity Relationships.
One thing I would note in CouchDB is to be careful of attempting to "normalize" a non-relational data model. The document-based storage offers you a great deal of flexibility, and it's seldom the best idea to abstract everything into as many "document types" as you can think of. Many times, it's best to leave much of your data within the same document unless you have clear cases where separate entities exist.
One common use-case of many-to-many relationships is implementing tagging. There are articles about different methods you can use to accomplish this in CouchDB. It may apply to your requirements, it may not, but it's probably worth a read.
Since the 'collection' model of MongoDB is similar to tables you can of course maintain
the m:n relationship inside a dedicated mapping collection (using the _id of the related documents of the referenced documents from other collections).
If you can: consider redesign your application using embedded documents.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
In general: try to turn off your memories to a RDBMS when working with MongoDB.
Blindly copying the database design from RDBMS to MongoDB is neither helpful nor adviceable nor will it work in general.
In the website of MongoDB they wrote that MonogDB is Document-oriented Database, so if the MongoDB is not an Object Oriented database, so what is it? and what are the differences between Document and Object oriented databases?
This may be a bit late in reply, but just thought it is worth pointing out, there are big differences between ODB and MongoDB.
In general, the focus of ODB is tranparent references (relations) between objects in an arbitarily complex domain model without having to use and manage code for something like a DBRef. Even if you have a couple thousand classes, you don't need to worry about managing any keys, they come for free and when you create instances of those 1000's of classes at runtime, they will automatically create the schema in the database .. even for things like a self-referencing object with collections of collections.
Also, your transactions can span these references, so you do not have to use a completely embedded model.
The concepts are those leveraged in ORM solutions like JPA, the managed persistent object life-cycle, is taken from the ODB space, but the HUGE difference is that there is no mapping AT ALL in the ODB and relations are stored as part of the database so there is no runtime JOIN to resolve relations, all relations are resolved with the same speed as a b-tree look-up. For those of you who have used Hibernate, imagine Hibernate without ANY mapping file and orders of magnitude faster becase there is no runtime JOIN behind the scenes.
Also, ODB allows queries across any relationship in your model, so you are not restricted to queries in a particular collection as you are in MongoDB. Of course, hash/b-tree/aggregate indexes are supported to so queries are very fast when they are used.
You can evolve instances of any class in an ODB at the class level and at runtime the correct class version is resolved. Quite different than the way it works in MongoDB maintaining code to decide how to deal with varied forms of blob ( or value object ) that result from evolving a schema-less database ... or writing the code to visit and change every value object because you wanted to change the schema.
As far as partioning goes, I think it is a lot easier to decide on a partitioning model for a domain model which can talk across arbitary objects, then it is to figure out the be-all, end-all embedding strategy for your collection contained documents in MongoDB. As a rediculous example, you have a Contact and an Address and a ShoppingCart and these are related in a JSON document and you decide to partition on Contact by Contact_id. There is absolutely nothing to keep you from treating those 3 classes as just objects instead of JSON documents and storing those with a partition on Contact_id just as you would with MongoDB. However, if you had another object Account and you wanted to manage those in a non-embedded way because of some aggregate billing operations done on accounts, you can have that for free ( no need to create code for a DBRef type ) in the ODB ... and you can choose to partition right along with the Contact or choose to store the Accounts in a completely separate physical node, yet it will all be connected at runtime in the application space ... just like magic.
If you want to see a really cool video on how to create an application with an ODB which shows distribution, object movement, fault tolerance, performance optimization .. see this ( if you want to skip to the cool part, jump about 21 minutes in and you will avoid the building of the application and just see the how easy it is to add distribution and fault tolerance to any existing application ):
http://www.blip.tv/file/3285543
I think doc-oriented and object-oriented databases are quite different. Fairly detailed post on this here:
http://blog.10gen.com/post/437029788/json-db-vs-odbms
Document-oriented
Documents (objects) map nicely to
programming language data types
Embedded documents and arrays reduce
need for joins
Dynamically-typed (schemaless) for
easy schema evolution
No joins and no (multi-object)
transactions for high performance and
easy scalability
(MongoDB Introduction)
In my understanding MongoDB treats every single record like a Document no matter it is 1 field or n fields. You can even have embedded Documents inside a Document. You don't have to define a schema which is very strictly controlled in other Relational DB Systems (MySQL, PorgeSQL etc.). I've used MongoDB for a while and I really like its philosophy.
Object Oriented is a database model in which information is represented in the form of objects as used in object-oriented programming (Wikipedia).
A document oriented database is a different concept to object and relational databases.
A document database may or may not contain field, whereas a relational or object database would expect missing fields to be filled with a null entry.
Imagine storing an XML or JSON string in a single field on a database table. That is similar to how a document database works. It simply allows semi-structured data to be stored in a database without having lots of null fields.