When it comes to NoSQL, there are bewildering number of choices to select a specific NoSQL database as is clear in the NoSQL wiki.
In my application I want to replace mysql with NOSQL alternative. In my application I have user table which has one to many relation with large number of other tables. Some of these tables are in turn related to yet other tables. Also I have a user connected to another user if they are friends.
I do not have documents to store, so this eliminates document oriented NoSQL databases.
I want very high performance.
The NOSQL database should work very well with Play Framework and scala language.
It should be open source and free.
So given above, what NoSQL database I should use?
I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of "document databases". As such, I would recommend MongoDB, which is a document database, but I think you'll like it.
MongoDB stores "documents" which are basically JSON records. The cool part is it understands the internals of the documents it stores. So given a document like this:
{
"name": "Gregg",
"fave-lang": "Scala",
"fave-colors": ["red", "blue"]
}
You can query on "fave-lang" or "fave-colors". You can even index on either of those fields, even the array "fave-colors", which would necessitate a many-to-many in relational land.
Play offers a MongoDB plugin which I have not used. You can also use the Casbah driver for MongoDB, which I have used a great deal and is excellent. The Rogue query DSL for MongoDB, written by FourSquare is also worth looking at if you like MongoDB.
MongoDB is extremely fast. In addition you will save yourself the hassle of writing schemas because any record can have any fields you want, and they are still searchable and indexable. Your data model will probably look much like it does now, with a users "collection" (like a table) and other collections with records referencing a user ID as needed. But if you need to add a field to one of your collections, you can do so at any time without worrying about the older records or data migration. There is technically no schema to MongoDB records, but you do end up organizing similar records into collections.
MongoDB is one of the most fun technologies I have happened to come across in the past few years. In that one happy Saturday I decided to check it out and within 15 minutes was productive and felt like I "got it". I routinely give a demo at work where I show people how to get started with MongoDB and Scala in 15 minutes and that includes installing MongoDB. Shameless plug if you're into web services, here's my blog post on getting started with MongoDB and Scalatra using Casbah: http://janxspirit.blogspot.com/2011/01/quick-webb-app-with-scala-mongodb.html
You should at the very least go to http://try.mongodb.org
That's what got me started.
Good luck!
At this point the answer is none, I'm afraid.
You can't just convert your relational model with joins to a key-value store design and expect it to be a 1:1 mapping. From what you said it seems that you do have joins, some of them recursive, i.e. referencing another row from the same table.
You might start by denormalizing your existing relational schema to move it closer to a design you wish to achieve. Then, you could see more easily if what you are trying to do can be done in a practical way, and which technology to choose. You may even choose to continue using MySQL. Just because you can have joins doesn't mean that you have to, which makes it possible to have a non-relational design in a relational DBMS like MySQL.
Also, keep in mind - non-relational databases were designed for scalability - not performance! If you don't have thousands of users and a server farm a traditional relational database may actually work better for you.
Hmm, You want very high performance of traversal and you use the word "friends". The first thing that comes to mind is Graph Databases. They are specifically made for this exact case.
Try Neo4j http://neo4j.org/
It's is free, open source, but also has commercial support and commercial licensing, has excellent documentation and can be accessed from many languages (REST interface).
It is written in java, so you have native libraries or you can embedd it into your java/scala app.
Regarding MongoDB or Cassendra, you now (Dec. 2016, 5 years late) try longevityframework.org.
Build your domain model using standard Scala idioms such as case classes, companion objects, options, and immutable collections. Tell us about the types in your model, and we provide the persistence.
See "More Longevity Awesomeness with Macro Annotations! " from John Sullivan.
He provides an example on GitHub.
If you've looked at longevity before, you will be amazed at how easy it has become to start persisting your domain objects. And the best part is that everything persistence related is tucked away in the annotations. Your domain classes are completely free of persistence concerns, expressing your domain model perfectly, and ready for use in all portions of your application.
Related
Because of the size of the data that needs to be queried and ability to scale as needed on multiple nodes, I am considering using some type of NoSQL db.
I have been researching numerous NoSQL offerings but can't yet decide on what would be the best option which would provide best performance, scalability and features for our data structure.
Data structure model is of a product catalog where each document/set contains certain properties and descriptions for the that individual product. Properties would vary from product to product which is why schema-less offering would work the best.
Sample structure would be like
[
{"name": "item name",
"cost": 563.34,
"category": "computer",
"manufacturer: "sony",
.
.
.
}
]
So requirement is that I need to be able to filter/query on many different data set fields/indexes in the record set, where I could filter on and exclude multiple indexes/fields in the same query. Queries will be mostly reads and there would not be much of a need for any joins or relationship type of linking.
I have looked into: Elastic Search, mongodb, OrientDB, Couchbase and Aerospike.
Elastic Search seems like an obvious choice, but I was wondering on the performance and it's stability?
Aerospike seems like it would be really fast since it does it all mostly in memory but it's filtering and searching capability didn't seem that capable
What do you think best option would be for my use case? or if there any other recommended DBs that I should look into.
