Related
I am working in a trading applications that depends on an Oracle DB.
The DB is crashed two times and the business owner wants some solution in which the application still works even the DB is crashed.
My team leader introduced Cassandra NOSQL as a solution as it has no single point of failure but this option will make us move from the traditional relational model into the NOSQL model which I consider as a drawback.
My question here, Is there a way to avoid a single point of DB failure with traditional relational DBMS like Mysql, postgreSQL,......etc ?
Sounds like you just need a cluster of Oracle database instances, rather than just a single instance, such as Oracle RAC.
If your solution for the Oracle server being offline is to use Cassandra, what happens if the Cassandra cluster goes down? And are you really in the situation where it makes sense to rewrite and re-architect your entire application to use a different type of data store, just to avoid downtime from Oracle? I would suspect this only makes sense for applications with huge usage and load numbers, where any downtime is going to cost serious money (and not just cause embarrassment to the business folks to their bosses).
Is there a way to avoid a single point of DB failure with traditional relational DBMS
No, that's not possible. Simply because when one node dies. It is gone.
Any fault-tolerant system will use several nodes that replicate each other. You can still use traditional RDBMS, but you will need to configure mirroring in order for the system to tolerate a node failure.
NoSQL isn't the only possible solution. You can set up replication with MySQL:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/replication-solutions.html
and
http://mysql-mmm.org/
and concerming failover discussions:
http://serverfault.com/questions/274094/automated-failover-strategy-for-master-slave-mysql-replication-why-would-this
We're designing an OLTP financial system. it should be able to support 10.000 transactions per second and have reporting features.
So we have come to the idea of using:
a NoSQL DB as our main storage
a MySQL DB (Percona server actually) making some ETLs from the NoSQL DB for store reporting data
We're considering MongoDB and Riak for the NoSQL job. we have read that Riak scales more smoothly than MongoDB. And we would like to listen your opinion.
Which NoSQL DB would you use for a
OLTP financial system?
How has been
your experience scaling MongoDB/Riak?
There is no conceivable circumstance where I would use a NOSQl database for anything to do with finance. You simply don't have the data integrity needed or the internal controls. Dow Jones uses SQL Server to do its transactions and if they can properly design a high performance, high transaction Relational datbase so can you. You will have to invest in some people who know what they are doing though.
One has to think about the problem differently. The notion of transaction consistency stems from the UD (update) in CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete). noSQL DBs are CRAP (Create, Replicate, Append, Process) oriented, working by accretion of time-stamped data. With the right domain model, there is no reason that auditability and the equivalent of referential integrity can't be achieved.
The global-storage based NoSQL databases - Cache from InterSystems and GT.M from FIS - are used extensively in financial services and have been for many years. Cache in particular is used for both the core database and for OLTP.
I can answer regarding my experience with scaling Riak.
Riak scales smoothly to the extreme. Scaling is as easy as adding nodes to the cluster, which is a very simple operation in itself. You can achieve near linear scalability by simply adding nodes. Our experience with Riak as far as scaling is concerned has been amazing.
The flip side is that it is lacking in many respects. Some examples:
You can't do something like count(*) or list keys on a production cluster. That would require a work around if you want to do ETL from Riak into MySQL - or how would you know what to (E)xtract?
(One possible work around would be to maintain a bucket with a known key sequence that map to values that contain the keys you inserted into your other buckets).
The free version of Riak comes with no management console that lets you know what's going on, and the one that's included in the Enterprise version isn't much of an improvement.
You'll need the Enterprise version of you're looking to replicate your data over WAN (e.g. for DR / high availability). That's alright if you don't mind paying, but keep in mind that Basho pricing is very high.
I work with the Starcounter (so I’m biased), but I think I can safely say that for a system processing financial transactions you have to worry about transaction consistency. Unfortunately, this is what the engines used for Facebook and Twitter had to give up allow their scale-out strategy to offer performance. This is not because engines such as MongoDb or Cassandra are poorly designed; rather, it follows naturally from the CAP theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem). Simply put, changes you make in your database will overwrite other changes if they occur close in time. Ok for status updates and new tweets, but disastrous if you deal with money or other quantities. The amounts will simply end up wrong when many reads and writes are being done in parallel. So for the throughput you need, a memory centric NoSQL database with ACID support is probably the way to go.
