I have a cloud native app based on azure. The app uses azure table storage.
Due to a fantastic opportunity I have decided to also provide the app on-premises. So I have to replace the NoSql data provider... my question is: Which solution is more alike Azure Table Storage? Mongo? Raven? you name it!
What I intend is to migrate the code effortlessly, like migrating from SQL Azure to Sql Server 2012... no code change needed... but I know that theres no equivalent for table storage... so I intend to find the one that will reduce my TTM as much as possible...
MongoDB and Table Storage are not exactly swappable replacements for each other. One is key/value, the other is document. I compared the two in this answer.
There's no getting around the fact that Table Storage is Storage-as-a-Service and you only pay for quantity of data (plus a very small per-transaction cost), whereas to work with MongoDB, you'd either have to host it in your own VMs (which gives you plenty of storage room, but at the expense of VMs) or work with a hoster (such as MongoLab, which offers 500MB for free currently). Regardless, you'd have do do some code changes to work with MongoDB over Table Storage.
I'm not sure if there exists a key/value store equivalent to Table Storage that's locally-installable. No matter what you pick, you'll have modifications on your Azure-side solution if you swap out Table Storage.
Is it possible, for your on-premises solution, to provide a MongoDB backend that stays relatively simple? That is: Stick with a single index to substitute for rowkey, and then store your table entities as documents (avoiding sub-documents)? This would keep your data layout very similar. At that point, you could use things like Aggregation Framework for a bit of data processing, and not damage the overall layout style/schema of your data.
MongoDB would give you a consistent storage framework that you could use in-cloud and on-premises, and has good support for Windows Azure.
Related
Does it make sense to get data from REST API and store it as JSON in an Azure Data Lake? Or the data should be stored directly into Azure SQL?
I've tried both options, but it's not clear in which scenario it is worth to save the data into Azure Data Lake.
Yes this is a perfectly normal pattern that has emerged for collecting large volumes in particular. Writing to a database is great but there are (at least) two aspects to consider:
schema-on-write - you have to know the schema before you write to the database. That means all columns, all datatypes, nullability, collation even before you can even think about writing a record. How are you going to handle the schema of your JSON changing for example?
transaction logging - most Microsoft SQL databases work with write-ahead-log or WAL, which means the transaction logging has to complete before the transaction is considered complete as part of an ACID transaction. What will happen in situations of heavy load on the database or high concurrency - queuing and blocking. Often these things take milliseconds but low tiers etc come into play. Alternate patterns like eventual consistency eg with Cosmos are a possibility if you need that sort of thing.
Data Lakes in contract are schema-on-read, ie you do not have to know the schema in order to write to the lake, so you can just land it and figure out the other stuff later.
This does not necessarily apply to your other question about Synapse as you run the risk of losing your perfectly good SQL Server datatypes. Look at one of the migration wizards for that instead.
I have a database currently in Mongo running on an EC2 instance and would like to migrate the data to DynamoDB. Is this possible and what is the most cost effective way to achieve this?
When you ask for a "cost effective way" to migrate data, I assume you are looking for existing technologies that can ease your life. If so, you could do the following:
Export your MongoDB data to a text file, say in tsv format, using mongoexport.
Upload that file somewhere in S3.
Import this data, in S3, to DynamoDB using AWS Data Pipeline.
Of course, you should design & finalize your DynamoDB table schema before doing all this.
Whenever you are changing databases, you have to be very careful about the way you migrate data. Certain data formats maintain type consistency, while others do not.
Then there are just data formats that cannot handle your schema. For example, CSV is great at handling data when it is one row per entry, but how do you render an embedded array in CSV? It really isn't possible, JSON is good at this, but JSON has its own problems.
The easiest example of this is JSON and DateTime. JSON does not have a specification for storing DateTime values, they can end up as ISO8601 dates, or perhaps UNIX Epoch Timestamps, or really anything a developer can dream up. What about Longs, Doubles, Ints? JSON doesn't discriminate, it makes them all strings, which can cause loss of precision if not deserialized correctly.
