Related
Looks like DynamoDB and ScyllaDB are exactly similar in functionality where they have just used different names for keys, secondary indexes etc.
Only difference I am aware of is costing. DynamoDB charges for throughput whereas ScyllaDB charges for storage size.
So wanted to know when to use which DB.
Both DynamoDB and ScyllaDB were inspired by Cassandra, so you're right about the "similar in functionality" and that they, indeed, "used different names for keys" (e.g., what Cassandra and Scylla calls "clustering keys", are calls "sort keys" (or sometimes, "range keys") in DynamoDB).
However, their capabilities, and their performance tradeoffs, are not really 100% identical. A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post, Comparing CQL and the DynamoDB API, which compares some of the more interesting differences between the capabilities and performance tradeoffs that CQL (the Cassandra Query Language, also used natively by Scylla) took, compared to DynamoDB's API. Some example differences explained in that blog post are a different network protocol (with different advantages and disadvantages), topology-aware vs. "dumb" clients, and perhaps most interestingly - a very different write model: Scylla focuses on very efficient CRDT (write-only) operations, while in DynamoDB, every write can involve a read as well - more powerful but slower (Scylla also has this power, through "LWT" (lightweight transacations)).
Because of the similarities between Scylla's and DynamoDB's APIs, we were actually able to fully (or almost fully) support the DynamoDB API in ScyllaDB - so ScyllaDB now supports the DynamoDB API as well (see ScyllaDB Alternator).
Besides the above differences in functionality, the most obvious difference between the two products is in how it is deployed and used in practice: DynamoDB is, like other Amazon products, a service on AWS where you pay per request, whereas ScyllaDB is software which you either install yourself, or get pre-deployed but in either case you get a cluster of your own (it's not shared with other customers) and you need to choose its size explicitly - by the number of nodes, not the number of requests.
It depends on the bunch of factors e.g. in some projects, Team chose DynamoDB over ScyllaDB since they're using all other services from the same cloud provider and integration/support/cost was great when they picked up DynamoDB over ScyllaDB.
Following are few things to consider (at high-level before choosing between DynamoDB and ScyllaDB)
DynamoDB
Excellent for projects where you need to store a large amount of data, but you do not know how many will be so you need the database to increase its storage capacity together with the number of users, without having to spend extra money.
ScyllaDB
Scylla is well suited for high-throughput scenarios where keyed data must be read or written with consistently low latency.
Disclosure: I work for ScyllaDB.
DynamoDB is a key-value NoSQL store. ScyllaDB's Alternator interface is an API-compatible implementation of DynamoDB. The advantage of ScyllaDB is you can run it on any cloud or on-premises; DynamoDB only works in AWS.
ScyllaDB also has a CQL interface, which is technically a wide column NoSQL store.
EDIT In fact, both DynamoDB, ScyllaDB and Cassandra should be technically described as "wide column NoSQL stores." Or, as my colleague Nadav describes, a "key-key-value" store. Both ScyllaDB and DynamoDB use the term "partition key." ScyllaDB refers to the second part of the key as a the "clustering key," whereas DynamoDB calls it the "sort key." END EDIT
We've also heard from customers that DynamoDB was a great place to start, but affordability suffered as they reached scale. Moving to ScyllaDB meant they were not paying transactional costs against their own data. i.e., with DynamoDB, the more you query the more you pay. Which makes heavy read/write workloads prohibitively expensive.
So a lot may depend on your use case. Where do you need to deploy? How much data are you managing? How hard are you hitting that data? How many operations per second do you need to maintain?
Then, with ScyllaDB you have the choice of which interface: DynamoDB API or CQL. Generally unless you need to remain compatible with a current DynamoDB Workloads, we generally recommend the CQL interface. It provides some greater flexibility and performance.
I'm reading about ArangoDB and it is more interesting but I can't find where in the documentation how ArangoDB scales. Does ArangoDB scale and can it use sharding like MongoDB or CouchDB?
EDIT
ArangoDB supports sharding since Version 2.0.
