since mongoDB does not support foreign keys, I've read that you can use for DBReF. Now I want to like to test this relationship.
The 2 collections are
db.professor.insert({"_id": 1122, "Name":"Heinrich","Rang": "C3","Raum":"D123"})
db.assistent.insert({"_id": 2244,"Name":"Schmidt","Fachgebiet":"Neuronale Netze","Boss":{"$ref":"professor","$id":1122}})
First question, but it should not be at the reference the wrong id may assume or. And if I entries with the correct ID $ id how can I test the reference?
Background is that I examine the data integrity features mongoDB!
Does anyone have sources on mongoDB and data integrity
MongoDBs inter collection data integrity is zero. This is not a bug in the way MongoDB works nor is it desired that this behaviour should change.
Not having inter collection data integrity is one of its core features as a NoSQL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL ) product which this behaviour is commonly associated with (that being said it doesn't have to).
Of course this has nothing to do with general data integrity but cascading and referencing of relationships server-side.
A DBRef ( http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/applications/database-references/ ) is no different to just saving a ObjectId into your document. The only real difference is that it is a object of objects which also store a property to house the collection name. There is nothing special about the DBRef except that it comes pre-bundled with the MongoDB driver for most (if not all) languages as a helper to allow you to query the other row in your application.
Many do confuse the purpose of a DBRef however I assure you that there is nothing truly special about it.
So there is no check to see if you put in the wrong ObjectId and there is no cascade on the relationship and there is no "foreign key" behaviour in MongoDB.
Any and all relational integrity comes from your application and its ability to work in such a manner that prevents any problems within your data. This applies to both inserts and cascades of pseudo relations.
Considering these brief facts about MongoDB your test is almost useless, if you wish to test the data integrity of a relational model you should use a relational database.
I’m creating a document model of my entities to store in a Document Database (RavenDB). The domain I’m modeling revolves around Incidents. An incident has a source, a priority, a category, a level of impact and many other classification attributes. In a RDBMS, I’d have an Incident table with Foreign Keys to the Priorities table, the Categories tables, the Impacts tables etc but I don't know how to handle that in a document database (that is my first Doc BD).
I have two types of reference data:
Simple lookup values: Countries, States, Sources, Languages. Attributes: They only have a Name but this is a multilingual system so there is name for each language. Supported operations: create, delete, rename, deactivate and merge.
Complex reference data: Same as the Simple Lookups plus: Several of those have many fields and have business rules and validation rules of their own. For instance two Priorities cannot have the same Rank value. Some have a more complex structure, for instance Categories are composed of Subcategories.
How should I model those as (or as part of) documents?
PS: Links to Document Database Modeling Guidelines would be appreciated as well
Handling relationships is very different for a document database to a SQL database. RavenDB documentation discusses this here. For things that rarely, if ever, change, you should use denormalized refences.
Further, there is a good discussion about modelling reference data by the main RavenDB author, here. You can expand this example to include a dictionary of abbreviations/names per locale pretty easily. An example of this, here.
To answer your specific questions:
You can store a key for each Country/State/etc and then retrieve the locale-specific version using this key, by loading the whole reference data document and performing an in-memory lookup.
Denormalized references would be a good suit for categories. You can include the Name and/or parent category if it has to be displayed. It sounds like the entity itself is small so you may as well store the whole thing (and don't need to denormalize it). It's ok to replicate it - it's cheaper to process this way and it won't change, or at least not often (and if it does you can use patching to update it). The same applies for your other entities. As far as I can see, business rules have nothing to do with the database, other than you must be able to run the appropriate queries to enforce them.
Update: Here's a post that describes how to deal with a tree structure in Raven.
What would be the equivalent of ERD for a NoSQL database such as MongoDB?
It looks like you asked a similar question on Quora.
As mentioned there, the ERD is simply a mapping of the data you intend to store and the relations amongst that data.
You can still make an ERD with MongoDB as you still want to track the data and the relations. The big difference is that MongoDB has no joins, so when you translate the ERD into an actual schema you'll have to make some specific decisions about implement the relationships.
In particular, you'll need to make the "embed vs. reference" decision when deciding how this data will actually be stored. Relations are still allowed, just not enforced. Many of the wrappers for MongoDB actually provide lookups across collections to abstract some of this complexity.
Even though MongoDB does not enforce a schema, it's not recommended to proceed completely at random. Modeling the data you expect to have in the system is still a really good idea and that's what the ERD provides you.