You can use some NoSQL databases (Cassandra, EventStore) as a storage for financial service if you implement your app using event sourcing and concepts from DDD. I recommend you to read this minibook http://www.oreilly.com/programming/free/reactive-microservices-architecture.html
OLTP can be achieved using NoSQL with a custom implementation,
there are two things,
1. How are you going to achieve ACID properties that an RDBMS gives.
2. Provide a custom blocking or non blocking concurrency and transaction handling mechanism.
To take you closer to solution,
Apache Phoenix,apache trafodion or Splice machine.
Trafodion has full ACID support over HBase, you should take a look.
Cassandra can be used for both OLTP and OLAP. Good replication and eventual data consistency gives you the choice in your hand. Need to design the system properly. And after all it's free of cost but not free of developer, give it a try
I'm working on a real-time advertising platform with a heavy emphasis on performance. I've always developed with MySQL, but I'm open to trying something new like MongoDB or Cassandra if significant speed gains can be achieved. I've been reading about both all day, but since both are being rapidly developed, a lot of the information appears somewhat dated.
The main data stored would be entries for each click, incremented rows for views, and information for each campaign (just some basic settings, etc). The speed gains need to be found in inserting clicks, updating view totals, and generating real-time statistic reports. The platform is developed with PHP.
Or maybe none of these?
There are several ways to achieve this with all of the technologies listed. It is more a question of how you use them. Your ideal solution may use a combination of these, with some consideration for usage patterns. I don't feel that the information out there is that dated because the concepts at play are very fundamental. There may be new NoSQL databases and fixes to existing ones, but your question is primarily architectural.
NoSQL solutions like MongoDB and Cassandra get a lot of attention for their insert performance. People tend to complain about the update/insert performance of relational databases but there are ways to mitigate these issues.
Starting with MySQL you could review O'Reilly's High Performance MySQL, optimise the schema, add more memory perhaps run this on different hardware from the rest of your app (assuming you used MySQL for that), or partition/shard data. Another area to consider is your application. Can you queue inserts and updates at the application level before insertion into the database? This will give you some flexibility and is probably useful in all cases. Depending on how your final schema looks, MySQL will give you some help with extracting the data as long as you are comfortable with SQL. This is a benefit if you need to use 3rd party reporting tools etc.
MongoDB and Cassandra are different beasts. My understanding is that it was easier to add nodes to the latter but this has changed since MongoDB has replication etc built-in. Inserts for both of these platforms are not constrained in the same manner as a relational database. Pulling data out is pretty quick too, and you have a lot of flexibility with data format changes. The tradeoff is that you can't use SQL (a benefit for some) so getting reports out may be trickier. There is nothing to stop you from collecting data in one of these platforms and then importing it into a MySQL database for further analysis.
Based on your requirements there are tools other than NoSQL databases which you should look at such as Flume. These make use of the Hadoop platform which is used extensively for analytics. These may have more flexibility than a database for what you are doing. There is some content from Hadoop World that you might be interested in.
Characteristics of MySQL:
Database locking (MUCH easier for financial transactions)
Consistency/security (as above, you can guarantee that, for instance, no changes happen between the time you read a bank account balance and you update it).
Data organization/refactoring (you can have disorganized data anywhere, but MySQL is better with tables that represent "types" or "components" and then combining them into queries -- this is called normalization).
MySQL (and relational databases) are more well suited for arbitrary datasets and requirements common in AGILE software projects.
Characteristics of Cassandra:
Speed: For simple retrieval of large documents. However, it will require multiple queries for highly relational data – and "by default" these queries may not be consistent (and the dataset can change between these queries).
Availability: The opposite of "consistency". Data is always available, regardless of being 100% "correct".[1]
Optional fields (wide columns): This CAN be done in MySQL with meta tables etc., but it's for-free and by-default in Cassandra.
Cassandra is key-value or document-based storage. Think about what that means. TYPICALLY I give Cassandra ONE KEY and I get back ONE DATASET. It can branch out from there, but that's basically what's going on. It's more like accessing a static file. Sure, you can have multiple indexes, counter fields etc. but I'm making a generalization. That's where Cassandra is coming from.
MySQL and SQL is based on group/set theory -- it has a way to combine ANY relationship between data sets. It's pretty easy to take a MySQL query, make the query a "key" and the response a "value" and store it into Cassandra (e.g. make Cassandra a cache). That might help explain the trade-off too, MySQL allows you to always rearrange your data tables and the relationships between datasets simply by writing a different query. Cassandra not so much. And know that while Cassandra might PROVIDE features to do some of this stuff, it's not what it was built for.
