I want to move customer surveys for different products and survey types into mongodb.
A product can have multiple survey types.
The existing data consists of about 2 million surveys and growing.
There will be a need of querying the data for stats and reports and the structure of the surveys and their questions can change over time. Which means that the documents wont always be the same.
What will suite the best:
One big collection with product_id and type overhead within one db
Multiple collections per product and type within one db
Or a mix of multiple dbs and collections for product and type
I read about advantages and disadvantages and also that every case has its own solution that suits the usage and purpose.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure what applies the best for my case.
It all depends on how you will access you data, it is by customer, survey or product?.
You can make a product collection and put the surveys as an array of subdocuments or you can make a customer collection and do the same thing.
It is not something we can help you with here without knowing the details of the business requirement.
Just keep in mind, MongoDB is schemaless and how you will design your documents and collections depends on how you will access your data.
Related
I'm new to NoSQL and I'm trying to figure out the best way to model my database. I'll be using ArangoDB in the project but I think this question also stands if using MongoDB.
The database will store 12 categories of products. Each category is expected to hold hundreds or thousands of products. Products will also be added / removed constantly.
There will be a number of common fields across all products, but each category will also have unique fields / different restrictions to data.
Keep in mind that there are instances where I'd need to query all the categories at the same time, for example to search a product across all categories, and other instances where I'll only need to query one category.
Should I create one single collection "Product" and use a field to indicate the category, or create a seperate collection for each category?
I've read many questions related to this idea (1 collection vs many) but I haven't been able to reach a conclusion, other than "it dependes".
So my question is: In this specific use case which option would be most optimal, multiple collections vs single collection + sharding, in terms of performance and speed ?
Any help would be appreciated.
As you mentioned, you need to play with your data and use-case. You will have better picture.
Some decisions required as below.
Decide the number of documents you will have in near future. If you will have 1m documents in an year, then try with at least 3m data
Decide the number of indices required.
Decide the number of writes, reads per second.
Decide the size of documents per category.
Decide the query pattern.
Some inputs based on the requirements
If you have more writes with more indices, then single monolithic collection will be slower as multiple indices needs to be updated.
As you have different set of fields per category, you could try with multiple collections.
There is $unionWith to combine data from multiple collections. But do check the performance it purely depends on the above decisions. Note this open issue also.
If you decide to go with monolithic collection, defer the sharding. Implement this once you found that queries are slower.
If you have more writes on the same document, writes will be executed sequentially. It will slow down your read also.
Think of reclaiming the disk space when more data is cleared from the collections. Multiple collections do good here.
The point which forces me to suggest monolithic collections is that I'd need to query all the categories at the same time. You may need to add more categories, but combining all of them in single response would not be better in terms of performance.
As you don't really have a join use case like in RDBMS, you can go with single monolithic collection from model point of view. I doubt you could have a join key.
If any of my points are incorrect, please let me know.
To SQL or to NoSQL?
I think that before you implement this in NoSQL, you should ask yourself why you are doing that. I quite like NoSQL but some data is definitely a better fit to that model than others.
The data you are describing is a classic case for a relational SQL DB. That's fine if it's a hobby project and you want to try NoSQL, but if this is for a production environment or client, you are likely making the situation more difficult for them.
Relational or non-relational?
You mention common fields across all products. If you wish to update these fields and have those updates reflected in all products, then you have relational data.
Background
It may be worth reading Sarah Mei 2013 article about this. Skip to the section "How MongoDB Stores Data" and read from there. Warning: the article is called "Why You Should Never Use MongoDB" and is (perhaps intentionally) somewhat biased against Mongo, so it's important to read this through the correct lens. The message you should get from this article is that MongoDB is not a good fit for every data type.
Two strategies for handling relational data in Mongo:
every time you update one of these common fields, update every product's document with the new common field data. This is generally only ok if you have few updates or few documents, but not both.
use references and do joins.
In Mongo, joins typically happen code-side (multiple db calls)
In Arango (and in other graph dbs, as well as some key-value stores), the joins happen db-side (single db call)
Decisions
These are important factors to consider when deciding which DB to use and how to model your data
I've used MongoDB, ArangoDB and Neo4j.
Mongo definitely has the best tooling and it's easy to find help, but I don't believe it's good fit in this case
Arango is quite pleasant to work with, but doesn't yet have the adoption that it deserves
I wouldn't recommend Neo4j to anyone looking for a NoSQL solution, as its nodes and relations only support flat properties (no nesting, so not real documents)
It may also be worth considering MariaDB or Postgres
I currently have this solution to the lack of join in MongoDB, where I am querying two collections to find out the sold information for 3 types of stock.
However I would prefer just to have one collection embedded into the other. Is this possible?
For instance a stock document would have an embedded sold document, which also had the same Stock_index before they were de-normalised (queried separately).
Both collections are fairly large (10,000+ documents each).
Thanks in advance.