So I guess the equivalent to the ERD is the ERD?
You could just use a UML class diagram instead too.
Moon Modeler supports schema design for MongoDB. It allows users to define diagrams with nested structures.
I know of no standard means of diagramming document-oriented "schema".
I'm sure you could use an ERD to map out your schemata but since document databases do not truly support--or more importantly enforce--relationships between data, it would only be as useful as your code was disciplined to internally enforce such relationships.
I have been thinking about the same issue for quite some time.
And I came to the following conclusion:
If NoSQL databases are generally schemaless, you don't actually have a 'schema' to illustrate in a diagram.
Thus, I think you should take a "by example" approach.
You could draw some mindmaps exemplifying how your data would look like when stored in a NoSQL DB such as MongoDB.
And since these databases are very dynamic you could also create some derived mindmaps to show how the data from today could evolve in time.
Take a look at this topic too.
Confusion about NoSQL Design
MongoDB does support 'joins', just not in the SQL sense of INNER JOIN (the default SQL join). While the concept of 'join' is typically associated with SQL, MongoDB does have the aggregation framework with its data processing pipeline stages. The $lookup pipeline stage is used to create the equivalent of a LEFT JOIN in SQL. That is, all documents on the left of a relationship will be pass through the pipeline, as well as any relating documents on the right side of the relationship. The documents are modified to include the relationship as part of the new documents.
Consequently, I postulate that Entity Relationship Diagrams do have a role in MongoDB. Documents are certainly related to each other in the db, and we should have a visualization of these relationships, including the cardinality relationship, e.g. full participation, partial participation, weak/strong entities, etc.
Of course, MongoDB also introduces the concept of embedded documents and referenced documents, and so I argue it adds additional flavor to the model of the ERD. And I certainly would want to see embedded and referenced relationships mapped out in a visual diagram.
The remaining question is so what is out there? What is out there for Mongoose for NodeJS? Mongoid for Ruby? etc. If you check the respective repositories for their corresponding ORMs (Object Relational Mappers), then you will see there are ERDs for them. But in terms of their completeness, perhaps there is a lot to be desired and the open source community is welcome to make contributions.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/mongoose-erd
https://rubygems.org/gems/railroady
I'm pretty new to MongoDB and NoSQL in general. I have a collection Topics, where each topics can have many comments. Each comment will have metadata and whatnot making a Comments collection useful.
In MySQL I would use foreign keys to link to the Comments table, but in NoSQL should I just include the a Comments collection within the Topics collection or have it be in a separate collection and link by ids?
Thanks!
Matt
It depends.
It depends on how many of each of these type of objects you expect to have. Can you fit them all into a single MongoDB document for a given Topic? Probably not.
It depends on the relationships - do you have one-to-many or many-to-many relationships? If it's one-to-many and the number of related entities is small you might chose to put embed them in an IList on a document. If it's many-to-many you might chose to use a more traditional relationship or you might chose to embed both sides as ILists.
You can still model relationships in MongoDB with separate collections BUT there are no joins in the database so you have to do that in code. Loading a Topic and then loading the Comments for it might be just fine from a performance perspective.
Other tips:
With MongoDB you can index INTO arrays on documents. So don't think of an Index as just being an index on a simple field on a document (like SQL). You can use, say, a Tag collection on a Topic and index into the tags. (See http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Indexes#Indexes-Arrays)
When you retrieve or write data you can do a partial read and a partial write of any document. (see http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Retrieving+a+Subset+of+Fields)
And, finally, when you can't see how to get what you want using collections and indexes, you might be able to achieve it using map reduce. For example, to find all the tags currently in use sorted by their frequency of use you would map each Topic emitting the tags used in it, and then you would reduce that set to get the result you want. You might then store the result of that map reduce permanently and only up date it when you need to.
It's a fairly significant mind-shift from relational thinking but it's worth it if you need the scalability and flexibility a NOSQL approach brings.
Also look at the Schema Design docs (http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design). There are also some videos/slides of several 10Gen presentations on schema design linked on the Mongo site. See http://www.mongodb.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=17137769 for an overview.
I'm interested in document-oriented databases, and I'd like to play with MongoDB. So I started a fairly simple project (an issue tracker), but am having hard times thinking in a non-relational way.
My problems:
I have two objects that relate to each other (e.g. issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}} - here I have a user related to the issue). Should I create another document 'user' and reference it in 'issue' document by its id (like in relational databases), or should I leave all the user's data in the subdocument?