MongoDB and CouchDB fit somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I think MySQL can be a bit verbose[2] and annoying to deal with especially when dealing with optional fields, and migrations if you don't have a good model or tools. Also with scalability, I'm sure there are great technologies for scaling a MySQL database, but Cassandra will always scale, and easily, due to limitations on its feature set. MySQL is a bit more unbounded. However, NoSQL and Cassandra do not do joins, one of the critical features of SQL that allows one to combine multiple tables in a single query. So, complex relational queries will not scale in Cassandra.
[1] Consistency vs. availability is a trade-off within large distributed dataset. It takes a while to make all nodes aware of new data, and eg. Cassandra opts to answer quickly and not to check with every single node before replying. This can causes weird edge cases when you base you writes off previously read data and overwriting data. For more information look into the CAP Theorem, ACID database (in particular Atomicity) as well as Idempotent database operations. MySQL has this issue too, but the idea of high availability over correctness is very baked into Cassandra and gives it many of its scalability and speed advantages.
[2] SQL being "verbose" isn't a great reason to not use it – plus most of us aren't going to (and shouldn't) write plain-text SQL statements.
Nosql solutions are better than Mysql, postgresql and other rdbms techs for this task. Don't waste your time with Hbase/Hadoop, you've to be an astronaut to use it. I recommend MongoDB and Cassandra. Mongo is better for small datasets (if your data is maximum 10 times bigger than your ram, otherwise you have to shard, need more machines and use replica sets). For big data; cassandra is the best. Mongodb has more query options and other functionalities than cassandra but you need 64 bit machines for mongo. There are some works around for analytics in both sides. There is atomic counters in both sides. Both can scale well but cassandra is much better in scaling and high availability. Both have php clients, both have good support and community (mongo community is bigger).
Cassandra analytics project sample:Rainbird http://www.slideshare.net/kevinweil/rainbird-realtime-analytics-at-twitter-strata-2011
mongo sample: http://www.slideshare.net/jrosoff/scalable-event-analytics-with-mongodb-ruby-on-rails
http://axonflux.com/how-superfeedr-built-analytics-using-mongodb
doubleclick developers developed mongo http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/info_management/224200878
Cassandra vs. MongoDB
Are you considering Cassandra or MongoDB as the data store for your next project? Would you like to compare the two databases? Cassandra and MongoDB are both “NoSQL” databases, but the reality is that they are very different. They have very different strengths and value propositions – so any comparison has to be a nuanced one. Let’s start with initial requirements… Neither of these databases replaces RDBMS, nor are they “ACID” databases. So If you have a transactional workload where normalization and consistency are the primary requirements, neither of these databases will work for you. You are better off sticking with traditional relational databases like MySQL, PostGres, Oracle etc. Now that we have relational databases out of the way, let’s consider the major differences between Cassandra and MongoDB that will help you make the decision. In this post, I am not going to discuss specific features but will point out some high-level strategic differences to help you make your choice.
Expressive Object Model
MongoDB supports a rich and expressive object model. Objects can have properties and objects can be nested in one another (for multiple levels). This model is very “object-oriented” and can easily represent any object structure in your domain. You can also index the property of any object at any level of the hierarchy – this is strikingly powerful! Cassandra, on the other hand, offers a fairly traditional table structure with rows and columns. Data is more structured and each column has a specific type which can be specified during creation.
Verdict: If your problem domain needs a rich data model then MongoDB is a better fit for you.
Secondary Indexes
Secondary indexes are a first-class construct in MongoDB. This makes it easy to index any property of an object stored in MongoDB even if it is nested. This makes it really easy to query based on these secondary indexes. Cassandra has only cursory support for secondary indexes. Secondary indexes are also limited to single columns and equality comparisons. If you are mostly going to be querying by the primary key then Cassandra will work well for you.
Verdict: If your application needs secondary indexes and needs flexibility in the query model then MongoDB is a better fit for you.
High Availability
MongoDB supports a “single master” model. This means you have a master node and a number of slave nodes. In case the master goes down, one of the slaves is elected as master. This process happens automatically but it takes time, usually 10-40 seconds. During this time of new leader election, your replica set is down and cannot take writes. This works for most applications but ultimately depends on your needs. Cassandra supports a “multiple master” model. The loss of a single node does not affect the ability of the cluster to take writes – so you can achieve 100% uptime for writes.
