Problem
Starting with nosql document database I figured out lots of new possibilities, however, I see some pitfalls, and I would like to know how can I deal with them.
Suppose I have a product, and this product can be sold in many regions. There is one responsible for each region (with access to CMS). Each responsible modifies the products accordingly regional laws and rules.
Since Join feature isn't supported as we know it on relational databases, the document should be design in a way it contains all the needed information to build our selection statements and selection result to avoid round trips to the database.
So my first though was to design a document that follows more or less this structure:
{
type : "product",
id : "product_id",
title : "title",
allowedAge : 12,
regions : {
'TX' : {
title : "overriden title",
allowedAge : 13
},
'FL' : {
title : "still another title"
}
}
}
But I have the impression that this approach will generate conflicts while updating the document. Suppose we have a lot of users updating lots of document through a CMS. When same document is updated, the last update overwrites the updates done before, even the users are able to modify just fragments of this document (in this case the responsible should be able to modify just the regional data).
How to deal with this situation?
One possible solution I think of would be partial document updates. Positive: reducing the data overwriting from different operations, Negative: lose the optimistic lock feature since locking if done over a document not a fragment of such.
Is there another approach for the problem?
In this case you can use 3 solutions:
Leave current document structure and always check CAS value on update operations. If CAS doesn't match - call store function again. (But as you say if you have a lot of users it can be very slow).
Separate doc in several parts that could be updated independently, and then on app-side combine them together. This will result in increasing view calls (one for get main doc, another call to get i.e. regions, etc.). If you have many "parts" it will also reduce performance.
See this doc. It's about simulating joins in couchbase. There is also good example written by #Tug Grall.
If you're not bounded to using Couchbase (not clear from your question if it's general or specific to it) - look also into MongoDB. It supports partial updates on documents and also other atomic operations (like increments and array operations), so it might suite your use case better (checkout possible update operations on mongo - http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/update/ )
Related
I got a question about modeling wishlists using mongodb and mongoose. The idea is I need a user beeing able to have many different wishlists which contain many wishes, each wish making a reference to a single article
I was thinking about it and because a wishlist only belong to a single user I thought using embedded document for that.
Same for the wish beeing embedded to a wishlist.
So I got something like that
var UserSchema = new Schema({
...
wishlists: [wishlistSchema]
...
})
var WishlistSchema = new Schema({
...
wishes: [wishSchema]
...
})
but my question is what to do with the article ? should I use a reference or should I copy the article's data in an embedded document.
If I use embedded document I got an update problem. When the article's price change, to update every wish referencing this article become a struggle. But to access those wishes's article is a piece of cake.
If I use reference, The update is not a problem anymore but I got a probleme when I filter the wish depending on their article criteria ( when I filter the wishes depending on a price, category etc .. ).
I think the second way is probably the best but I don't know how if it's possible to build a query to filter the wish depending on the article's field. I tried a lot of things using population but nothing works very well when you need to populate depending on a nested object field. ( for exemple getting wishes where their article respond to certain conditions ).
Is this kind of query doable ?
Sry for the loooong question and for my bad English :/ but any advice would be great !
In my experience in dealing with NoSQL database (mongo, mainly), when designing a collection, do not think of the relations. Instead, think of how you would display, page, and retrieve the documents.
I would prefer embedding and updating multiple schema when there's a change, as opposed to doing a ref, for multiple reasons.
Get would be fast and easy and filter is not a problem (like you've said)
Retrieve operations usually happen a lot more often than updates and with proper indexing, you wouldn't really have to bother about performance.
It leverages on NoSQL's schema-less nature and you'll be less prone restructuring due to requirement changes (new sorting, new filters, etc)
Paging would be a lot less of a hassle, and UI would not be restricted with it's design with paging and limit.
Joining could become expensive. Redundant data might be a hassle to update but it's always better than not being able to display a data in a particular way because your schema is normalized and joining is difficult.
I'd say that the rule of thumb is that only split them when you do not need to display them together. It is not impossible to join them back if you do, but definitely more troublesome.
