What is the best non-ORM database to work with Scala? I find this link link text, but this does not answer my question fully.
Could be considered desirable features performance, scalability and facility to write complex structures of relationships between data.
Thanks
Do you mean non-relational? There are Scala client libraries/wrappers for many NoSQL databases, including Cassandra, MongoDB, Redis, Voldemort, CouchDB, etc.
If by "complex structures of relationships between data" you mean that you'd prefer not to have to normalize, any NoSQL database should do reasonably well.
However, note that none of them--to my knowledge--will do anything like enforcing a referential integrity constraint or dereferencing object navigation paths for you. For that you may want to consider a graph database or OODBMS; unfortunately I'm not aware of any that's open source, liberally licensed and clusterable.
Update: I just found OrientDB which actually meets all threetwo of these criteria.
Update 2: OrientDB's clustering support isn't released yet. As a wise man once said, two out of three ain't bad.
The best solution is probably not to worry about it...
Abstract away from the problem by using the pluggable-persistence support in Akka: http://doc.akkasource.org/persistence
Then you can try them all, and take your pick based on profiling results :)
Related
I have recently started learning NO SQL databases and I came across Key-Value oriented databases and Document oriented databases. Since they have a similar structure, aren't they saved and retrieved the exact same way? And if that is the case then why do we define them as separate types? Otherwise, how they are saved in the file system?
To get started it is better to pin point the least wrong vocabulary. What used to be called nosql is too broad in scope, and often there is no intersection feature-wise between two database that are dubbed nosql except for the fact that they somehow deal with "data". What program does not deal with data?! In the same spirit, I avoid the term Relational Database Management System (RDBMS). It is clear to most speakers and listeners that RDBMS is something among SQL Server, some kind of Oracle database, MySQL, PostgreSQL. It is fuzzy whether that includes SQLite, that is already an indicator, that "relational database" ain't the perfect word to describe the concept behind it. Even more so, what people usually call nosql never forbid relations. Even on top of "key-value" stores, one can build relations. In a Resource Description Framework database, the equivalent of SQL rows are called tuple, triple, quads and more generally and more simply: relations. Another example of relational database are database powered by datalog. So RDBMS and relational database is not a good word to describe the intended concepts, and when used by someone, only speak about the narrow view they have about the various paradigms that exists in the data(base) world.
In my opinion, it is better to speak of "SQL databases" that describe the databases that support a subset or superset of SQL programming language as defined by the ISO standard.
Then, the NoSQL wording makes sense: database that do not provide support for SQL programming language. In particular, that exclude Cassandra and Neo4J, that can be programmed with a language (respectivly CQL and Cypher / GQL) which surface syntax looks like SQL, but does not have the semantic of SQL (neither a superset, nor a subset of SQL). Remains Google BigQuery, which feels a lot like SQL, but I am not familiar enough with it to be able to draw a line.
Key-value store is also fuzzy. memcached, REDIS, foundationdb, wiredtiger, dbm, tokyo cabinet et. al are very different from each other and are used in verrrrrrrrrrry different use-cases.
Sorry, document-oriented database is not precise enough. Historically, they were two main databases, so called document database: ElasticSearch and MongoDB. And those yet-another-time, are very different software, and when used properly, do not solve the same problems.
You might have guessed it already, your question shows a lack of work, and as phrased, and even if I did not want to shave a yak regarding vocabulary related to databases, is too broad.
Since they have a similar structure,
No.
aren't they saved and retrieved the exact same way?
No.
And if that is the case then why do we define them as separate types?
Their programming interface, their deployment strategy and their internal structure, and intended use-cases are much different.
Otherwise, how they are saved in the file system?
That question alone is too broad, you need to ask a specific question at least explain your understanding of how one or more database work, and ask a question about where you want to go / what you want to understand. "How to go from point A-understanding (given), to point B-understanding (question)". In your question point A is absent, and point B is fuzzy or too-broad.
Moar:
First, make sure you have solid understanding of an SQL database, at the very least the SQL language (then dive into indices and at last fine-tuning). Without SQL knowledge, your are worthless on the job market. If you already have a good grasp of SQL, my recommendation is to forgo everything else but FoundationDB.