Verdict: If you need 100% uptime Cassandra is a better fit for you.
Write Scalability
MongoDB with its “single master” model can take writes only on the primary. The secondary servers can only be used for reads. So essentially if you have three node replica set, only the master is taking writes and the other two nodes are only used for reads. This greatly limits write scalability. You can deploy multiple shards but essentially only 1/3 of your data nodes can take writes. Cassandra with its “multiple master” model can take writes on any server. Essentially your write scalability is limited by the number of servers you have in the cluster. The more servers you have in the cluster, the better it will scale.
Verdict: If write scalability is your thing, Cassandra is a better fit for you.
Query Language Support
Cassandra supports the CQL query language which is very similar to SQL. If you already have a team of data analysts they will be able to port over a majority of their SQL skills which is very important to large organizations. However CQL is not full blown ANSI SQL – It has several limitations (No join support, no OR clauses) etc. MongoDB at this point has no support for a query language. The queries are structured as JSON fragments.
Verdict: If you need query language support, Cassandra is the better fit for you.
Performance Benchmarks
Let’s talk performance. At this point, you are probably expecting a performance benchmark comparison of the databases. I have deliberately not included performance benchmarks in the comparison. In any comparison, we have to make sure we are making an apples-to-apples comparison.
Database model - The database model/schema of the application being tested makes a big difference. Some schemas are well suited for MongoDB and some are well suited for Cassandra. So when comparing databases it is important to use a model that works reasonably well for both databases.
Load characteristics – The characteristics of the benchmark load are very important. E.g. In write-heavy benchmarks, I would expect Cassandra to smoke MongoDB. However, in read-heavy benchmarks, MongoDB and Cassandra should be similar in performance.
Consistency requirements - This is a tricky one. You need to make sure that the read/write consistency requirements specified are identical in both databases and not biased towards one participant. Very often in a number of the ‘Marketing’ benchmarks, the knobs are tuned to disadvantage the other side. So, pay close attention to the consistency settings.
One last thing to keep in mind is that the benchmark load may or may not reflect the performance of your application. So in order for benchmarks to be useful, it is very important to find a benchmark load that reflects the performance characteristics of your application. Here are some benchmarks you might want to look at:
- NoSQL Performance Benchmarks
- Cassandra vs. MongoDB vs. Couchbase vs. HBase
Ease of Use
If you had asked this question a couple of years ago MongoDB would be the hands-down winner. It’s a fairly simple task to get MongoDB up and running. In the last couple of years, however, Cassandra has made great strides in this aspect of the product. With the adoption of CQL as the primary interface for Cassandra, it has taken this a step further – they have made it very simple for legions of SQL programmers to use Cassandra very easily.
Verdict: Both are fairly easy to use and ramp up.
Native Aggregation
MongoDB has a built-in Aggregation framework to run an ETL pipeline to transform the data stored in the database. This is great for small to medium jobs but as your data processing needs become more complicated the aggregation framework becomes difficult to debug. Cassandra does not have a built-in aggregation framework. External tools like Hadoop, Spark are used for this.
Schema-less Models
In MongoDB, you can choose to not enforce any schema on your documents. While this was the default in prior versions in the newer version you have the option to enforce a schema for your documents. Each document in MongoDB can be a different structure and it is up to your application to interpret the data. While this is not relevant to most applications, in some cases the extra flexibility is important. Cassandra in the newer versions (with CQL as the default language) provides static typing. You need to define the type of very column upfront.
I'd also like to add Membase (www.couchbase.com) to this list.
As a product, Membase has been deployed at a number of Ad Agencies (AOL Advertising, Chango, Delta Projects, etc). There are a number of public case studies and examples of how these companies have used Membase successfully.
While it's certainly up for debate, we've found that Membase provides better performance and scalability than any other solution. What we lack in indexing/querying, we are planning on more than making up for with the integration of CouchDB as our new persistence backend.
As a company, Couchbase (the makers of Membase) has a large amount of knowledge and experience specifically serving the needs of Ad/targeting companies.
Would certainly love to engage with you on this particular use case to see if Membase is the right fit.
Please shoot me an email (perry -at- couchbase -dot- com) or visit us on the forums: http://www.couchbase.org/forums/
Perry Krug
I would look at New Relic as an example of a similar workload. They capture over 200 Billion data points a day to disk and are using MySQL 5.6 (Percona) as a backend.
