I was wondering if DynamoDB or SimpleDB can replace my MongoDB use-case? Here is how I use MongoDB
15k entries, and I add 200 entries per hour
15 columns each of which is indexed using (ensureIndex)
Half of the columns are integers, the others are text fields (which basically have no more than 10 unique values)
I run about 10k DB reads per hour, and they are super fast with MongoDB right now. It's an online dating site. So the average Mongo query is doing a range search on 2 of the columns (e.g. age and height), and "IN" search for about 4 columns (e.g. ethnicity is A, B, or C... religion is A, B, ro C).
I use limit and skip very frequently (e.g. get me the first 40 entries, the next 40 entries, etc)
I use perl to read/write
I'm assuming you're asking because you want to migrate directly to an AWS hosted persistence solution? Both DynamoDB and SimpleDB are k/v stores and therefor will not be a "drop-in" replacement for a document store such as MongoDB.
With the exception of the limit/skip one (which require a more k/v compatible approach) all your functional requirements can easily be met by either of the two solutions you mentioned (although DynamoDB in my opinion is the better option) but that's not going to be the main issue. The main issue is going to be to move from a document store, especially one with extensive query capabilities, to a k/v store. You will need to rework your schema, rethink your indexes, work within the constraints of a k/v store, make use of the benefits of a k/v store, etc.
Frankly if your current solution works and if MongoDB feels like a good functional fit I'd certainly not migrate unless you have very strong non-technical reasons to do so (such as, say, your boss wants you to ;) )
What would you say is the reason you're considering this move or are you just exploring whether or not it's possible in the first place?
If you are planning to have your complete application on AWS then you might also consider using Amazon RDS (hosted managed MySQL). It's not clear from your description if you actually need MongoDB's document model so considering only the querying capabilities RDS might come close to what you need.
Going with either SimpleDB or DynamoDB will most probably require you to rethink some of the features based around aggregation queries. As regards choosing between SimpleDB and DynamoDB there are many important differences, but I'd say that the most interesting ones from your point of view are:
SimpleDB indexes all attributes
there're lots of tips and tricks that you'll need to learn about SimpleDB (see what the guys from Netflix learned while using SimpleDB)
DynamoDB pricing model is based on actual write/read operations (see my notes about DynamoDB)
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'm new to mongodb and I'm facing a dilemma regarding my DB Schema design:
Should I create one single collection or put my data into several collections (we could call these categories I suppose).
Now I know many such questions have been asked, but I believe my case is different for 2 reasons:
If I go for many collections, I'll have to create about 120 and that's it. This won't grow in the future.
I know I'll never need to query or insert into multiple collections. I will always have to query only one, since a document in collection X is not related to any document stored in the other collections. Documents may hold references to other parts of the DB though (like userId etc).
So my question is: could the 120 collections improve query performance? Is this a useful optimization in my case?
Or should I just go for single collection + sharding?
Each collection is expected hold millions of documents. If use only one, it will store billions of docs.
Thanks in advance!
------- Edit:
Thanks for the great answers.
In fact the 120 collections is only a self made limit, it's not really optimal:
The data in the collections is related to web publishers. There could be millions of these (any web site can join).
I guess the ideal situation would be if I could create a collection for each publisher (to hold their data only). But obviously, this is not possible due to mongo limitations.
So I came up with the idea of a fixed number of collections to at least distribute the data somehow. Like: collection "A_XX" would hold XX Platform related data for publishers whose names start with "A".. etc. We'll only support a few of these platforms, so 120 collections should be more than enough.
On another website someone suggested using many databases instead of many collections. But this means overhead and then I would have to use / manage many different connections.
What do you think about this? Is there a better solution?
Sorry for not being specific enough in my original question.
Thanks in advance
Single Sharded Collection
The edited version of the question makes the actual requirement clearer: you have a collection that can potentially grow very large and you want an approach to partition the data. The artificial collection limit is your own planned partitioning scheme.