If you still want "benchmark" databases, first set a situation (real or imaginary) ie. a project that you know well, that requires a database. Try to fit several databases to solve the problems of that project.
Lastly, if you have a precise project in mind, try to answer the following questions, prior to asking another question on database-design:
What guarantees do you need. Question all the properties of ACID: Atomic, Consistent, Isolation, Durability. Look into BASE. You do not necessarily need ACID or BASE, but it is a good basis that is well documented to know where you want / need to go.
What is size of the data?
What is the shape of the data? Are they well defined types? Are they polymorphic types (heterogeneous shapes)?
Workload: Write-once then Read-only, mostly reads, mostly writes, a mix of both. Answer also the question how fast or slow can be writes or reads.
Querying: How queries look like: recursive / deep, columns or rows, or neighboor hood queries (like graphql and SQL without recursive queries do). Again what is the expected time to response.
Do not forgo to at least the review deployement and scaling strategies prior to commit to a particular solution.
On my side, I picked up foundationdb because it is the most versatile in those regards, even if at the moment it requires some code to be a drop-in replacement for all postgresql features.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.
What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).
Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.
If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.
In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.
It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.
NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.
NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.
Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.
I am implementing a sinatra/rails based web portal that might eventually have few many:many relationships between tables/models. This is a one man team and part time but real world app.
I discussed my entity with someone and was advised to try neo4j. Coming from real 'non-sexy' enterprise world, my inclination is to use relational db until it stops scaling or becomes a nightmare because of sharding etc and then think about anything else.
HOWEVER,
I am using postgres for the first time in this project along with datamapper and its taking me time to get started very fast
I am just trying out few things and building more use cases so I consitently have to update my schema (prototyping idea and feedback from beta) . I wont have to do this in neo4j (except changing my queries)
Seems like its very easy to setup search using neo4j . But Postgres can do full text search as well.
Postgres recently announced support for json and javascript. Wondering if I should just stick with PG and invest more time learning PG (which has a good community) instead neo4j.
Looking for usecases where neo4j is better, especially at protyping/initial phase of a project. I understand if the website grows I might end up having multiple persistent technologies like s3, relational (PG), mongo etc.
Also it would be good to know how it plays out with Rails/Ruby ecosystem.
Update1:
I got a lot of good answers and seems like the right thing to do is stick with Postgres for now (especially since I deploy to heroku)
However the idea of being schema-less is tempting. Basically I am thinking of a approach where you don't define a datamodel until you have say 100-150 users and you have yourself figured out a good schema (business use cases) for your product , while you are just demoing the concept and getting feedback with limited signups. Then one can decide a schema and start with relational.
Would be nice to know if there are easy to use schema/less persistence option (based on ease to use/setup for new user) that might give up say scaling etc.
Graph databases should be considered if you have a really chaotic data model. They were needed to express highly complex relationships between entities. To do that, they store relationships at the data level whereas RDBMS use a declarative approach. Storing relationships only makes sense if these relationships are very different, otherwise you'll just end up duplicating data over and over, taking a lot of space for nothing.
To require such variety in relationships you'd have to handle huge amount of data. This is where graph databases shines because instand of doing tons of joins, they just pick a record and follow his relationships. To support my statement : you'll notice that every use cases on Neo4j's website are dealing with very complex data.
In brief, if you don't feel concerned with what I said above, I think you should use another technology. If this is just about scaling, schemalessness or starting fast a project, then look at other NoSQL solutions (more specifically, either column or document oriented databases). Otherwise you should stick with PostgreSQL. You could also, like you said, consider polyglot persistence,
About your update, you might consider hStore. I think it fits your requirements. It's a PostgreSQL module which also works on Heroku.
I don't think I agree that you should only use a graph database when your data model is very complex. I'm sure they could handle a simple data model/relationships as well.
If you have no prior experience with Neo4j or Postgres, then most likely both with take quite a bit of time to learn well.
Some things to keep in mind when picking:
It's not just about development against a database technology. You should consider deployment as well. How easy is it to deploy and scale Postgres/Neo4j?
Consider the community and tools around each technology. Is there a data mapper for Neo4j like there is for Postgres?
Consider that the data models are considerably different between the two. If you can already think relationally, then I'd probably stick with Postgres. If you go with Neo4j you're going to be making a lot of mistakes for several months with your data models.