Since Mongo doesn't have transactions that can be used to ensure that nothing is committed to the database unless its consistent (non corrupt) data, if my application dies between making a write to one document, and making a related write to another document, what techniques can I use to remove the corrupt data and/or recover in some way?
The greater idea behind NoSQL was to use a carefully modeled data structure for a specific problem, instead of hitting every problem with a hammer. That is also true for transactions, which should be referred to as 'short-lived transactions', because the typical RDBMS transaction hardly helps with 'real', long-lived transactions.
The kind of transaction supported by RDBMSs is often required only because the limited data model forces you to store the data across several tables, instead of using embedded arrays (think of the typical invoice / invoice items examples).
In MongoDB, try to use write-heavy, de-normalized data structures and keep data in a single document which improves read speed, data locality and ensures consistency. Such a data model is also easier to scale, because a single read only hits a single server, instead of having to collect data from multiple sources.
However, there are cases where the data must be read in a variety of contexts and de-normalization becomes unfeasible. In that case, you might want to take a look at Two-Phase Commits or choose a completely different concurrency approach, such as MVCC (in a sentence, that's what the likes of svn, git, etc. do). The latter, however, is hardly a drop-in replacement for RDBMs, but exposes a completely different kind of concurrency to a higher level of the application, if not the user.
Thinking about this myself, I want to identify some categories of affects:
Your operation has only one database save (saving data into one document)
Your operation has two database saves (updates, inserts, or deletions), A and B
They are independent
B is required for A to be valid
They are interdependent (A is required for B to be valid, and B is required for A to be valid)
Your operation has more than two database saves
I think this is a full list of the general possibilities. In case 1, you have no problem - one database save is atomic. In case 2.1, same thing, if they're independent, they might as well be two separate operations.
For case 2.2, if you do A first then B, at worst you will have some extra data (B data) that will take up space in your system, but otherwise be harmless. In case 2.3, you'll likely have some corrupt data in the event of a catastrophic failure. And case 3 is just a composition of case 2s.
Some examples for the different cases:
1.0. You change a car document's color to 'blue'
2.1. You change the car document's color to 'red' and the driver's hair color to 'red'
2.2. You create a new engine document and add its ID to the car document
2.3.a. You change your car's 'gasType' to 'diesel', which requires changing your engine to a 'diesel' type engine.
2.3.b. Another example of 2.3: You hitch car document A to another car document B, A getting the "towedBy" property set to B's ID, and B getting the "towing" property set to A's ID
3.0. I'll leave examples of this to your imagination
In many cases, its possible to turn a 2.3 scenario into a 2.2 scenario. In the 2.3.a example, the car document and engine are separate documents. Lets ignore the possibility of putting the engine inside the car document for this example. Its both invalid to have a diesel engine and non-diesel gas and to have a non-diesel engine and diesel gas. So they both have to change. But it may be valid to have no engine at all and have diesel gas. So you could add a step that makes the whole thing valid at all points. First, remove the engine, then replace the gas, then change the type of the engine, and lastly add the engine back onto the car.
If you will get corrupt data from a 2.3 scenario, you'll want a way to detect the corruption. In example 2.3.b, things might break if one document has the "towing" property, but the other document doesn't have a corresponding "towedBy" property. So this might be something to check after a catastrophic failure. Find all documents that have "towing" but the document with the id in that property doesn't have its "towedBy" set to the right ID. The choices there would be to delete the "towing" property or set the appropriate "towedBy" property. They both seem equally valid, but it might depend on your application.
In some situations, you might be able to find corrupt data like this, but you won't know what the data was before those things were set. In those cases, setting a default is probably better than nothing. Some types of corruption are better than others (particularly the kind that will cause errors in your application rather than simply incorrect display data).
If the above kind of code analysis or corruption repair becomes unfeasible, or if you want to avoid any data corruption at all, your last resort would be to take mnemosyn's suggestion and implement Two-Phase Commits, MVCC, or something similar that allows you to identify and roll back changes in an indeterminate state.