In that case, I think you would be best off using a single collection and taking advantage of MongoDB's auto-sharding feature to distribute the data and workload to multiple servers as required. Multiple collections is still a valid approach, but unnecessarily complicates your application code & deployment versus leveraging core MongoDB features. Assuming you choose a good shard key, your data will be automatically balanced across your shards.
You can do not have to shard immediately; you can defer the decision until you see your workload actually requiring more write scale (but knowing the option is there when you need it). You have other options before deciding to shard as well, such as upgrading your servers (disks and memory in particular) to better support your workload. Conversely, you don't want to wait until your system is crushed by workload before sharding so you definitely need to monitor the growth. I would suggest using the free MongoDB Monitoring Service (MMS) provided by 10gen.
On another website someone suggested using many databases instead of many collections. But this means overhead and then I would have to use / manage many different connections.
Multiple databases will add significantly more administrative overhead, and would likely be overkill and possibly detrimental for your use case. Storage is allocated at the database level, so 120 databases would be consuming much more space than a single database with 120 collections.
Fixed number of collections (original answer)
If you can plan for a fixed number of collections (120 as per your original question description), I think it makes more sense to take this approach rather than using a monolithic collection.
NOTE: the design considerations below still apply, but since the question was updated to clarify that multiple collections are an attempted partitioning scheme, sharding a single collection would be a much more straightforward approach.
The motivations for using separate collections would be:
Your documents for a single large collection will likely have to include some indication of the collection subtype, which may need to be added to multiple indexes and could significantly increase index sizes. With separate collections the subtype is already implicit in the collection namespace.
Sharding is enabled at the collection level. A single large collection only gives you an "all or nothing" approach, whereas individual collections allow you to control which subset(s) of data need to be sharded and choose more appropriate shard keys.
You can use the compact to command to defragment individual collections. Note: compact is a blocking operation, so the normal recommendation for a HA production environment would be to deploy a replica set and use rolling maintenance (i.e. compact the secondaries first, then step down and compact the primary).
MongoDB 2.4 (and 2.2) currently have database-level write lock granularity. In practice this has not proven a problem for the vast majority of use cases, however multiple collections would allow you to more easily move high activity collections into separate databases if needed.
Further to the previous point .. if you have your data in separate collections, these will be able to take advantage of future improvements in collection-level locking (see SERVER-1240 in the MongoDB Jira issue tracker).
The main problem here is that you will gain very little performance in the current MongoDB versions if you separate out collections into the same database. To get any sort of extra performance over a single collection setup you would need to move the collections out into separate databases, then you will have operational overhead for judging what database you should query etc.
So yes, you could go for 120 collections easily however, you won't really gain anything currently due to: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-1240 not being implemented (anytime soon).
Housing billions of documents in a single collection isn't too bad. I presume that even if you was to house this in separate collections it probably would not be on a single server either, just like sharding a single collection, so any speed reduction due to multi server setup will also not matter in this case.
In my personal opinion, using a single collection is easier on everything.
In a system I'm building, it's essentially an issue tracking system, but with various issue templates. Some issue types will have different formats that others.
I was originally planning on using MySQL with a main issues table and an issues_meta table that contains key => value pairs. However, I'm thinking NoSQL (MongoDB) might be the better option.
Can MongoDB provide me with the ability to generate "standard"
reports, like # of issues by type, # of issues by type by month, # of
issues assigned per person, etc? I ask this because I've read a few
sources that said Mongo was bad at reporting.
I'm also planning on storing my audit logs in Mongo, since I want a single "table" for all actions (Modifications to any table). In Mongo I can store each field that was changed easily, since it is schemaless. Is this a bad idea?
Anything else I should know, and will Mongo work for what I want?
I think MongoDB will be a perfect match for that use case.
MongoDB collections are heterogeneous, meaning you can store documents with different fields in the same bag. So different reporting templates won't be a show stopper. You will be able to model a full issue with a single document.
MongoDB would be a good fit for logging too. You may be interested in capped collections.
Should you need to have relational association between documents, you can do have it too.
If you are using Ruby, I can recommend you Mongoid. It will make it easier. Also, it has support for versioning of documents.