A blog post is available here:
http://blog.newrelic.com/2014/06/13/store-200-billion-data-points-day-disk/
I've been looking at MongoDB and I'm fascinated. It appears (although I have to be suspicious) that in exchange for organizing my database in a slightly different way, I get as much performance as I have CPUs and RAM for free? It seems elegant, and flexible, but I'm not trading that for fast like I am with Rails. So what's the catch? What does a relational database give me that I can't do as well or at all with Mongo? In other words, why (other than immaturity of existing NoSQL systems and resistence to change) doesn't the entire industry jump ship from MySQL?
As I understood it, as you scale, you get MySQL to feed Memcache. Now it appears I can start with something equally performant from the beginning.
I know I can't do transactions across relationships... when would this be a big deal?
I read http://teddziuba.com/2010/03/i-cant-wait-for-nosql-to-die.html but as I understand it, his argument is basically that real businesses which use real tools don't need to avoid SQL, so people who feel a need to ditch it are doing it wrong. But no "enterprise" has to deal with nearly as many concurrent users as Facebook or Google, so I don't really see his point. (Walmart has 1.8 million employees; Facebook has 300 million users).
I'm genuinely curious about this... I promise I'm not trolling.
I am also a big fan of MongoDB. That having been said, it is absolutely not a wholesale replacement for RDBMS. Facebook has 300 million users but if some of your friends don't show up in the list one time, or one of the photo albums is missing on the occasional request, would you notice? Probably not. If your status update doesn't trickle down to all of your friends for a few minutes, does it matter? Hardly. If Wal-Mart's balance sheets are out of sync, would someone lose their head? Definitely.
NoSQL databases are great in "fuzzy" environments where relationships are not strict and data integrity can afford to be out of sync. RDBMS are still important when data sets are extremely complex and relational (hence the name), and they need to be kept pure.
The big push to NoSQL comes from the fact for the last 30 years, we have been using RDMBS systems for both scenarios. We now have a more appropriate tool for many situations. Some would argue most, in fact. But no one would argue all.
I write this but as a dispute to Rex's answer.
I dispute the idea that nosql is relationless and fuzzy.
I had been working with CODASYL many years ago with C and Cobol - entity relationships are very tight in CODASYL.
In contrast, relational database systems have a very liberal policy towards relationships. As long as you can identiy a foreign key, you could form a relationship adhoc.
It is frequently taken for granted that SQL is synonymous with RDBMS, but people have been writing SQL drivers for CODASYL, XML, inverted sets, etc.
RDBMS/SQL do not equal precision in data or relationship. In fact, RDBMS has been a constant cause in imprecision and misperception of relationships. I do not see how RDBMS offer better data and relationship integrity than hadoop, for example. Put on a layer of JDO - and we can construct a network of good and clean relationships between entities in hadoop.
However, I like working with SQL because it gives me the ability to script adhoc relationships, even though I realise that adhoc relationships is a constant cause of relationship adulteration and problems.
Having the opportunity to work with statistical analysis of business and industrial processes, SQL gave me the ability to explore relationships where no relationships had previously been perceived. The opportunity to work with statistical analysis gave me insights that would not normally come the way of SQL programmers.
For example, you would design and normalise your schema to reflect a set of processes. What you might not realise is that relationships change over time. The statistical characteristics would reveal that a schema may no longer be as "properly normalised" as it once had been. That the principal components of the processes have mutated over time. But non-statistical programmers do not understand that and continue to tout RDBMS as the perfect solution for data integrity and relationship precision.
However, in a relationship-linking database, you could link entities in relationships as they appear. When relationships mutate, the linking naturally mutate with the data. Relationships and their mutation are documented within the database system without the expensive need to renormalise the schema. At which point, RDBMS is good only as temp dbs.
But then you might counter that RDBMS too allows you to flexibly mutate your relationships, since that is what SQL does best. True, very true - so long as you perform BCNF or even 4NF. Otherwise, you would begin to see that your queries and data loaders performing replicated operations. But then your many years in the RDBMS business have so far certainly at least made you realise that BCNF is very expensive and operationally inefficient and that we are constantly guilty of 2.5 NFing our schemata.
To say that RDBMS and SQL promotes data and relationship integrity is a gross mis-statement. Either you work in a company that is so tiny or you didn't stay in your positions for more than two years - you would not see the amount of data or the information mutation and the problems caused by RDBMS. The abuse of RDBMS is the cause of executives being restricted in the view by computer applications and the cause of financial failures of companies failing to see changes in market behaviour because their views were restricted by the programmers whose views were restricted to their veneration of their beloved RDBMS schemata.