I know that best way is to test the performance with the actual real life use case, but I am hoping to first narrow it down little bit.
Thank you
This is a variant on the popular question "what is the best product" :)
As always: this depends on your specific use case and goals. Database products (like all products) are always the result of trade-offs. So there does NOT exist a single product offering best performance, scalability and features. However there are many very good products for your use case.
Because your question is about Product Data and I am working with Product Data for more than 15 years, it will try to answer your question.
A document model is a perfect fit for Product Data. So for all use cases other than simple look up I would recommend a Document Store
If your use case concerns a single application and you are using the Java platform. I would recommend to use an embedded database. This makes things simpler and has a big performance advantage
If you need faceted search or other advance product search, i recommend you to use SOLR or Elastic Search
If you need a distributed system I recommend Elastic Search over SOLR
If you need Product recommendations based on reviews or other graph oriented algorithms, I recommend to use OrientDB or ArangoDB (or Neo4J, but in this case this would be my second choice)
Products we are using in Production or evaluated in depth for the use case you describe are
SOLR and ES. Both extremely well engineered products. Both (also ES) mature and stable products
Neo4J. Most mature graph database. Big advantage IMO is the awesome query language they use. Integrated Lucene engine. Very mature and well engineered product. Disadvantage is the fact that it is not a Document Graph but Property (key-value) Graph. Also it can be expensive
MongoDB. Our first experience with Document store. Very good product. Big advantage: excellent documentation, (by far) most popular NoSQL database
OrientDB and ArangoDB. Both support the Graph/Document paradigm. This are less known products, but very powerful. Because we are a Java based shop, our preference goes to OrientDB. OrientDB has a Lucene engine integrated (although the implementation is quite simple). ArangoDB on the other hand has very good documentation and a very smart and efficient storage format and finally the AQL is also very nice!
Performance: (tested with 11.43 mio Articles and 2.3 mio products). All products are very fast, especially SOLR and ES in this use case. Embedded OrientDB is also mind blowing fast for import and simple queries. For faceted search only the Search Servers provide real fast performance!
Bottom line: I would go for a Graph/Document store and/or Search Server (SOLR or ES). Because you mentioned "filtering" (I assume faceted search). The Search Server is the obvious first choice
OrientDB supports composite indexes on multiple fields. Example:
CREATE INDEX Product_idx ON Product (name, category, manufacturer) unique
SELECT FROM INDEX:Product_idx WHERE key = ["Donald Knuth", "computer"]
You could also create a FULL-TEXT index by using all the power of Lucene as engine.
Aerospike is a key-value store, not an document database. A document database would do such field-level indexing and deeper searching into a nested object better. The secondary indexes in Aerospike currently (version 3.4.x) work on string and integer 'bins' (a concept similar to a document's field or a SQL table's column).
That said, the list and map complex types of Aerospike are being augmented with those capabilities, in work being done in this quarter. Keep an eye out for those changes in the upcoming releases. You'll be able to index and query on bins of type list and map.
I'm hearing more about NoSQL, but have yet had someone give me a clear explanation of how it is to be used instead of relational databases.
I've read that it can't do left joins, so I was trying to figure out how you'd be able to use such a data storage. From reading: Preserve Joins by code in MongoDB it seems like a suggestion is to just make a large table, as if you already did the joins on it.
If the above statement is true, then I can see how it can be used. However I'm curious on how you'd handle repeat data. As the concept of normalizing, helps you remove the redundancy and ensure consistency in the data (e.g. Slight modifications like capitalization, white space, etc)...
Are we simply sacrificing the consistency of the data for scalable speed, or am I missing something?
Edit
I've been doing some more digging and found the answers the following questions useful for clarifying my understanding:
Why Google's BigTable referred as a NoSQL database?
How do you track record relations in NoSQL?
My understanding of consistency seems to be correct from those answers. And it looks like NoSQL is suppose to be used for specific problems types and that if you need relations that you should use a relational database.
But this raises more questions like:
It makes me wonder about real life examples of when to use NoSQL versus when not to?
By denormalizing the data, you should be able to solve all of the same problems that relational databases do... But there are rules on how to normalize data with relational databases. Are there rules that one can use to help them denormalize the data to use a NoSQL solution?
Any examples on when you might want to consider using both a NoSQL solution in parallel with a relational database?
MongoDB has the ability to have documents which include arrays of other documents. This solves many cases where you would have relations in reational databases.
When an invoice has multiple positions, you wouldn't put these positions into a separate collection. You would embed them as an array.
It makes me wonder about real life examples of when to use NoSQL versus when not to?
There are many different NoSQL databases, each one designed with different use-cases in mind. But you tagged this question as MongoDB, so I assume that you mean MongoDB in particular.
MongoDB has two main advantages over relational databases.
First, it scales well.
When the database is too slow or too big, you can easily add more servers by creating a cluster or replica-set of multiple shards. This doesn't work nearly as well with most relational databases.
Second, it allows heterogeneous data.
