Is it really necessary to study the database books like DATABASE SYSTEM CONCEPTS or Fundamentals of Database Systems in colleges to learn RDMS?
Why not learn in an informal way with Beginning Database Design or Database in Depth?
I would have to say yes, unless you know how the system works you cannot use it to its fullest..
for instance, you need to know what are indexes and how they impact a database before you use them..
its important to learn these concepts, doesn't matter where, could be in college or via the internet.
Related
I'm currently planning a social-media application - especially the backend.
Basically I have all the social aspects for which I want to use SQL (PostgreSQL I guess) but I also have geolocations organized in lists (so many-to-one) which will propably make out the biggest ammount of data. I know that PostgreSQL has modules for GIS capabilities and my initial thought was to just use PostgreSQL for everything, just for the sake of simplicity and because performance of Geolocation searches should be around the same for both systems, if not even in favor of PostgreSQL. I can also use JSON Type in PostgreSQL so it basically has the most obvious advantages of MongoDB covered.
On the other hand I'm affraid of scalability as the geolocations are going to be the biggest chunk of data and the tables are propably going have heaps of rows.
So my thought now is to implement geolocations in MongoDB with its easy scalability, easy to use geolocation search and embedd e.g Comments/Likes for a geolocation directly into the document, which would make the geolocation reads/searches way easier but then again I had to combine this data with social data from SQL, e.g fetch all users that commented a geolocation and get their profile info from PostgreSQL and 'manually' combine it. Even though parts of this could be done on frontend saving me a lot of resources.
I'm not sure how good this idea performs and if I'm really doing myself a favor there.
tldr: Use PostgreSQL.
Long answer:
You are trying to pre-optimize for a problem you don't even know if you will have. You don't know how many geolocations you will have, what the usage behaviors will be of your users and you probably don't even have any users yet.
I've used MongoDB before and migrated to PostgreSQL. There are many, many features and benefits to using a 'real' database for storing highly structured data. I suggest googling around for 'PostgreSQL vs X' articles, but the overall consensus that I've found is that PGSQL is extremely mature, reliable, performant and supported.
From my personal experience using Mongo then switching to PGSQL, I will never use Mongo again unless PGSQL (or another full-fledged SQL database) is completely falling over and I've spent months fixing it. Even then I'd take a hard look at other NoSQL databases too. PGSQL has so many amazing features and powerful tools that make it a joy to use.
For the seemingly few things you think you need Mongo for, PGSQL can do, and do just as well or better. It has native JSON types with indexes, geo support, full text indexing, etc. PGSQL has been around longer and has more support (useful for debugging, performance tuning, etc).
Regardless of which technologies you are thinking of using, you can't make any sort of informed decision if you don't:
Test with large data sets
and
Know your usage patterns and data volumes
So at this point I'd pick the more matured and powerful tool and setup monitoring for it. Watch the usage and performance of PGSQL, see how it holds up. Research best practices for PGSQL. Get to know it, learn it, dive in deep. When it comes to scaling individual services, each one is somewhat unique and will not fit a simple "Should I use X or Y?" question.
Good luck!
This might sound like a dumb question but I am recently learning about a Big Table.
Would someone please tell me the advantage of using Big Table over NoSql databases. I eventually see both of them as semi-structured data storage. Some people mention that Big Table has much more simple interface as compared to a NoSql database but I don't quite understand how. Also is there a way I can try out API's of Big Table ??
Also , does Big Table have web interfaces , if yes can I get links to it as well ?
BigTable is Google's system to store large documents of data. It doesn't generates relations between documents as it doesn't benefit the architecture of Google's applications. This philosophy of "Unrelated" data-instances are the basic idea of NoSQL. So long story short, BigTable is NoSQL as NoSQl is the theoretical idea ( just like RDBMS is the basic theory of MySQL,MSSQL and others ).
An approach of bigtable has been made and gave birth to hadoop. It is widely used by many industries.An other related implementation is storm which tries to operates faster when it comes to serve real time data.