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
I'm totally new to document-oriented databases, and right now I'm trying to develop sort of a CMS using node.js and mongodb so I'm facing the same problems as you.
By trial and error I found this rule of thumb: I make a collection for every entity that may be a "subject" for my queries, while embedding the rest inside other objects.
For example, comments in a blog entry can be embedded, because usually they're bound to the entry itself and I can't think about a useful query made globally on all comments. On the other side, tags attached to a post might deserve their own collection, because even if they're bound to the post, you might want to reason globally about all the tags (for example making a list of trending topics).
In my mind this is actually pretty simple. Embedded documents can only be accessed via their master document. If you can envision a need to query an object outside the context of the master document, then don't embed it. Use a ref.
For your example
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
I would make issue and reporter each their own document, and reference the reporter in the issue. You could also reference a list of issues in reporter. This way you won't duplicate reporters in issues, you can query them each separately, you can query reporter by issue, and you can query issues by reporter. If you embed reporter in issue, you can only query the one way, reporter by issue.
If you embed documents, you can update them all in a single query, but you have to repeat the update in each master document. This is another good reason to use reference documents.
The beauty of mongodb and other "NoSQL" product is that there isn't any schema to design. I use MongoDB and I love it, not having to write SQL queries and awful JOIN queries! So to answer your two questions.
1 - If you create multiple documents, you'll need make two calls to the DB. Not saying it's a bad thing but if you can throw everything into one document, why not? I recall when I used to use MySQL, I would create a "blog" table and a "comments" table. Now, I append the comments to the record in the same collection (aka table) and keep building on it.
2 - Yes ...
The schema design in Document-oriented DBs can seems difficult at first, but building my startup with Symfony2 and MongoDB I've found that the 80% of the time is just like with a relational DB.
At first, think it like a normal db:
To start, just create your schema as you would with a relational Db:
Each Entity should have his own Collection, especially if you'll need to paginate the documents in it.
(in Mongo you can somewhat paginate nested document arrays, but the capabilities are limited)
Then just remove overly complicated normalization:
do I need a separate category table? (simply write the category in a column/property as a string or embedded doc)
Can I store comments count directly as an Int in the Author collection? (then update the count with an event, for example in Doctrine ODM)
Embedded documents:
Use embedded documents only for:
clearness (nested documents like: addressInfo, billingInfo in the User collection)
to store tags/categories ( eg: [ name: "Sport", parent: "Hobby", page: "/sport"
] )
to store simple multiple values (for eg. in User collection: list of specialties, list of personal websites)
Don't use them when:
the parent Document will grow too large
when you need to paginate them
when you feel the entity is important enough to deserve his own collection
Duplicate values across collection and precompute counts:
Duplicate some columns/attributes values from a Collection to another if you need to do a query with each values in the where conditions. (remember there aren't joins)
eg: In the Ticket collection put also the author name (not only the ID)
Also if you need a counter (number of tickets opened by user, by category, ecc), precompute them.
Embed references:
When you have a One-to-Many or Many-to-Many reference, use an embedded array with the list of the referenced document ids (see MongoDB DB Ref).
You'll need to use an Event again to remove an id if the referenced document get deleted.
(There is an extension for Doctrine ODM if you use it: Reference Integrity)
This kind of references are directly managed by Doctrine ODM: Reference Many
Its easy to fix errors:
If you find late that you have made a mistake in the schema design, its quite simply to fix it with few lines of Javascript to run directly in the Mongo console.
(stored procedures made easy: no need of complex migration scripts)
Waring: don't use Doctrine ODM Migrations, you'll regret that later.
Redid this answer since the original answer took the relation the wrong way round due to reading incorrectly.
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
As to whether embedding some important information about the user (creator) of the ticket is a wise decision or not depends upon the system specifics.
Are you giving these users the ability to login and report issues they find? If so then it is likely you might want to factor that relation off to a user collection.
On the other hand, if that is not the case then you could easily get away with this schema. The one problem I see here is if you wish to contact the reporter and their job role has changed, that's somewhat awkward; however, that is a real world dilemma, not one for the database.
Since the subdocument represents a single one-to-one relation to a reporter you also should not suffer fragmentation problems mentioned in my original answer.
There is one glaring problem with this schema and that is duplication of changing repeating data (Normalised Form stuff).
Let's take an example. Imagine you hit the real world dilemma I spoke about earlier and a user called Nigel wants his role to reflect his new job position from now on. This means you have to update all rows where Nigel is the reporter and change his role to that new position. This can be a lengthy and resource consuming query for MongoDB.