That is why SQL programmers do not understand why your company statistician refuses to use your application which you crafted meticulously but they employed a college intern to write SQL to download data into their personal servers and that your company executives learn to trust the accountants' and statisticians' spreadsheets rather than your elegant multi-tiered applications because of your applications' inability to mutate with processes.
It might not be possible, but I still urge you to acquire some statistical understanding to perceive how processes mutate over time so that you can make the right technological decision.
The reason people are not moving to SQL-less is lack of a good scripting environment like SQL to perform adhoc relationship analysis. Not because SQL-less technology is deficient in precision or integrity. Adhoc relationship analysis is very important nowadays due to the rapid and agile application development attitudes and strategies we have nowadays.
Let me hit the questions one at a time:
I know I can't do transactions across relationships... when would this be a big deal?
Picture cascading deletes. Or even just basic referential integrity. The concept of "foreign keys" can't really be enforced across "collections" (the Mongo term for tables). You can do atomic writes to only a single "document" (AKA record). So if you have a DB issue, you can orphan data in the DB.
I get as much performance as I have CPUs and RAM for free?
Not free, but definitely with a different set of trade-offs. For example, Mongo is great at running single-record, key/value look-ups. However, Mongo is poor at running relational queries. You'll need to use map-reduce for many of these. Mongo is a "RAM-whore". Mongo basically demands 64-bit for any significant dataset. Mongo will suck up drive space, load up a 140GB DB and you can end up using 200+ GB as the swap file grows during use.
And you're still going to want a fast drive.
In fact, I think it's safe to say the MongoDB is really a DB system that caters to leading-edge hardware (64-bit, lots of RAM, SSDs). I mean, the whole DB is centered around looking up data index data in RAM (hello 64-bit) and then doing focused random lookups on the drive (hello SSD).
why ... doesn't the entire industry jump ship from MySQL?
It's not ACID-compliant. Probably quite bad for the banking system (of course, most of them are still processing flat files, but that's a different issue). However, note that you can force "safe" writes with Mongo and guarantee that data gets to disk, but only one "document" at a time.
It's still very young. Lots of big business are still running old versions of Crystal Reports on their SQL Server 2000 app written in VB6. Or they're building enterprise service buses to manage the crazy heterogeneous environments they've built up over the years.
It's a very different paradigm. Maybe 30% of the questions I regularly see on Mongo mailing lists (and here) are fundamentally tied to "how do I do query X?" or "how do I structure this data?". Using MongoDB typically requires that you denormalize in advance. This is not only a little difficult, it's untrained. Most people only learn "normalization" in school, nobody teaches us how to denormalize for performance.
It's not the right tool for everything. Honestly I think that MongoDB is great tool for reading and writing transactional data. That simple "one-a-time" CRUD that comprises much of modern apps. However, MongoDB is not really great at reporting. In fact, I honestly envision that the next step is not "Mongo for everything" it's "Mongo for transactional" and "MySQL for reporting". When your data gets big enough that you throw out "real-time reporting", then using Map-Reduce to populate a reporting DB doesn't seem that bad.
As I understood it, as you scale, you get MySQL to feed Memcache. Now it appears I can start with something equally performant from the beginning.
Honestly, I'm working towards this on a few of my projects. Again, I think that MongoDB actually does make a valid caching layer. In fact, it makes a file-backed caching layer. So if you're capable of pushing MySQL change to Mongo, then you're getting getting Memcached without cache misses. It also makes it easy to "warm the cache" on new server, just copy files and start Mongo pointing at the correct folder, it really is that easy.
How often do you think Facebook does arbitrary queries against its datastore(s)? Not everything is a web app, and conversely not every set of data needs to be analyzed deeply.
NoSQL in my opinion, is largely a reactionary response to what basically amounted to people using RDBMS for tasks they were not well suited because people didn't actively make a decision based on their needs and chose some default. To "jump ship from MySQL" (or RDBMSs in general) industry-wide would be to make the same mistake all over again and the pendulum will end up swinging back the other way.
If MongoDB works for your use case, by all means go ahead. Just don't assume your use case is all use cases. There is no technology that fits all scenarios. The invention of the supersonic jets didn't eliminate the use of freight trains.