Over time I've learned to keep it simple when I can. Postgres might be the boring choice compared to Neo4j, but boring doesn't keep you up at night. =)
Also I never see anyone mention it, but you should look at Riak (http://basho.com/riak/) too. It's a document database that also provides relationships (links) between objects. Not as mature as a graph database, but it can connect a few entities quickly.
The most appropriate choice depends on what problem you are trying to solve.
If you just have a few many to many tables, a relational database can be fine. In general, there is better OR-mapper support for relational databases, as they are much older and have a standardized interface and row-column structure. They also have been improved on for a long time, so they are stable and optimized for what they are doing.
A graph database is better if e.g. your problem is more about the connections between entities, especially if you need higher distance connections, like "detect cycles (of unspecified length)", some "what do friends-of-a-friend like". Things like that get unwieldy when restricted to SQL joins. A problem specific language like cypher in case of Neo4j makes that much more concise. On the downside, there are mappers between graph dbs and objects, but not for every framework and language under the sun.
I recently implemented a system prototype using neo4j and it was very useful to be able to talk about the structure and connections of our data and be able to model that one to one in the data storage. Also, adding other connections between data points was easy, neo4j being a schemaless storage. We ended up switching to mongodb due to troubles with write performance, but I don't think we could have finished the prototype with that in the same time.
Other NoSQL datastores like document based, column, key-value also cover specific usecases. Polyglot persistence is definitively something to look at, so keep your choice of backend reasonably separated from your business logic, to allow you to change your technology later if you learned something new.
There was an article on Hacker News a couple of days ago that reached first page titled something like
"2 cases when not to use Mongodb" but I really can't find it anymore...
Does anyone know where I can find the above described article?
What cases are there when NoSQL fails?
We use MongoDB for storing tons and tons of analytics data for which we don't care if some stuff occasionally gets lost in a server crash. The data really fits MongoDB well and it would have been a nightmare if we were to use an SQL database for this. But for bank transactions we wouldn't even consider MongoDB.
The write lock might be a problem for some people. On the other hand MongoDB supports easy sharding, much easier than with SQL. Sharding allows us to scale horizontally which is a huge plus for our data.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1691748
By any reasonable definition "NoSQL" ought to include non-SQL RDBMSs in its scope (because there's no sound reason why the relational model can't address the same requirements as other NoSQL models). If you accept that, then there is no limit to what NoSQL DBMSs could do. We would have no more need of SQL - ever!
Sadly, there seems to be a common assumption among NoSQL thought leaders that "NoSQL" has to mean "not relational". That is highly unfortunate because if the relational model is ignored then NoSQL is never likely to replace SQL for many purposes. (I take it for granted that finding a long-term, relational model replacement for SQL would actually be a good thing :)
You don't want to use NoSQL typically when you....
... don't want to use SQL! /hardy har har
Most of the NoSQL solutions I've seen seem to fall in the key-value store approach, and aren't relational. They tend to give up ACID properties.
So when you evaluate a database system, when you don't need ACID, when you don't want relational algebra, when you do have a need for a KV store, then the NoSQL approach is your friend.
Note too that there is a wide variety of 'NoSQL' systems, and they all are busily working on slightly different approaches.
As a personal project, I'm looking to build a rudimentary DBMS. I've read the relevant sections in Elmasri & Navathe (5ed), but could use a more focused text- something a bit more practical and detail-oriented, with real-world recommendations- as E&N only went so deep.
The rub is that I want to play with novel non-relational data models. While a lot of E&N was great- indexing implementation details in particular- the more advanced DBMS implementation was only targeted to a relational model.
I'd like to defer staring at DBMS source for a while if I can until I've got a better foundation. Any ideas?
First of all you have to understand the properties of each system. i can offer you to read this post. it's the first step to understand NOSQL or Not Only SQL.Secondly you can check this blog post to understand all these stuff visually.
Finally glance at open source projects such as Mongodb, Couchdb etc. to see the list you can go here
Actually, the first step would be to understand hierarchal, network, navigational, object models which are alternatives to relational. I'm not sure where XML fits in i.e. what model it is. As far as structure, research B-tree (not binary trees) implementation.