To contradict myself again, if you were to only have maybe 100 tickets (aka something manageable) per user then the update operation would likely not be too bad and would, in fact, by manageable for the database quite easily; plus due to the lack of movement (hopefully) of the documents this would be a completely in place update.
So whether this should be embedded or not depends heavily upn your querying and documents etc, however, I would say this schema isn't a good idea; specifically due to the duplication of changing data across many root documents. Technically, yes, you could get away with it but I would not try.
I would instead split the two out.
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
Just like the relation style in my original answer, yes and easily.
For example, let's update the role of Nigel to MD (as hinted earlier) and change the ticket status to completed:
db.tickets.update({'reporter.username':'Nigel'},{$set:{'reporter.role':'MD', status: 'completed'}})
So a single document schema does make CRUD easier in this case.
One thing to note, stemming from your English, you cannot use the positional operator to update all subdocuments under a root document. Instead it will update only the first found.
Again hopefully that makes sense and I haven't left anything out. HTH
Original Answer
here I have a user related to the issue). Should I create another document 'user' and reference it in 'issue' document by its id (like in relational databases), or should I leave all the user's data in the subdocument?
This is a considerable question and requires some background knowledge before continuing.
First thing to consider is the size of a issue:
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
Is not very big, and since you no longer need the reporter information (that would be on the root document) it could be smaller, however, issues are never that simple. If you take a look at the MongoDB JIRA for example: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-9548 (as a random page that proves my point) the contents of a "ticket" can actually be quite considerable.
The only way you would gain a true benefit from embedding the tickets would be if you could store ALL user information in a single 16 MB block of contigious sotrage which is the maximum size of a BSON document (as imposed by the mongod currently).
I don't think you would be able to store all tickets under a single user.
Even if you was to shrink the ticket to, maybe, a code, title and a description you could still suffer from the "swiss cheese" problem caused by regular updates and changes to documents in MongoDB, as ever this: http://www.10gen.com/presentations/storage-engine-internals is a good reference for what I mean.
You would typically witness this problem as users add multiple tickets to their root user document. The tickets themselves will change as well but maybe not in a drastic or frequent manner.
You can, of course, remedy this problem a bit by using power of 2 sizes allocation: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/command/collMod/#usePowerOf2Sizes which will do exactly what it says on the tin.
Ok, hypothetically, if you were to only have code and title then yes, you could store the tickets as subdocuments in the root user without too many problems, however, this is something that comes down to specifics that the bounty assignee has not mentioned.
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
Yes, quite easily. This is one thing that becomes easier with embedding. You could use a query like:
db.users.update({user_id:uid,'tickets.code':'asdf-1'}, {$set:{'tickets.$.title':'Oh NOES'}})
However, to note, you can only update ONE subdocument at a time using the positional operator. As such this means you cannot, in a single atomic operation, update all ticket dates on a single user to 5 days in the future.
As for adding a new ticket, that is quite simple:
db.users.update({user_id:uid},{$push:{tickets:{code:asdf-1,title:"Whoop"}}})
So yes, you can quite simply, depending on your queries, update the entire users data in a single call.
That was quite a long answer so hopefully I haven't missed anything out, hope it helps.
I like MongoDB, but I have to say that I will use it a lot more soberly in my next project.
Specifically, I have not had as much luck with the Embedded Document facility as people promise.
Embedded Document seems to be useful for Composition (see UML Composition), but not for aggregation. Leaf nodes are great, anything in the middle of your object graph should not be an embedded document. It will make searching and validating your data more of a struggle than you'd want.
One thing that is absolutely better in MongoDB is your many-to-X relationships. You can do a many-to-many with only two tables, and it's possible to represent a many-to-one relationship on either table. That is, you can either put 1 key in N rows, or N keys in 1 row, or both. Notably, queries to accomplish set operations (intersection, union, disjoint set, etc) are actually comprehensible by your coworkers. I have never been satisfied with these queries in SQL. I often have to settle for "two other people will understand this".
If you've ever had your data get really big, you know that inserts and updates can be constrained by how much the indexes cost. You need fewer indexes in MongoDB; an index on A-B-C can be used to query for A, A & B, or A & B & C (but not B, C, B & C or A & C). Plus the ability to invert a relationship lets you move some indexes to secondary tables. My data hasn't gotten big enough to try, but I'm hoping that will help.