I have a relational database with about 300M customers and their attributes from several perspectives (360).
To perform some analytics I intent to make an extract to a MongoDB in order to have a 'flat' representation that is more suited to apply data mining techniques.
Would that make sense? Why?
Thanks!
No.
Its not storage that would be the concern here, its your flattening strategy.
How and where you store the flattened data is a secondary concern, note MongoDB is a document database and not inherently flat anyway.
Once you have your data in the shape that is suitable for your analytics, then, look at storage strategies, MongoDB might be suitable or you might find that something that allows easy Map Reduce type functionality would be better for analysis... (HBase for example)
It may make sense. One thing you can do is setup MongoDB in a horizontal scale-out setup. Then with the right data structures, you can run queries in parallel across the shards (which it can do for you automatically):
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Sharding
This could make real-time analysis possible when it otherwise wouldn't have been.
If you choose your data models right, you can speed up your queries by avoiding any sorts of joins (again good across horizontal scale).
Finally, there is plenty you can do with map/reduce on your data too.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/MapReduce
One caveat to be aware of is there is nothing like SQL Reporting Services for MongoDB AFAIK.
I find MongoDB's mapreduce to be slow (however they are working on improving it, see here: http://www.dbms2.com/2011/04/04/the-mongodb-story/ ).
Maybe you can use Infobright's community edition for analytics? See here: http://www.infobright.com/Community/
A relational db like Postgresql can do analytics too (afaik MySQL can't do a hash join but other relational db's can).
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 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)
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.