Version 3.0 will bring VelocyPack, which is a binary JSON representation optimized for compactness, parseability and composeability. It supersedes the shape concept / shaped JSON.
/EDIT
I am the chief architect of ArangoDB.
monkegjinni is right, ArangoDB did not support sharding, but replication. Why?
Short version:
Offering a support for fairly complex data models like graphs and documents gets into conflicts with how sharding works. However, with the efficiency of modern SSD and computers, we believe that almost all projects no longer need sharding. Today's computer will easily store all data on a single nodes. What these projects need is replication for load distribution which is supported by ArangoDB.
Long version:
There are actually to separate scaling issues.
The first issue is distributing the request over several servers to balance the request load.
ArangoDB will support this through synchronous replication of writes and distribution of the read requests.
Note that most database systems follow a very similar path, i.e., they support distributing the requests either with restricted consistency guarantees or they allow writes only on one node and distribute the read requests. They have this restriction because distributing write requests and supporting full consistency is impossible to do efficiently. And doing it inefficiently will negate the gain that we wanted to achieve through distribution.
The second issue is distributing the data over several servers to allow larger datasets.
ArangoDB does not support distributing the data over several servers.
We have made this decision, because distributing the data over several servers always comes at a price.
This price can be very explicit. For example it can be that the data model is very limited. This is the route that key value stores such as Dynamo or RIAK have taken. Here the data model and the supported queries are so simple, that it is always possible to direct a query to the server (or the small number of servers) on which the requested value live.
Note that we do believe that this approach is valid for some applications (e.g. Amazons database). But we believe that the number of applications that truly need to store so much data that they must distribute it over a large number of servers and must therefore restrict the access pattern to key-value is very small.
Or the price can be hidden. This is for example the case if the data is distributed and the database system allows general queries. In that case the query must be distributed over all servers (because the data you are looking for may live on any of the servers). That makes the queries inefficient.
The ArangoDB approach is rather to squeeze the most onto one server (well ArangoDB supports multiple servers - but to support availability). For this it uses two main strategies.
One strategy is to make use of SSDs. Note that the capacity of SSDs is growing larger at an incredible rate (you can buy a Terabyte of SSD for by far less money that a second server would cost you). And endurance (the total amount of data that can be written to a SSD) goes up to Petabytes (now that vendors finally get the wear leveling algorithms right) - so reliability of SSDs is no longer an issue. And the performance of those SSDs is very nice (closer to main memory than to ordinary disks).
The other strategy is to store the data efficiently. ArangoDB uses shapes to store documents: A shape is the information which attributes and attribute types a document has - all document with the same shape share the representation of this information. This means that documents can be stored in less space than the JSON or BSON representation would require.
As I understand, it does not allow sharding (prior to version 2.0), but replication.
From the link
AvocadoDB effortlessly permits replications. We like the “zero-admin principle”. Making replications with AvocadoDB is really easy: Insert IP address and go!
Following replication types are intended for version 2:
master-master synchronous,
master-master asynchronous,
master-slave synchronous,
master-slave asynchronous
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.
What are the advantages of using NoSQL databases? I've read a lot about them lately, but I'm still unsure why I would want to implement one, and under what circumstances I would want to use one.
Relational databases enforces ACID. So, you will have schema based transaction oriented data stores. It's proven and suitable for 99% of the real world applications. You can practically do anything with relational databases.
But, there are limitations on speed and scaling when it comes to massive high availability data stores. For example, Google and Amazon have terabytes of data stored in big data centers. Querying and inserting is not performant in these scenarios because of the blocking/schema/transaction nature of the RDBMs. That's the reason they have implemented their own databases (actually, key-value stores) for massive performance gain and scalability.
NoSQL databases have been around for a long time - just the term is new. Some examples are graph, object, column, XML and document databases.
For your 2nd question: Is it okay to use both on the same site?
Why not? Both serves different purposes right?