MongoDB will definitely work (and you can use capped collections to automatically drop old records, if you want), but you should ask yourself, does it fit to this task well? For use case you've described it is better option to use Redis (simple and fast enough) or Riak (if you care a lot about your log data).
From what I understand about these two "Not only SQL" databases. They search over each record and pass it to a JavaScript function you write which calculates which results are to be returned by looking at each one.
Is that actually how it works? Sounds worse than using a plain RBMS without any indexed keys.
I built my schemas so they don't require join operations which leaves me with simple searches on indexed int columns. In other words, the columns are in RAM and a quick value check through them (WHERE user_id IN (12,43,5,2) or revision = 4) gives the database a simple list of ID's which it uses to find in the actual rows in the massive data collection.
So I'm trying to imagine how in the world looking through every single row in the database could be considered acceptable (if indeed this is how it works). Perhaps someone can correct me because I know I must be missing something.
#Xeoncross
I built my schemas so they don't require join operations which leaves me with simple searches on indexed int columns. In other words, the columns are in RAM and a quick value check through them (WHERE user_id IN (12,43,5,2) or revision = 4)
Well then, you'll love MongoDB. MongoDB support indexes so you can index user_id and revision and this query will be able to return relatively quickly.
However, please note that many NoSQL DBs only support Key lookups and don't necessarily support "secondary indexes" so you have to do you homework on this one.
So I'm trying to imagine how in the world looking through every single row in the database could be considered acceptable (if indeed this is how it works).
Well if you run a query in an SQL-based database and you don't have an index that database will perform a table scan (i.e.: looking through every row).
They search over each record and pass it to a JavaScript function you write which calculates which results are to be returned by looking at each one.
So in practice most NoSQL databases support this. But please never use it for real-time queries. This option is primarily for performing map-reduce operations that are used to summarize data.
Here's maybe a different take on NoSQL. SQL is really good at relational operations, however relational operations don't scale very well. Many of the NoSQL are focused on Key-Value / Document-oriented concepts instead.
SQL works on the premise that you want normalized non-repeated data and that you to grab that data in big sets. NoSQL works on the premise that you want fast queries for certain "chunks" of data, but that you're willing to wait for data dependent on "big sets" (running map-reduces in the background).
It's a big trade-off, but if makes a lot of sense on modern web apps. Most of the time is spent loading one page (blog post, wiki entry, SO question) and most of the data is really tied to or "hanging off" that element. So the concept of grabbing everything you need with one query horizontally-scalable query is really useful.
It's the not the solution for everything, but it is a really good option for lots of use cases.
In terms of CouchDB, the Map function can be Javascript, but it can also be Erlang. (or another language altogether, if you pull in a 3rd Party View Server)
Additionally, Views are calculated incrementally. In other words, the map function is run on all the documents in the database upon creation, but further updates to the database only affect the related portions of the view.
The contents of a view are, in some ways, similar to an indexed field in an RDBMS. The output is a set of key/value pairs that can be searched very quickly, as they are stored as b-trees, which some RDBMSs use to store their indexes.
Think CouchDB stores the docs in a btree according to the "index" (view) and just walks this tree.. so it's not searching..
see http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/btree.html
You should study them up a bit more. It's not "worse" than and RDMBS it's different ... in fact, given certain domains/functions the "NoSQL" paradigm works out to be much quicker than traditional and in some opinions, outdated, RDMBS implementations. Think Google's Big Table platform and you get what MongoDB, Riak, CouchDB, Cassandra (Facebook) and many, many others are trying to accomplish. The primary difference is that most of these NoSQL solutions focus on Key/Value stores (some call these "document" databases) and have limited to no concept of relationships (in the primary/foreign key respect) and joins. Join operations on tables can be very expensive. Also, let's not forget the object relational impedance mismatch issue... You don't need an ORM to access MongoDB. It can actually store your code object (or document) as it is in memory. Can you imagine the savings in lines of code and complexity!? db4o is another lightweight solution that does this.