I am new to MongoDB and I have difficulties implementing a solution in it.
Consider a case where I have two collections: a client and sales collection with such designs
Client
==========
id
full name
mobile
gender
region
emp_status
occupation
religion
Sales
===========
id
client_id //this would be a DBRef
trans_date //date time value
products //an array of collections of product sold in the form {product_code, description, units, unit price, amount}
total sales
Now there is a requirement to develop another collection for analytical queries where the following questions can be answered
What are the distribution of sales by gender, region and emp_status?
What are the mostly purchase products for clients in a particular region?
I considered implementing a very denormalized collection to create a flat and wide collection of the properties of the sales and client collection so that I can use map-reduce to further answer the questions.
In RDBMS, an aggregation back by a join would answer these question but I am at loss to how to make Map-Reduce or Agregation help out.
Questions:
How do I implement Map-Reduce to map across 2 collections?
Is it possible to chain MapReduce operations?
Regards.
MongoDB does not do JOINs - period!
MapReduce always runs on a single collection. You can not have a single MapReduce job which selects from more than one collection. The same applies to aggregation.
When you want to do some data-mining (not MongoDBs strongest suit), you could create a denormalized collection of all Sales with the corresponding Client object embedded. You will have to write a little program or script which iterates over all clients and
finds all Sales documents for the clinet
merges the relevant fields from Client into each document
inserts the resulting document into the new collection
When your Client document is small and doesn't change often, you might consider to always embed it into each Sales. This means that you will have redundant data, which looks very evil from the viewpoint of a seasoned RDB veteran. But remember that MongoDB is not a relational database, so you should not apply all RDBMS dogmas unreflected. The "no redundancy" rule of database normalization is only practicable when JOINs are relatively inexpensive and painless, which isn't the case with MongoDB. Besides, sometimes you might want redundancy to ensure data persistence. When you want to know your historical development of sales by region, you want to know the region where the customer resided when they bought the product, not where they reside now. When each Sale only references the current Client document, that information is lost. Sure, you can solve this with separate Address documents which have date-ranges, but that would make it even more complicated.
Another option would be to embed an array of Sales in each Client. However, MongoDB doesn't like documents which grow over time, so when your clients tend to return often, this might result in sub-par write-performance.
I have the following objects Company, User and Order (contains orderlines). User's place orders with 1 or more orderlines and these relate to a Company. The time period for which orders can be placed for this Company is only a week.
What I'm not sure on is where to place the orders array, should it be a collection of it's own containing a link to the User and a link to the Company or should it sit under the Company or finally should the orders be sat under the User.
Numbers wise I need to plan for 50k+ in orders.
Queries wise, I'll probably be looking at Orders by Company mainly but I would need to find an Order by Company based for a specific user.
1) For folks coming from the SQL world (such as myself) one of the hardest learn about MongoDB is the new style of schema design. In the SQL world, everything goes into third normal form. Folks come to think that there is a single right way to design their schema, because there typically is one.
In the MongoDB world, there is no one best schema design. More accurately, in MongoDB schema design depends on how the application is going to access the data.
2) Here are the key questions that you need to have answered in order to design a good schema for MongoDB:
How much data do you have?
What are your most common operations? Will you be mostly inserting new data, updating existing data, or doing queries?
What are your most common queries?
How many I/O operations do you expect per second?
What you're talking about here is modeling Many-to-One relationships:
Company -> User
User -> Order
Order -> Order Lines
Company -> Order
Using SQL you would create a pair of master/detail tables with a primary key/foreign key relationship. In MongoDB, you have a number of choices: you can embed the data, you can create a linked relationship, you can duplicate and denormalize the data, or you can use a hybrid approach.
The correct approach would depend on a lot of details about the use case of your application, many of which you haven't provided.
3) This is my best guess - and it's only a guess - as to a good schema for you.
a) Have separate collections for Users, Companies, and Orders
If you're looking at 50k+ orders, there are too many to embed in a single document. Having them as a separate collection will allow you to reference them from both the Company and the User documents.
b) Have an array of references to the Order documents in both the Company and the User documents. This makes the query "Find all Orders for this Company" a single-document query
c) If your query pattern supports it, you might also have a duplicate link from Orders back to the owning Company and/or User.
d) Assuming that the order lines are unique to the individual Order, you would embed the Order Lines in an array within the Order documents.
e) If your order lines refer back to individual Products, you might want to have a separate Product collection, and include a reference to the Product document in the order line sub-document
4) Here are some good general references on MongoDB schema design.
MongoDB presentations:
http://www.10gen.com/presentations/mongosf2011/schemabasics
http://www.10gen.com/presentations/mongosv-2011/schema-design-by-example
http://www.10gen.com/presentations/mongosf2011/schemascale
Here are a couple of books about MongoDB schema design that I think you would find useful:
http://www.manning.com/banker/ (MongoDB in Action)
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920018391.do
Here are some sample schema designs:
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/use-cases/
Note that the "MongoDB in Action" book includes a sample schema for an e-commerce application, which is very similar to what you're trying to build -- I recommend you check it out.