Regarding NoSQL databases you should take a good look at hbase, cassandra and if you are coming from the RDBMS world MongoDB would be the best choice to start realizing the use of NoSQL.
Mind to take a good look at the Google's notes regarding BigTable.
Cheers!
I was on my way for the Development of an Ecommerce app. Is it possible to write a lithium application that works on different connections basically MongoDb or CouchDb and MySQL? How can we do it and what are your tips on achieving it?
I'm not sure if I understand you right.
If you just want to use more connections at the same time to different databases, this is easily possible. You can just define more connections at once (take a look at the default connections.php bootstrap file and also at the documentation for the lithium\core\Environment class).
If you want to run your whole application on all the database mentioned above, read on...
It is not easy to answer this question in general, but here are some thoughts on this:
As you may know, Lithium provides you with a database abstraction layer which exposes general methods for the CRUD process. As nice this is during development (you don't have to learn new interfaces for every database), you soon come to a point where you need database specific features.
This may raise compatiblitiy problems between relational databases, but is nearly impossible for mixing relational and non-relational databases. Of course you can use them side-by-side, but providing abstractions is really hard. For example, how would you query on nested documents (like you do in MongoDB) in MySQL? You could write a wrapper that tries to emulate this, but you shouldnt try to.
That said, if you really have to do this, you may achieve it with writing wrapper code and leave out very specific database-dependend features.
I searched a bit for the differences between OODBMS and RDBMS. I pretty much know what they are. However, how I will decide which one is better for which applications. Can anyone kindly help me please?
What I meant for factory management is: there are production lines to manufacture bottled, frozen and other food stuff. The application manages from assigning staff onto the lines, to keep the production records in the system. Which dbms is better for such systems?
Thanks in advance.
Here is a nice article by Rick Grehan that describes cases where ODBMS are useful:
http://www.odbms.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/006.04-Grehan-When-to-Use-an-ODBMS-2005.pdf
Disclaimer: this is an "old curmudgeon" answer, from a guy who wrote plenty of perfectly functional accounting, manufacturing and other code before OOP came into the mainstream.
With that being said...
Factory management is classic relational database stuff, it's what it was invented to do. The code for classic relational apps tends to follow very predictable patterns, lots of loops over retrieved rows from tables, or straight pass-through stuff: passing data up to the UI or down to the database. If your DB is well-designed, the biz logic you code will be details in those loops or pass-throughs, but those two patterns will dominate.
An OODMS on the other hand, from the point of view of this "old curmudgeon", attempts to recast the perfectly and efficiently functional RDBMS into something that will work with classes/objects, for no discernible gain over a system that has proven itself for decades to work extremely well. Classes have little or nothing to do with the classic code patterns that sit on top of relational databases. In fact, they tend to complicate things and can easily get in the way. I'm not saying don't use OOP code to deal with the database, just that OOP was invented for a different kind of problem, a problem that database apps don't happen to have.
Decision to choose OODBMS or RDBMS does not depend upon particular application like factory management/automation.
It is depends on many criteria like
1) Programming Paradigm - If you [programmer] choose to visualize/implement in the OO programming language then the OODBMS is suitable to store the objects as directly into the database, but Most widely the type of DBMS Relational, because it is well established commercially and have a good mathematical background.
2) Application Specific - For an factory automation/management, responsiveness and fast access is important. The OODBMS are swifter than the RDBMS. If you considered for web-development then a light-weight tool like MySQL will fit a lot.
3) Trend - Now there is paradigm swift from Legacy/Structural to Object/Component Oriented programming. so therefore, in this trend the OODBMS is best suitable for the Enterprise Applications like factory management, etc.
It depends on the application layer using. If it is a simple approach more towards procedural way [which can have classes too] RDBMS is more suitable. Otherwise if you are more towards a strict object oriented system OODBMS can be used.
I usually draw the line of usefulness at the point in which they need to be integrated into enterprise systems. If your project does not necessarily need to integrate, ODBMS is usually easier or technically superior. If you can integrate via web services or "push/pull" into an enterprise system DB, then you can still use an ODBMS, but there might be political pressure against it. (newer ODBMS/RDBMS replication like dRS for db4o may be a good fit) But if you need tight integration with legacy or enterprise datastores, then you're usually forced to use the RDBMS for one reason or another.