Going off an example in the accepted answer here:
Mongo DB relations between objects
For a blogging system, "Posts should be a collection. post author might be a separate collection, or simply a field within posts if only an email address. comments should be embedded objects within a post for performance."
If this is the case, does that mean that every time my app displays a blog post, I'm loading every single comment that was ever made on that post? What if there are 3,729 comments? Wouldn't this brutalize the database connection, SQL or NoSQL? Also there's the obvious scenario in which when I load a blog post, I want to show only the first 10 comments initially.
Document databases are not relational databases. You CANNOT first build the database model and then later on decide on various interesting ways of querying it. Instead, you should first determine what access patterns you want to support, and then design the document schemas accordingly.
So in order to answer your question, what we really need to know is how you intend to use the data. Displaying comments associated with a post is a distinctly different scenario than displaying all comments from a particular author. Each one of those requirements will dictate a different design, as will supporting them both.
This in itself may be useful information to you (?), but I suspect you want more concrete answers :) So please add some additional details on your intended usage.
Adding more info:
There are a few "do" and "don'ts" when deciding on a strategy:
DO: Optimize for the common use-cases. There is often a 20/80 breakdown where 20% of the UX drives 80% of the load - the homepage/landing page is a classic example. First priority is to make sure that these are as efficient as possible. Make sure that your data model allows either A) loading those in either a single IO request or B) is cache-friendly
DONT: don't fall into the dreaded "N+1" trap. This pattern occurs when you data model forces you to make N calls in order to load N entities, often preceded by an additional call to get the list of the N IDs. This is a killer, especially together with #3...
DO: Always cap (via the UX) the amount of data which you are willing to fetch. If the user has 3729 comments you obviously aren't going to fetch them all at once. Even it it was feasible from a database perspective, the user experience would be horrible. Thats why search engines use the "next 20 results" paradigm. So you can (for example) align the database structure to the UX and save the comments in blocks of 20. Then each page refresh involves a single DB get.
DO: Balance the Read and Write requirements. Some types of systems are read-heavy and you can assume that for each write there will be many reads (StackOverflow is a good example). So there it makes sense to make writes more expensive in order to gain benefits in read performance. For example, data denormalization and duplication. Other systems are evenly balanced or even write heavy and require other approaches
DO: Use the dimension of TIME to your advantage. Twitter is a classic example: 99.99% of tweets will never be accessed after the first hour/day/week/whatever. That opens all kinds of interesting optimization possibilities in the your data schema.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I suggest reading up a little on column-based NoSQL systems (such as Cassandra)
Not sure if this answers you question, but anyhow you can throttle the amount of blog comments in two ways:
Load only the last 10 , or range of blog comments using $slice operator
db.blogs.find( {_id : someValue}, { comments: { $slice: -10 } } )
will return last 10 comments
db.blogs.find( {_id : someValue}, { comments: { $slice: [-10, 10] } } )
will return next 10 comments
Use capped array to save only the last n blog posts using capped arrays
I still getting used to using a schema-less document oriented database and I am wondering what a generally accepted practice is regarding schema designs within an application model.
Specifically I'm wondering whether it is a good practice to use enforce a schema within the application model when saving to mongodb like this:
{
_id: "foobar",
name: "John"
billing: {
address: "8237 Landeau Lane",
city: "Eden Prairie",
state: "MN",
postal: null
}
balance: null,
last_activity: null
}
versus only storing the fields that are used like this:
{
_id: "foobar",
name: "John"
billing: {
address: "8237 Landeau Lane",
city: "Eden Prairie",
state: "MN"
}
}
The former is self-descriptive which I like, while the latter makes no assumptions on the mutability of the model schema.
I like the first option because it makes it easy to see at a glance what fields are used by the model yet currently unspecified, but it seems like it would be a hassle to update every document to reflect a new schema design if I wanted to add an extra field, like favorite_color.
How do most veteran mongodb users handle this?
I would suggest second approach.