The big backlash against NoSQL is rooted in the mentality of many of the NoSQL advocates. Specifically, the attitude best summarized as "SQL is too hard, I shouldn't have to do it". I dislike NoSQL because it seems in many cases to be elevating ignorance.
I know I can't do transactions across relationships... when would this be a big deal?
More often than you might expect. There are a lot of things that can go wrong when you can't assume a consistent dataset.
I have used MongoDB, Redis (more than key-value pair supports list, set and sorted set), Tokyo Tyrant, Memcached and MySql & PostgreSQL.
The arguments between NoSQL DB And SQL based DB are completely baseless. You need to choose the appropriate model based on your use case.. If you need ACID compliances, go ahead with SQL DB like PostgreSQL, Oracle etc. You need high performance, but you less care about data, then you may consider noSQL DB. They are fundamentally different technologies. You can even use the combination of models. With NoSQL, you will be missing relationships, constraints and sometimes transaction.. In fact, thats is the one of the reason NoSQL are faster..
Once I have lost two months of aggregate data with MongoDB.. No clue how I lost them..But I had backup and I have lost few minutes of data. I brought back MongoDB with backup.. If you use NoSQL, take occasional backup or schedule cron jobs for DB backup. This is applicable for SQL DB also.
Compared to SQL RDBMS, NoSQL DBs are younger and they are currently under full fledged development but NoSQL DBs are matured in their scope ie they meant for high performance, easy replication.
In my website(stacked.in), I have used only redis DB, it works much much faster than MySQL.
Remember, NoSQL isn't exactly new. After all, they had to use something before SQL and relational databases, right? In fact, systems like MUMPS and CODASYL work the same way and are decades old. What relational databases give you is the ability to query data in arbitrary ways.
Say you have a database with customers, their purchases, and what items they purchased. A NoSQL DB might have customers containing purchases and purchases containing items. This makes it easy to find out what items a given customer purchased, but hard to find out what customers purchased a given item. A relational DB would have tables for customers, purchases, items, and a table linking items to purchases. In SQL, both queries are trivial to formulate, and the database engine does all the hard work for you.
Also, keep in mind that part of the NoSQL trend is to sacrifice consistency or reliability for speed, scalability, and cost. Relational DBs can scale, but it's not cheap. If you go to http://tpc.org you can find RDBMSes that run on hundreds of cores simultaneously to deliver millions of transactions per minute, but they cost millions of dollars.
If your data does not take advantage of relational algebra, nor do you need ACID guarantees, then you don't gain anything by using languages that cater exclusively for those uses.
Recently I've been working a little with MongoDB and I have to say I really like it. However it is a completely different type of database then I am used. I've noticed that it is most definitely better for certain types of data, however for heavily normalized databases it might not be the best choice.
It appears to me however that it can completely take the place of just about any relational database you may have and in most cases perform better, which is mind boggling. This leads me to ask a few questions:
Are document-oriented databases being developed to be the next generation of databases and basically replace relational databases completely?
Is it possible that projects would be better off using both a document-oriented database and a relational database side by side for various data which is better suited for one or the other?
If document-oriented databases are not meant to replace relational databases, then does anyone have an example of a database structure which would absolutely be better off in a relational database (or vice-versa)?
Are document-oriented databases have been developed to be the next generation of databases and basically replace relational databases completely?
No. Document-oriented databases (like MongoDB) are very good at the type of tasks that we typically see in modern web sites (fast look-ups of individual items or small sets of items).
But they make some big trade-offs with relational systems. Without things like ACID compliance they're not going to be able to replace certain RDBMS. And if you look at systems like MongoDB, the lack of ACID compliance is a big reason it's so fast.
Is it possible that projects would be better off using both a document-oriented database and a relational database side by side for various data which is better suited for one or the other?
Yes. In fact, I'm running a very large production web-site that uses both. The system was started in MySQL, but we've migrated part of it over to MongoDB, b/c we need a Key-Value store and MySQL just isn't very good at finding one item in a 150M records.
If document-oriented databases are not meant to replace relational databases, then does anyone have an example of a database structure which would absolutely be better off in a relational database (or vice-versa)?
Document-oriented databases are great storing data that is easily contained in "key-value" and simple, linear "parent-child" relationships. Simple examples here are things like Blogs and Wikis.
However, relational databases still have a strong leg up on things like reporting, which tends to be "set-based".
Honestly, I can see a world where most data is "handled" by Document-oriented database, but where the reporting is done in a relational database that is updated by Map-reduce jobs.