I don't know what you mean when you say "Not only SQL" database? It's a NoSQL paradigm - wherein no SQL is used to query the underlying data store of the system. NoSQL also means not an RDBMS which SQL is generally built on top of. Although, MongoDB does has an SQL like syntax that can be used from .NET when retrieving data - it's called NoRM.
I will say I've only really worked with Riak and MongoDB... I'm by no means familiar with Cassandra or CouchDB past a reading level and feature set comprehension. I prefer to use MongoDB over them all. Riak was nice too but not for what I needed. You should download a few of these NoSQL solutions and you will get the concept. Check out db4o, MongoDB and Riak as I've found them to be the easiest with more support for .NET based languages. It will just make sense for certain applications. All in all, the NoSQL or Document databse or OODBMS ... whatever you want to call it is very appealing and gaining lots of movement.
I also forgot about your javascript question... MongoDB has JavaScript "bindings" that enable it to be used as one method of searching for data. Riak handles data via a JSON format. MongoDB uses BSON I believe and I can't remember what the others use. In any case, the point is instead of SQL (structured query language) to "ask" the database for information some of these (MongoDB being one) use Javascript and/or RESTful syntax to ask the NoSQL system for data. I believe CouchDB and Riak can be queried over HTTP to which makes them very accessible. Not to mention, that's pretty frickin cool.
Do your research.... download them, they are all free and OSS.
db4o: http://www.db4o.com/ (Java & .NET versions)
MongoDB: mongodb.org/
Riak: http://www.basho.com/Riak.html
NoRM: http://thechangelog.com/post/436955815/norm-bringing-mongodb-to-net-linq-and-mono
I'm used to using relational databases like MySQL or PostgreSQL, and combined with MVC frameworks such as Symfony, RoR or Django, and I think it works great.
But lately I've heard a lot about MongoDB which is a non-relational database, or, to quote the official definition,
a scalable, high-performance, open
source, schema-free, document-oriented
database.
I'm really interested in being on edge and want to be aware of all the options I'll have for a next project and choose the best technologies out there.
In which cases using MongoDB (or similar databases) is better than using a "classic" relational databases?
And what are the advantages of MongoDB vs MySQL in general?
Or at least, why is it so different?
If you have pointers to documentation and/or examples, it would be of great help too.
Here are some of the advantages of MongoDB for building web applications:
A document-based data model. The basic unit of storage is analogous to JSON, Python dictionaries, Ruby hashes, etc. This is a rich data structure capable of holding arrays and other documents. This means you can often represent in a single entity a construct that would require several tables to properly represent in a relational db. This is especially useful if your data is immutable.
Deep query-ability. MongoDB supports dynamic queries on documents using a document-based query language that's nearly as powerful as SQL.
No schema migrations. Since MongoDB is schema-free, your code defines your schema.
A clear path to horizontal scalability.
You'll need to read more about it and play with it to get a better idea. Here's an online demo:
http://try.mongodb.org/
There are numerous advantages.
For instance your database schema will be more scalable, you won't have to worry about migrations, the code will be more pleasant to write... For instance here's one of my model's code :
class Setting
include MongoMapper::Document
key :news_search, String, :required => true
key :is_availaible_for_iphone, :required => true, :default => false
belongs_to :movie
end
Adding a key is just adding a line of code !
There are also other advantages that will appear in the long run, like a better scallability and speed.
... But keep in mind that a non-relational database is not better than a relational one. If your database has a lot of relations and normalization, it might make little sense to use something like MongoDB. It's all about finding the right tool for the job.
For more things to read I'd recommend taking a look at "Why I think Mongo is to Databases what Rails was to Frameworks" or this post on the mongodb website. To get excited and if you speak french, take a look at this article explaining how to set up MongoDB from scratch.
Edit: I almost forgot to tell you about this railscast by Ryan. It's very interesting and makes you want to start right away!
The advantage of schema-free is that you can dump whatever your load is in it, and no one will ever have any ground for complaining about it, or for saying that it was wrong.
It also means that whatever you dump in it, remains totally void of meaning after you have done so.
Some would label that a gross disadvantage, some others won't.