You can always see the intended structure if you look at your entity class in the source code. Or do you use dynamic language, and don't create an entity?
You save a lot of space per record, because you don't have to store null column names. This may not be expensive on small collections. But on large, with millions of records, I would even go to shorten the names of fields.
As you already mentioned. By specifying optional column names, you create a pattern, which, if you want to follow, you'll have to update all existing records when you add a new field. This is, again, a bad idea for a big DB.
In any case it all goes down your db size. If you don't target for many GBs or TBs of data, then both approaches are fine. But, if you predict, that your DB may grow really large, I would do anything to cut the size. Spending 30-40% of storage for column names is a bad idea.
I prefer the first option, it is easier to code within the application and requires much less state holders and functions to understand how things should work.
As for adding a new field over time you don't need to update all your records to support this new field like you would in SQL all you need to do is write the new field into your model application side and support this field being null if it is not returned from MongoDB.
A good example is in PHP.
I have a class of user at first with only one field, name
class User{
public $name;
}
6 months down the line and 60,000 users later I want to add, say, address. All I do is add that variable to my application model:
class User{
public $name;
public $address = array();
}
This now works exactly like adding a new null field to SQL without having to actually add it to every row on-demand.
It is a very reactive design, don't update what you don't need to. If that row gets used it will get updated, if not then who cares.
So eventually your rows actually become a mix and match between option 1 and 2 but it is really a reactive option 1.
Edit
On the storage side you have also got to think of pre-allocation and movement of documents.
Say the amount of a set record now is only a third of the doc but then suddenly, from the user updating the doc with all of the fields, you now have extra fragmentation from the movement of your docs.
Normally when you are defining a schema like this you are defining one that will eventually grow and apply to that user in most cases (much like an SQL schema does).
This is something to take into consideration that even though storage might be lower in the short term it could cause fragmentation and slow querying due to that fragmentation and you could easily find yourself having to run compacts or repairDbs due to the problems you now face.
I should mention that both of those functions I said above are not designed to be run regularly and have a significant performance problem to them while they run on a production environment.
So really with the structure above you don't need to add a new field across all documents and you will most likely get less movement and problems in the long run.
You can fix the performance problems of consistently growing documents by using power of 2 sizes padding, but then this is collection wide which means that even your fully filled documents will use up at least double their previous space and you small documents will probably be using as much space as your full documents would have on a padding factor of 1.
Aka you lose space, not gain it.
I am trying to figure out the equivalent of foreign keys and indexes in NoSQL KVP or Document databases. Since there are no pivotal tables (to add keys marking a relation between two objects) I am really stumped as to how you would be able to retrieve data in a way that would be useful for normal web pages.
Say I have a user, and this user leaves many comments all over the site. The only way I can think of to keep track of that users comments is to
Embed them in the user object (which seems quite useless)
Create and maintain a user_id:comments value that contains a list of each comment's key [comment:34, comment:197, etc...] so that that I can fetch them as needed.
However, taking the second example you will soon hit a brick wall when you use it for tracking other things like a key called "active_comments" which might contain 30 million ids in it making it cost a TON to query each page just to know some recent active comments. It also would be very prone to race-conditions as many pages might try to update it at the same time.
How can I track relations like the following in a NoSQL database?
All of a user's comments
All active comments
All posts tagged with [keyword]
All students in a club - or all clubs a student is in
Or am I thinking about this incorrectly?
All the answers for how to store many-to-many associations in the "NoSQL way" reduce to the same thing: storing data redundantly.
In NoSQL, you don't design your database based on the relationships between data entities. You design your database based on the queries you will run against it. Use the same criteria you would use to denormalize a relational database: if it's more important for data to have cohesion (think of values in a comma-separated list instead of a normalized table), then do it that way.
But this inevitably optimizes for one type of query (e.g. comments by any user for a given article) at the expense of other types of queries (comments for any article by a given user). If your application has the need for both types of queries to be equally optimized, you should not denormalize. And likewise, you should not use a NoSQL solution if you need to use the data in a relational way.