Imagine, for example, the product database of a computer hardware store. What properties do products have? All products have a price and a vendor. But CPUs have a clock rate, hard drives and RAM chips have a capacity (and these capacities aren't comparable), monitors have a resolution and so on. How would you design this in a relational database? You would either create a very long productID-property-value table or you would create a very wide and sparse product table with every property you can imagine, but most of them being NULL for most products. Both solutions aren't really elegant. But MongoDB can solve this much better because it allows each document in a collection to have a different set of properties.
What can't it do?
As a rather new technology, there isn't that much literature about it. The software ecosystem around it isn't that well either. The tools you can get for relational databases are often much more shiny.
There are also some use-cases MongoDB isn't well-suited for.
MongoDB doesn't do JOINs. When your data is very relational and denormalizing it would be counter-productive, it might be a poor choice for your product. But you might want to take a look at graph databases like Neo4j, which focus even more on relations than relational databases. Update 2016: MongoDB 3.2 now has rudimentary JOIN support with the $lookup aggregation stage, but it's still very limited in functionality compared to relational and graph databases.
MongoDB doesn't do transactions. At least not complex transactions. Certain actions which only affect a single document are guaranteed to be atomic, but as soon as you affect more than one document, you can't guarantee that no other query will happen in-between and find an inconsistent state.
MongoDB is bad for ad-hoc reporting. Its options for data-mining are severely limited. The rather new aggregation functions help and MapReduce can also solve some surprisingly complex problems when you learn to use it smart, but SQL has usually the better tools for things like that.
By denormalizing the data, you should be able to solve all of the same problems that relational databases do... But there are rules on how to normalize data with relational databases. Are there rules that one can use to help them denormalize the data to use a NoSQL solution?
Relational databases are around for about 40 years. Their theory is a well-researched topic in computer science. There are whole libraries of books written about the theory behind them. There is a by-the-book solution for every imaginable corner-case by now.
But NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are a rather new technology. We are still figuring out the best practices. The most frequent advise is: "Use your own head. Think about what queries are performed most often, and optimize your data schema for them."
Any examples on when you might want to consider using both a NoSQL solution in parallel with a relational database?
When possible I would advise against using two different database technologies in the same product:
Anyone who maintains and supports the product must be familiar with both technologies
Troubleshooting gets a lot harder
The sysadmins need to keep an additional database running and updated
You have an additional point of failure which can lead to downtime
I would only recommend to mix database technologies when fulfilling your requirements without it doesn't just become hard but physically impossible. Otherwise, make your pick and stay with it.
I am experimenting a lot these days, and one of the things I wanted to do is combine two popular NoSQL databases, namely Neo4j and MongoDB. Simply because I feel they complement eachother perfectly. The first class citizens in Neo4j, the relations, are imo exactly what's missing in MongoDB, whereas MongoDb allows me to not put large amounts of data in my node properties.
So I am trying to combine the two in a Java application, using the Neo4j Java REST binding, and the MongoDB Java driver. All my domain entities have a unique identifier which I store in both databases. The other data is stored in MongoDB and the relations between entities are stored in Neo4J. For instance, both databases contain a userid, MongoDB contains the profile information, and Neo4J contains friendship relations. With the custom data access layer I have written, this works exactly like I want it to. And it's fast.
BUT... When I want to create a user, I need to create both a node in Neo4j and a document in MongoDB. Not necessarily a problem, except that Neo4j is transactional and MongoDB is not. If both were transactional, I would just roll back both transactions when one of them fails. But since MongoDB isn't transactional, I cannot do this.
How do I ensure that whenever I create a user, either both a Node and Document are created, or none of both. I don't want to end up with a bunch of documents that have no matching node.
On top of that, not only do I want my combined database interaction to be ACID compliant, I also want it to be threadsafe. Both the GraphDatabaseService and the MongoClient / DB are provided from singletons.
I found something about creating "Transaction Documents" in MongoDB, but I realy don't like that approach. I would like something nice and clean like the neo4j beginTx, tx.success, tx.failure, tx.finish setup. Ideally, something I can implement in the same try/catch/finally block.
Should I perhaps make a switch to CouchDB, which does appear to be transactional?
Edit : After some more research, sparked by a comment, I came to realize that CouchDB is also not suitable for my specific needs. To clarify, the Neo4j part is set in stone. The Document Store database is not as long as it has a Java Library.
Pieter-Jan,
if you are able to use Neo4j 2.0 you can implement a Schema-Index-Provider (which is really easy) that creates your documents transactionally in MongoDB.
As Neo4j makes its index providers transactional (since the beginning), we did that with Lucene and there is one for Redis too (needs to be updated). But it is much easier with Neo4j 2.0, if you want to you can check out my implementation for MapDB. (https://github.com/jexp/neo4j-mapdb-index)
Although I'm a huge fan of both technologies, I think a better option for you could be OrientDB. It's a graph (as Neo4) and document (as MongoDB) database in one and supports ACID transactions. Sounds like a perfect match for your needs.
As posted here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23465663/what-is-the-best-practice-to-combine-neo4j-and-mongodb?lq=1, you might have a look on Structr.
Its backend can be regarded as a Document database around Neo4j. It's fully transactional and open-source.
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.