This makes it very important that you choose the appropriate translation medium. The generally means you have to roll your own solution. This means loading up the drivers for both databases, reading an entry from one, translating, and writing to this other. This is the best way to be absolutely sure errors are handled properly for your environment, that types are kept consistently, and that the code properly translates schema from source to destination (if necessary).
What does this all mean for you? It means a lot of leg work for you. It is possible somebody has already rolled something that is broad enough for your case, but I have found in the past that it is best for you to do it yourself.
I know this post is old, Amazon made it possible with AWS DMS, check this document :
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/dms/latest/userguide/CHAP_Source.MongoDB.html
Some relevant parts:
Using an Amazon DynamoDB Database as a Target for AWS Database
Migration Service
You can use AWS DMS to migrate data to an Amazon DynamoDB table.
Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that
provides fast and predictable performance with seamless scalability.
AWS DMS supports using a relational database or MongoDB as a source.
There is a web application which is running for a years and during its life time the application has gathered a lot of user data. Data is stored in relational DB (postgres). Not all of this data is needed to run application (to do the business). However form time to time business people ask me to provide reports of this data data. And this causes some problems:
sometimes these SQL queries are long running
quires are executed against production DB (not cool)
not so easy to deliver reports on weekly or monthly base
some parts of data is stored in way which is not suitable for such
querying (queries are inefficient)
My idea (note that I am a developer not the data mining specialist) how to improve this whole process of delivering reports is:
create separate DB which regularly is update with production data
optimize how data is stored
create a dashboard to present reports
Question: But is there a better way? Is there another DB which better fits for such data analysis? Or should I look into modern data mining tools?
Thanks!
Do you really do data mining (as in: classification, clustering, anomaly detection), or is "data mining" for you any reporting on the data? In the latter case, all the "modern data mining tools" will disappoint you, because they serve a different purpose.
Have you used the indexing functionality of Postgres well? Your scenario sounds as if selection and aggregation are most of the work, and SQL databases are excellent for this - if well designed.
For example, materialized views and triggers can be used to process data into a scheme more usable for your reporting.
There are a thousand ways to approach this issue but I think that the path of least resistance for you would be postgres replication. Check out this Postgres replication tutorial for a quick, proof-of-concept. (There are many hits when you Google for postgres replication and that link is just one of them.) Here is a link documenting streaming replication from the PostgreSQL site's wiki.
I am suggesting this because it meets all of your criteria and also stays withing the bounds of the technology you're familiar with. The only learning curve would be the replication part.
Replication solves your issue because it would create a second database which would effectively become your "read-only" db which would be updated via the replication process. You would keep the schema the same but your indexing could be altered and reports/dashboards customized. This is the database you would query. Your main database would be your transactional database which serves the users and the replicated database would serve the stakeholders.
This is a wide topic, so please do your diligence and research it. But it's also something that can work for you and can be quickly turned around.
If you really want try Data Mining with PostgreSQL there are some tools which can be used.
The very simple way is KNIME. It is easy to install. It has full featured Data Mining tools. You can access your data directly from database, process and save it back to database.
Hardcore way is MADLib. It installs Data Mining functions in Python and C directly in Postgres so you can mine with SQL queries.
Both projects are stable enough to try it.
For reporting, we use non-transactional (read only) database. We don't care about normalization. If I were you, I would use another database for reporting. I will desing the tables following OLAP principals, (star schema, snow flake), and use an ETL tool to dump the data periodically (may be weekly) to the read only database to start creating reports.
Reports are used for decision support, so they don't have to be in realtime, and usually don't have to be current. In other words it is acceptable to create report up to last week or last month.
We have a SaaS application where each tenant has its own database in Postgres. How would I apply a patch to all the databses? For example if I want to add a table or add a column to a table, I have to either write a program that loops through all databases and execute a SQL against them or using pgadmin, go through them one by one.
Is there smarter and/or faster way?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a smarter way.
Don't create a new database for each tenant. If everything is in one database then you only need to alter one database.
Pick one database, alter each table to have the column TENANT and add this to the primary key. Then insert into this database every record for all tenants and drop the other databases (obviously considerably more work than this as your application will need to be changed).
The differences with your approach are extensively discussed elsewhere:
What problems will I get creating a database per customer?
What are the advantages of using a single database for EACH client?