NoSQL solutions are usually meant to solve a problem that relational databases are either not well suited for, too expensive to use (like Oracle) or require you to implement something that breaks the relational nature of your db anyway.
Advantages are usually specific to your usage, but unless you have some sort of problem modeling your data in a RDBMS I see no reason why you would choose NoSQL.
I myself use MongoDB and Riak for specific problems where a RDBMS is not a viable solution, for all other things I use MySQL (or SQLite for testing).
If you need a NoSQL db you usually know about it, possible reasons are:
client wants 99.999% availability on
a high traffic site.
your data makes
no sense in SQL, you find yourself
doing multiple JOIN queries for
accessing some piece of information.
you are breaking the relational
model, you have CLOBs that store
denormalized data and you generate
external indexes to search that data.
If you don't need a NoSQL solution keep in mind that these solutions weren't meant as replacements for an RDBMS but rather as alternatives where the former fails and more importantly that they are relatively new as such they still have a lot of bugs and missing features.
Oh, and regarding the second question it is perfectly fine to use any technology in conjunction with another, so just to be complete from my experience MongoDB and MySQL work fine together as long as they aren't on the same machine
Martin Fowler has an excellent video which gives a good explanation of NoSQL databases. The link goes straight to his reasons to use them, but the whole video contains good information.
You have large amounts of data - especially if you cannot fit it all on one physical server as NoSQL was designed to scale well.
Object-relational impedance mismatch - Your domain objects do not fit well in a relaitional database schema. NoSQL allows you to persist your data as documents (or graphs) which may map much more closely to your data model.
NoSQL is a database system where data is organized into the document (MongoDB), key-value pair (MemCache, Redis), and graph structure form(Neo4J).
Maybe there are possible questions and answer for "When to go for NoSQL":
Require flexible schema or deal with tree-like data?
Generally, in agile development we start designing systems without knowing all requirements upfront, whereas later on throughout the development database system may need to accommodate frequent design changes, showcasing MVP (Minimal Viable product).
Or you are dealing with a data schema that is dynamic in nature.
e.g. System logs, very precise example is AWS cloudtrail logs.
Data set is vast/big?
Yes NoSQL databases are the better candidate for applications where the database needs to manage millions or even billions of records without compromising performance and availability while may be trading for inconsistency(though modern databases are exception here where it allows tunable consistency over availability e.g. Casandra, Cloud provider databases CosmosDB, DynamoDB).
Trade-off between scaling over consistency
Unlike RDMS, NoSQL databases may make the dataset consistent across other nodes eventually which is the default behavior, but it's easy to scale in terms of performance and availability.
Example: This may be good for storing people who are online in the instant messaging app, API tokens in DB, and logging website traffic stats.
Performing Geolocation Operations:
MongoDB hash rich support for doing GeoQuerying & Geolocation operations. I really loved this feature of MongoDB. So does the PostresSQL but ease of implementation is something that depends on the use case
In nutshell, MongoDB is a great fit for applications where you can store dynamic structured data on a large scale.
Edits:
Updated the answer about the consistency of the database.
Some essential information is missing to answer the question: Which use cases must the database be able to cover? Do complex analyses have to be performed from existing data (OLAP) or does the application have to be able to process many transactions (OLTP)? What is the data structure? That is far from the end of question time.
In my view, it is wrong to make technology decisions on the basis of bold buzzwords without knowing exactly what is behind them. NoSQL is often praised for its scalability. But you also have to know that horizontal scaling (over several nodes) also has its price and is not free. Then you have to deal with issues like eventual consistency and define how to resolve data conflicts if they cannot be resolved at the database level. However, this applies to all distributed database systems.
The joy of the developers with the word "schema less" at NoSQL is at the beginning also very big. This buzzword is quickly disenchanted after technical analysis, because it correctly does not require a schema when writing, but comes into play when reading. That is why it should correctly be "schema on read". It may be tempting to be able to write data at one's own discretion. But how do I deal with the situation if there is existing data but the new version of the application expects a different schema?