That said, your individual production lines might benefit greatly from an ODBMS which are great at storing oft-changing complex object models and schemas while the orchestrator system could follow my previous line of thinking.
I've been using ODBMS for many years, and have been dreading the project which requires me to return to purely relational data management. Although recent improvements in ORM tooling have made relational much more pleasant to work with, the ORM+RDBMS solution still can't keep up with ODBMS systems in a few key areas (see the previously mentioned article on odbms.org).
I have read a lot of the MongoDB.
I like all the features it provides, but I wonder if it's possible to have it as the only database for my application, including storing sensitive information.
I know that it compromises the durability part in ACID but I will as a solution have 1 master and 2 slaves in different locations.
If I do that, is it possible to use it as the primary database, storing everything?
UPDATE:
Lets put it this way.
I really need a document storage rather than traditional dbms for be able to create my flexible application. But is MongoDB reliable enough to store customer sensitive information if I have multiple database replications and master-slave? Cause as far as I know one major downside is that it compromises the D in ACID. So I solve it with multiple databases.
Now there is not major problems such as lost of data issues?
And someone told me that with MongoDB a customer could be billed twice. Could someone enlighten this?
Yes, MongoDB can work as an application's only data store. Use replication and make sure you know about safe writes and w.
And someone told me that with MongoDB a customer could be billed
twice. Could someone enlighten this?
I'm guessing whoever told you that was talking about eventual consistency. Some NoSQL databases are eventually consistent, meaning that you could have conflicting writes. MongoDB is not, though, it is strongly consistent (just like a relational database).
Your application being flexible or not has absoutely nothing to do with wether you use "nosql", a "document db" or a proper RDBMS. Nobody using your application will care either way.
If you need flexibility while coding, you should research into frameworks, like ActiveRecord for Ruby, which can make DB-interfacing much more simple, generic and powerful. At that level, you can gain alot more than just changing the DB, and you can even become DB-agnostic, meaning you can change DB without changing any code. Indeed, I have found ActiveRecord to boost my productivity many many fold by alleviating me from tedious and error-prone "code intermixed with SQL".
Indeed, if you feel you need a schemaless database, for critical data, you are doing something wrong. You are putting your own convenience over critical needs of the projects, or in ignorance thinking you won't get into problems later. Sooner or later, lack of consistency will bite your ass, hard!
I feel you are hesistant towards RDBMS because you are not really that comfortable with all the jargons, syntax and sound CS principles.
Believe me, if you're going to create an application of any value, you are hundred times better learning SQL, ACID and good database-principles in the first place. Just read up on the basics, and build your knowledge from wherever you are now. It's the same for each and every one of us, it takes time, but you learn to do things right from the start.
Low-level tools like MongoDB and equivalent just provide you with infinitely more ammunition to shoot yourself in the foot with. They make it seem easy. In reality however, they leave the hard work for you, the coder, to deal with, while an RDBMS will handle more of the cruft for you once you grok the basics.
Why use computers at all, if you want more work, you can just go back to paper. Design will be a breeze, and implementation can be super-quick. Done. Except it won't be right of course.
In the real world, we can't afford to ignore consistency, database design and many more sound CS principles. Which is why it's a great idea to study them in the first place, and keep learning more and more.
Don't buy into the hype. You ask question about MongoDB here, but include that you really need its features. With 25 years of computer experience, I simply don't buy it. If you think creatively, an RDBMS can be made to do whatever you want it to, or a framework can be utilized to save you from errors and wasted time.
Crafting ACID properties onto MongoDB seems like more work to me, and by experience, sounds like an excercise in futility, rather than using what is already designed to suit such purposes.
Is it possible? Sure. Why not? It's possible to store everything as XML in text files if you wanted to.
Is it the best idea? It depends on what you're trying to do, the rest of your system architecture, the scale your site is intended to achieve, and so on.