Multiple schemas versus enormous tables
Practicality of multiple databases per client vs one database
Multi-tenancy - single database vs multiple database
If you don't put everything in one database then I'm afraid you have to alter them all individually, and doing it programatically would be simplest.
At a higher level, all multi-tenant applications follow one of three approaches:
One tenant's data lives in one database,
One tenant's data lives in one schema, or
Add a tenant_id / account_id column to your tables (shared schema).
I usually find that developers use the following criteria when they evaluate these different approaches.
Isolation: Since you can put each tenant into its own database in one hand, and have tenants share the same table on the other, this becomes the most apparent dimension. If you provide your users raw SQL access or you're in a regulated industry such as healthcare, you may need strict guarantees from your database. That said, PostgreSQL 9.5 comes with row level security policies that makes this less of a concern for most applications.
Extensibility: If your tenants are sharing the same schema (approach #3), and your tenants have fields that varies between them, then you need to think about how to merge these fields.
This article on multi-tenant databases has a great summary of different approaches. For example, you can add a dozen columns, call them C1, C2, and so forth, and have your application infer the actual data in this column based on the tenant_id. PostgresQL 9.4 comes with JSONB support and natively allows you to use semi-structured fields to express variations between different tenants' data.
Scaling: Another criteria is how easily your database would scale-out. If you create a tenant per database or schema (#1 or #2 above), your application can make use of existing Ruby Gems or [Django packages][1] to simplify app integration. That said, you'll need to manually manage your tenants' data and the machines they live on. Similarly, you'll need to build your own sharding logic to propagate foreign key constraints and ALTER TABLE commands.
With approach #3, you can use existing open source scaling solutions, such as Citus. For example, this blog post describes how to easily shard a multi-tenant app with Postgres.
it's time for me to give back to the community :) So after 4 years, our multi-tenant platform is in production and I would like to share the following observations/experiences with all of you.
We used a database per each tenant. This has given us extreme flexibility as the size of the databases in the backups are not huge and hence we can easily import them into our staging environment for customers issues.
We use Liquibase for database development and upgrades. This has been a tremendous help to us, allowing us to package the entire build into a simple war file. All changes are easily versioned and managed very efficiently. There is a bit of learning curve here an there but nothing substantial. 2-5 days can significantly save you time.
Given that we use Spring/JPA/Hibernate, we use a technique called Dynamic Data Source Routing. So when a user logs-in, we find the related datasource with a lookup and connect them to the session to the right database. That's also when the Liquibase scripts get applied for updates.
This is, for now, I will come back with more later on.
Well, there are problems with one database for all tenants in our case for sure.
The backup file gets huge and becomes almost not practical hard to manage
For troubleshooting, we need to restore customer's data in our dev env, we just use that customer's backup file and usually the file is not as big as if we were to use one database for all customers.
Again, Liquibase has been key in allowing to manage updates across all the tenants seamlessly and without any issues. Without Liquibase, I can see lots of complications with this approach. So Liquibase, Liquibase and more Liquibase.
I also suspect that we would need a more powerful hardware to manage a huge database with large joins across millions of records vs much lighter database with much smaller queries.
In case of problems, the service doesn't go down for everyone and there will be limited to one or few tenants.
In general, for our purposes, this has been a great architectural decision and we are benefiting from it every day. One time we had one customer that didn't have their archiving active and their database size grew to over 3 GB. With offshore teams and slower internet as well as storage/bandwidth prices, one can see how things may become complicated very quickly.
Hope this helps someone.
--Rex
We have decided to use MongoDB for a SaaS offering we are creating. Each company that signs up gets their own url (mycompany.domain.com) and their own private set of users, projects, etc... Since we are using a NoSQL solution, and wouldn't have to manage pushing out schema updates to every database like we would with MySQL, I am wondering if it would be better to have one huge database containing all the data, or to have one database per client.
Since MongoDB can shard the database across multiple servers, I'm thinking there wouldn't be a huge performance hit if we had a giant database, but I also think backups and exporting data would be much easier if there was one database per client. Any thoughts?
Go with one but make sure to take advantage of some sort of replication for backup purposes!
Look into sharding or look into replica-sets.