The document model (as in MongoDB, for example) is not suitable for data models where there are many relationships between the data. Joins have to be done on application level, which is additional effort and why should I program things that the database should do.
If you make the argument that Google and Amazon have developed their own databases because conventional RDBMS can no longer handle the flood of data, you can only say: You are not Google and Amazon. These companies are the spearhead, some 0.01% of scenarios where traditional databases are no longer suitable, but for the rest of the world they are.
What's not insignificant: SQL has been around for over 40 years and millions of hours of development have gone into large systems such as Oracle or Microsoft SQL. This has to be achieved by some new databases. Sometimes it is also easier to find an SQL admin than someone for MongoDB. Which brings us to the question of maintenance and management. A subject that is not exactly sexy, but that is a part of the technology decision.
Handling A Large Number Of Read Write Operations
Look towards NoSQL databases when you need to scale fast. And when do you generally need to scale fast?
When there are a large number of read-write operations on your website & when dealing with a large amount of data, NoSQL databases fit best in these scenarios. Since they have the ability to add nodes on the fly, they can handle more concurrent traffic & big amount of data with minimal latency.
Flexibility With Data Modeling
The second cue is during the initial phases of development when you are not sure about the data model, the database design, things are expected to change at a rapid pace. NoSQL databases offer us more flexibility.
Eventual Consistency Over Strong Consistency
It’s preferable to pick NoSQL databases when it’s OK for us to give up on Strong consistency and when we do not require transactions.
A good example of this is a social networking website like Twitter. When a tweet of a celebrity blows up and everyone is liking and re-tweeting it from around the world. Does it matter if the count of likes goes up or down a bit for a short while?
The celebrity would definitely not care if instead of the actual 5 million 500 likes, the system shows the like count as 5 million 250 for a short while.
When a large application is deployed on hundreds of servers spread across the globe, the geographically distributed nodes take some time to reach a global consensus.
Until they reach a consensus, the value of the entity is inconsistent. The value of the entity eventually gets consistent after a short while. This is what Eventual Consistency is.
Though the inconsistency does not mean that there is any sort of data loss. It just means that the data takes a short while to travel across the globe via the internet cables under the ocean to reach a global consensus and become consistent.
We experience this behaviour all the time. Especially on YouTube. Often you would see a video with 10 views and 15 likes. How is this even possible?
It’s not. The actual views are already more than the likes. It’s just the count of views is inconsistent and takes a short while to get updated.
Running Data Analytics
NoSQL databases also fit best for data analytics use cases, where we have to deal with an influx of massive amounts of data.
I came across this question while looking for convincing grounds to deviate from RDBMS design.
There is a great post by Julian Brown which sheds lights on constraints of distributed systems. The concept is called Brewer's CAP Theorem which in summary goes:
The three requirements of distributed systems are : Consistency, Availability and Partition tolerance (CAP in short). But you can only have two of them at a time.
And this is how I summarised it for myself:
You better go for NoSQL if Consistency is what you are sacrificing.
I designed and implemented solutions with NoSQL databases and here is my checkpoint list to make the decision to go with SQL or document-oriented NoSQL.
DON'Ts
SQL is not obsolete and remains a better tool in some cases. It's hard to justify use of a document-oriented NoSQL when
Need OLAP/OLTP
It's a small project / simple DB structure
Need ad hoc queries
Can't avoid immediate consistency
Unclear requirements
Lack of experienced developers
DOs
If you don't have those conditions or can mitigate them, then here are 2 reasons where you may benefit from NoSQL:
Need to run at scale
Convenience of development (better integration with your tech stack, no need in ORM, etc.)
More info
In my blog posts I explain the reasons in more details:
7 reasons NOT to NoSQL
2 reasons to NoSQL
Note: the above is applicable to document-oriented NoSQL only. There are other types of NoSQL, which require other considerations.
Ran into this thread and wanted to add my experience.. Many SQL databases support json data in columns and support querying of this json. So what I have used is a hybrid using a relational database with columns containing json..