The fact that a relational database has a well-established schema, is a consequence of the fact that it has a well-established set of extensional predicates, which are what allows us to attach meaning to what is recorded in the database, and which are also a necessary prerequisite for us to do so.
Without a well-established schema, no extensional predicates, and without extensional precicates, no way for the user to make any meaning out of what was stuffed in it.
My experience with Postgres and Mongo after working with both the databases in my projects .
Postgres(RDBMS)
Postgres is recommended if your future applications have a complicated schema that needs lots of joins or all the data have relations or if we have heavy writing. Postgres is open source, faster, ACID compliant and uses less memory on disk, and is all around good performant for JSON storage also and includes full serializability of transactions with 3 levels of transaction isolation.
The biggest advantage of staying with Postgres is that we have best of both worlds. We can store data into JSONB with constraints, consistency and speed. On the other hand, we can use all SQL features for other types of data. The underlying engine is very stable and copes well with a good range of data volumes. It also runs on your choice of hardware and operating system. Postgres providing NoSQL capabilities along with full transaction support, storing JSON documents with constraints on the fields data.
General Constraints for Postgres
Scaling Postgres Horizontally is significantly harder, but doable.
Fast read operations cannot be fully achieved with Postgres.
NO SQL Data Bases
Mongo DB (Wired Tiger)
MongoDB may beat Postgres in dimension of “horizontal scale”. Storing JSON is what Mongo is optimized to do. Mongo stores its data in a binary format called BSONb which is (roughly) just a binary representation of a superset of JSON. MongoDB stores objects exactly as they were designed. According to MongoDB, for write-intensive applications, Mongo says the new engine(Wired Tiger) gives users an up to 10x increase in write performance(I should try this), with 80 percent reduction in storage utilization, helping to lower costs of storage, achieve greater utilization of hardware.
General Constraints of MongoDb
The usage of a schema less storage engine leads to the problem of implicit schemas. These schemas aren’t defined by our storage engine but instead are defined based on application behavior and expectations.
Stand-alone NoSQL technologies do not meet ACID standards because they sacrifice critical data protections in favor of high throughput performance for unstructured applications. It’s not hard to apply ACID on NoSQL databases but it would make database slow and inflexible up to some extent. “Most of the NoSQL limitations were optimized in the newer versions and releases which have overcome its previous limitations up to a great extent”.
It's all about trade offs. MongoDB is fast but not ACID, it has no transactions. It is better than MySQL in some use cases and worse in others.
Bellow Lines Written in MongoDB: The Definitive Guide.
There are several good reasons:
Keeping different kinds of documents in the same collection can be a
nightmare for developers and admins. Developers need to make sure
that each query is only returning documents of a certain kind or
that the application code performing a query can handle documents of
different shapes. If we’re querying for blog posts, it’s a hassle to
weed out documents containing author data.
It is much faster to get a list of collections than to extract a
list of the types in a collection. For example, if we had a type key
in the collection that said whether each document was a “skim,”
“whole,” or “chunky monkey” document, it would be much slower to
find those three values in a single collection than to have three
separate collections and query for their names
Grouping documents of the same kind together in the same collection
allows for data locality. Getting several blog posts from a
collection containing only posts will likely require fewer disk
seeks than getting the same posts from a collection con- taining
posts and author data.
We begin to impose some structure on our documents when we create
indexes. (This is especially true in the case of unique indexes.)
These indexes are defined per collection. By putting only documents
of a single type into the same collection, we can index our
collections more efficiently
After a question of databases with textual storage), I glanced at MongoDB and similar systems.
If I understood correctly, they are supposed to be easier to use and setup, and much faster. Perhaps also more secure as the lack of SQL prevents SQL injection...
Apparently, MongoDB is used mostly for Web applications.
Basically, and they state that themselves, these databases aren't suited for complex queries, data-mining, etc. But they shine at retrieving quickly lot of flat data.
MongoDB supports search by fields, regular expression searches.Includes user defined java script functions.
MongoDB can be used as a file system, taking advantage of load balancing and data replication features over multiple machines for storing files.