There is a risk with denormalization and redundancy that redundant sets of data will get out of sync with one another. This is called an anomaly. When you use a normalized relational database, the RDBMS can prevent anomalies. In a denormalized database or in NoSQL, it becomes your responsibility to write application code to prevent anomalies.
One might think that it'd be great for a NoSQL database to do the hard work of preventing anomalies for you. There is a paradigm that can do this -- the relational paradigm.
The couchDB approach suggest to emit proper classes of stuff in map phase and summarize it in reduce.. So you could map all comments and emit 1 for the given user and later print out only ones. It would require however lots of disk storage to build persistent views of all trackable data in couchDB. btw they have also this wiki page about relationships: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/EntityRelationship.
Riak on the other hand has tool to build relations. It is link. You can input address of a linked (here comment) document to the 'root' document (here user document). It has one trick. If it is distributed it may be modified at one time in many locations. It will cause conflicts and as a result huge vector clock tree :/ ..not so bad, not so good.
Riak has also yet another 'mechanism'. It has 2-layer key name space, so called bucket and key. So, for student example, If we have club A, B and C and student StudentX, StudentY you could maintain following convention:
{ Key = {ClubA, StudentX}, Value = true },
{ Key = {ClubB, StudentX}, Value = true },
{ Key = {ClubA, StudentY}, Value = true }
and to read relation just list keys in given buckets. Whats wrong with that? It is damn slow. Listing buckets was never priority for riak. It is getting better and better tho. btw. you do not waste memory because this example {true} can be linked to single full profile of StudentX or Y (here conflicts are not possible).
As you see it NoSQL != NoSQL. You need to look at specific implementation and test it for yourself.
Mentioned before Column stores look like good fit for relations.. but it all depends on your A and C and P needs;) If you do not need A and you have less than Peta bytes just leave it, go ahead with MySql or Postgres.
good luck
user:userid:comments is a reasonable approach - think of it as the equivalent of a column index in SQL, with the added requirement that you cannot query on unindexed columns.
This is where you need to think about your requirements. A list with 30 million items is not unreasonable because it is slow, but because it is impractical to ever do anything with it. If your real requirement is to display some recent comments you are better off keeping a very short list that gets updated whenever a comment is added - remember that NoSQL has no normalization requirement. Race conditions are an issue with lists in a basic key value store but generally either your platform supports lists properly, you can do something with locks, or you don't actually care about failed updates.
Same as for user comments - create an index keyword:posts
More of the same - probably a list of clubs as a property of student and an index on that field to get all members of a club
You have
"user": {
"userid": "unique value",
"category": "student",
"metainfo": "yada yada yada",
"clubs": ["archery", "kendo"]
}
"comments": {
"commentid": "unique value",
"pageid": "unique value",
"post-time": "ISO Date",
"userid": "OP id -> THIS IS IMPORTANT"
}
"page": {
"pageid": "unique value",
"post-time": "ISO Date",
"op-id": "user id",
"tag": ["abc", "zxcv", "qwer"]
}
Well in a relational database the normal thing to do would be in a one-to-many relation is to normalize the data. That is the same thing you would do in a NoSQL database as well. Simply index the fields which you will be fetching the information with.
For example, the important indexes for you are
Comment.UserID
Comment.PageID
Comment.PostTime
Page.Tag[]
If you are using NosDB (A .NET based NoSQL Database with SQL support) your queries will be like
SELECT * FROM Comments WHERE userid = ‘That user’;
SELECT * FROM Comments WHERE pageid = ‘That user’;
SELECT * FROM Comments WHERE post-time > DateTime('2016, 1, 1');
SELECT * FROM Page WHERE tag = 'kendo'
Check all the supported query types from their SQL cheat sheet or documentation.
Although, it is best to use RDBMS in such cases instead of NoSQL, yet one possible solution is to maintain additional nodes or collections to manage mapping and indexes. It may have additional cost in form of extra collections/nodes and processing, but it will give an solution easy to maintain and avoid data redundancy.