This is really a question of fitness for purpose.
If you want to be able to join some tables together and return a filtered set of results, you can only do that with a relational database. If you want mind-bending performance and have incredible volumes of data, that's when column-family or document-oriented databases come into their own.
This is a classic trade-off. Relational databases offer you a whole suite of features, which comes with a performance cost. If you couldn't join, index, scan or perform a whole other list of features, you remove the need to have any view over ALL data, which gives you the performance and distribution you need to crunch serious data.
Also, I recommend you follow the blogs of Ayende Rahien on this topic.
http://ayende.com/blog/
#Sohnee is spot on. I might add that relational databases
are excellent for retrieving information in unexpected combinations -- even if that occasionally leads to the Bad Idea of extensive reports being run on time-sensitive production systems rather than on a separate data warehouse.
are a mature technology where you can easily find staff and well tested solutions to any number of problems (including the limitations of the relational model, as well as the imperfect implementation that is SQL).
Ask yourself what you want to do, and what qualities are important to you. You can do everything programming related in shell scripts. Do you want to?
I keep asking the same question, which is what landed me here. I use both MySQL and MongoDB (not in tandem currently, though its an idea). I have to honestly say I'm very happy to never touch MySQL again. Sure there's the "ACID" compliance, but have you ever run into the need to repair your tables with MySQL? Have you ever had a corrupted database? It happens. Have you ever had any other issues with MySQL? Any lock contentions or dead locks? Any problems with clustering? How easy was it to setup and configure?
MongoDB...You turn it on and it's done....Then it's autosharding. It's incredibly simple and it's also incredibly fast. So think about that. Your time.
No, they don't have JOINs but it's a completely incorrect statement to say that it discounts more than 99% of data management needs. I often get opposition when trying to explain MongoDB, people even snickering. Let's just face it. People don't want to learn new things and they think that what they know is all they need. Sure, you can get away using MySQL the rest of your life and build your web sites. It works, we know it works. We also know it fails. If it didn't, you'd never ask the question and we probably wouldn't see so many document oriented databases. We know that yes it does scale but it's a pain in the rear to scale it.
Also let's eliminate traffic and scaling from the picture. Take out setup. Now let's focus on use. What is your experience when using MySQL? How good are you with MySQL architecture and making efficient queries? How much time do you spend looking over queries with EXPLAIN? How much time do you spend making schema diagrams? ... I say take that time back. It's better spent elsewhere.
That's my two cents. I really do love MongoDB and hope to never use MySQL again and for the type of web sites I build, it's very possible that I won't need to. Though I'm still trying to find out WHEN I would want to use MySQL over MongoDB, not when I CAN (let's face it, it stores data, congratulations, I could write a ton of XML files too but it's not a good idea), but when it would BENEFIT to use one or the other. In the meantime, I'm going to go do my job with MongoDB and have less headaches.
As long as you don't need multi-object transactions, MongoDB can be a favorable replacement for an RDMBS, especially in a web application context. Speed, schemalessness, and document modeling are all helpful this domain.
In my opinion document-oriented databases are only good for
Databases which data is better represented using a hierarchical (tree) model. This is not common for website databases.
Databases with huge amount of data like the Facebook and Amazon databases. In this case it is required to sacrifice the benefits of the relational model.
MongoDB main characteristics are
document model (JSON)
high level(close to real world object), less collections
sharding (optional)
programmer friendly
drivers, same data structures arrays/hash maps
Document databases
A document is more general than a table, its far easier to represent a table with a JSON than storing JSON to a table.
So yes document databases could replace table databases.
Sharding
Joins in sharded collections are expensive for any database.
MongoDB added $lookup years now, and in MongoDB 5.1+ it can be used even when both collections are sharded.
But looks like joins in distributed databases are slow, and should be avoided, so relational way of modelling should be avoided.
No sharding
I think when sharding isn't used, MongoDB will co-exists and overlap with relational databases(especially after ACID support and $lookup support), to replace them its hard, and doesn't look like goal of MongoDB right now.
So overal looks like MongoDB could do what relational databases do,
but for now its not a replacement.
The opposite isn't true, relational databases have much bigger problems if they try to behave like MongoDB
AFAIK, document databases don't have JOIN. That's pretty much a show-stopper for > 99% of data management needs.
As Matthew Flaschen points out in the comments, even on the desktop, databases such as SQLite are introducing SQL semantics to areas that have traditionally used propriety file formats or XML.