Ok so the more and more I develop in Mongodb i start to wonder about the need for multiple collections vs having one large collection with indexes (since columns and fields can be different for each document unlike tabular data). If i am trying to develop in the most efficient way possible (meaning less code and reusable code) then can I use one collection for all documents and just index on a field. By having all documents in one collection with indexes then i can reuse all my form processing code and other code since it will all be inserting into the same collection.
For Example:
Lets say i am developing a contact manager and I have two types of contacts "individuals" and "businesses". My original thought was to create a collection called individuals and a second collection called businesses. But that was because im used to developing in sql where yes this would be appropriate since columns would be different for each table. The more i started to think about the flexibility of document dbs the more I started to think, "do I really need two collections for this?" If i just add a field to each document called "contact type" and index on that, do i really need two collections? Since the fields/columns in each document do not have to be the same for all (like in sql) then each document can have their own fields as long as i have a "document type" field and an index on that field.
So then i took that concept and started to think, if i only need one collection for "individuals" and "businesses" then do i even need a separate collection for "Users" or "Contact History" or any other data. In theory couldn't i build the entire solution in once collection and just have a field in each document that specifield the "type" and index on it such as "Users", "Individual Contact", "Business Contacts", "Contact History", etc, and if it is a document related to another document i can index on the "parent key/foreign" Id field...
This would allow me to code the front end dynamically since the form processing code would all be the same (inserting into the same collection). This would save a lot of coding but i want to make sure by using indexes and secondary indexes that the db would still run fast and not cause future problems as the collection grew. As you can imagine, if everything was in one collection there might be hundreds of thousands even millions of documents in this collection as the user base grows but it would have indexes and secondary indexes to optimize performance.
My question is: Is this a common method mongodb developers use? Why or why not? What are the downfalls, if any? If this is a commonly used method, please also give any positives to using this method. thank you.
This is a really big point in Mongo and the answer is a little bit more of an art than science. Having one collection full of gigantic documents is definitely an anti-pattern because it works against many of Mongo's features.
For instance, when retrieving documents, you can only retrieve a whole document out of a collection (not entirely true, but mostly). So if you have huge documents, you're retrieving huge documents each time. Also, having huge documents makes sharding less flexible since only the top level documents are indexed (and hence, sharded) in each collection. You can index values deep into a document, but the index value is associated with the top level document.
At the same time, going purely relational is also an anti-pattern because you've lost a lot of the referential integrity by going to Mongo in the first place. Also, all joins are done in application memory, so each one requires a full round-trip (slow).
So the answer is to do something in between. I'm thinking you'll probably want a collection for individuals and a different collection for businesses in this case. I say this because it seem like businesses have enough meta-data associated that it could bulk up a lot. (Also, I individual-business relationship seems like a many-to-many). However, an individual might have a Name object (with first and last properties). That would be a bad idea to make Name into a separate collection.
Some info from 10gen about schema design: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
EDIT
Also, Mongo has limited support for transactions - in the form of atomic aggregates. When you insert an object into mongo, the entire object is either inserted or not inserted. So you're application domain requires consistency between certain objects, you probably want to keep them in the same document/collection.
For example, consider an application that requires that a User always has a Name object (containing FirstName, LastName, and MiddleInitial). If a User was somehow inserted with no corresponding Name, the data would be considered to be corrupted. In an RDBMS you would wrap a transaction around the operations to insert User and Name. In Mongo, we make sure Name is in the same document (aggregate) as User to achieve the same effect.
Your example is a little less clear, since I don't understand the business cases. One thing that does come to mind is that Mongo has excellent support for inheritance. It might make sense to put all users, individuals, and potentially businesses into the same collection (depending on how the application is modeled). If one individual has many contacts, you probably want individuals to have an array of IDs. If your application requires that you get a quick preview of contacts, you might consider duplicating part of an individual and storing an array of contact objects.
If you're used to RDBMS thinking, you probably think all your data always has to be consistent. The truth is, that's probably not entirely true. This concept of applying atomic aggregates to the domain has been preached heavily by the DDD community recently. When you look at your domain in depth, like your business users do, the consistency boundaries should become distinct.
MongoDB, and NoSQL in general, is about de-normalising data and about reducing joins. It goes against normal SQL thinking.
In your case, I don't see any reason why you would want to have separate collections because it introduces unnecessary complexity and performance overhead. Consider, for example, if you wanted to have a screen that displayed all contacts, in alphabetical order. If you have one single collection for contacts, then its really easy, but if you have two collections it becomes a more complicated proposition.
Where I would have multiple collections is if your application had multiple users storing contacts. I would then have one collection for each user. This makes it so easy to extract out that users contacts.