I'm slightly embarrassed to admit it, but I'm having trouble conceptualizing how to architect data in a non-relational world. Especially given that most document/KV stores have slightly different features.
I'd like to learn from a concrete example, but I haven't been able to find anyone discussing how you would architect, for example, a blog using CouchDB/Redis/MongoDB/Riak/etc.
There are a number of questions which I think are important:
Which bits of data should be denormalised (e.g. tags probably live with the document, but what about users)
How do you link between documents?
What's the best way to create aggregate views, especially ones which require sorting (such as a blog index)
First of all I think you would want to remove redis from the list as it is a key-value store instead of a document store. Riak is also a key-value store, but you it can be a document store with library like Ripple.
In brief, to model an application with document store is to figure out:
What data you would store in its own document and have another document relate to it. If that document is going to be used by many other documents, then it would make sense to model it in its own document. You also must consider about querying the documents. If you are going to query it often, it might be a good idea to store it in its own document as you would find it hard to query over embedded document.
For example, assuming you have multiple Blog instance, a Blog and Article should be in its own document eventhough an Article may be embedded inside Blog document.
Another example is User and Role. It makes make sense to have a separate document for these. In my case I often query over user and it would be easier if it is separated as its own document.
What data you would want to store (embed) inside another document. If that document only solely belongs to one document, then it 'might' be a good option to store it inside another document.
Comments sometimes would make more sense to be embedded inside another document
{ article : { comments : [{ content: 'yada yada', timestamp: '20/11/2010' }] } }
Another caveat you would want to consider is how big the size of the embedded document will be because in mongodb, the maximum size of embedded document is 5MB.
What data should be a plain Array. e.g:
Tags would make sense to be stored as an array. { article: { tags: ['news','bar'] } }
Or if you want to store multiple ids, i.e User with multiple roles { user: { role_ids: [1,2,3]}}
This is a brief overview about modelling with document store. Good luck.
Deciding which objects should be independent and which should be embedded as part of other objects is mostly a matter of balancing read/write performance/effort - If a child object is independent, updating it means changing only one document but when reading the parent object you have only ids and need additional queries to get the data. If the child object is embedded, all the data is right there when you read the parent document, but making a change requires finding all the documents that use that object.
Linking between documents isn't much different from SQL - you store an ID which is used to find the appropriate record. The key difference is that instead of filtering the child table to find records by parent id, you have a list of child ids in the parent document. For many-many relationships you would have a list of ids on both sides rather than a table in the middle.
Query capabilities vary a lot between platforms so there isn't a clear answer for how to approach this. However as a general rule you will usually be setting up views/indexes when the document is written rather than just storing the document and running ad-hoc queries later as you would with SQL.
Ryan Bates made a screencast a couple of weeks ago about mongoid and he uses the example of a blog application: http://railscasts.com/episodes/238-mongoid this might be a good place for you to get started.
Related
I am trying to come up with a rough design for an application we're working on. What I'd like to know is, if there is a way to directly map a one to many relation in mongo.
My schema is like this:
There are a bunch of Devices.
Each device is known by it's name/ID uniquely.
Each device, can have multiple interfaces.
These interfaces can be added by a user in the front end at any given
time.
An interface is known uniquely by it's ID, and can be associated with
only one Device.
A device can contain at least an order of 100 interfaces.
I was going through MongoDB documentation wherein they mention things relating to Embedded document vs. multiple collections. By no means am I having a detailed clarity over this as I've just started with Mongo and meteor.
Question is, what could seemingly be a better approach? Having multiple small collections or having one big embedded collection. I know this question is somewhat subjective, I just need some clarity from folks who have more expertise in this field.
Another question is, suppose I go with the embedded model, is there a way to update only a part of the document (specific to the interface alone) so that as and when itf is added, it can be inserted into the same device document?
It depends on the purpose of the application.
Big document
A good example on where you'd want a big embedded collection would be if you are not going to modify (normally) the data but you're going to query them a lot. In my application I use this for storing pre-processed trips with all the information. Therefore when someone wants to consult this trip, all the information is located in a single document. However if your query is based on a value that is embedded in a trip, inside a list this would be very slow. If that's the case I'd recommend creating another collection with a relation between both collections. Also for updating part of a document it would be slow since it would require you to fetch the whole document and then update it.
Small documents with relations
If you plan on modify the data a lot, I'd recommend you to stick to a reference to another collection. With small documents, this will allow you to update any collection quicker. If you want to model a unique relation you may consider using a unique index in mongo. This can be done using: db.members.createIndex( { "user_id": 1 }, { unique: true } ).
Therefore:
Big object: Great for querying data but slow for complex queries.
Small related collections: Great for updating but requires several queries on distinct collections.
Ok so the more and more I develop in Mongodb i start to wonder about the need for multiple collections vs having one large collection with indexes (since columns and fields can be different for each document unlike tabular data). If i am trying to develop in the most efficient way possible (meaning less code and reusable code) then can I use one collection for all documents and just index on a field. By having all documents in one collection with indexes then i can reuse all my form processing code and other code since it will all be inserting into the same collection.
For Example:
Lets say i am developing a contact manager and I have two types of contacts "individuals" and "businesses". My original thought was to create a collection called individuals and a second collection called businesses. But that was because im used to developing in sql where yes this would be appropriate since columns would be different for each table. The more i started to think about the flexibility of document dbs the more I started to think, "do I really need two collections for this?" If i just add a field to each document called "contact type" and index on that, do i really need two collections? Since the fields/columns in each document do not have to be the same for all (like in sql) then each document can have their own fields as long as i have a "document type" field and an index on that field.
So then i took that concept and started to think, if i only need one collection for "individuals" and "businesses" then do i even need a separate collection for "Users" or "Contact History" or any other data. In theory couldn't i build the entire solution in once collection and just have a field in each document that specifield the "type" and index on it such as "Users", "Individual Contact", "Business Contacts", "Contact History", etc, and if it is a document related to another document i can index on the "parent key/foreign" Id field...
This would allow me to code the front end dynamically since the form processing code would all be the same (inserting into the same collection). This would save a lot of coding but i want to make sure by using indexes and secondary indexes that the db would still run fast and not cause future problems as the collection grew. As you can imagine, if everything was in one collection there might be hundreds of thousands even millions of documents in this collection as the user base grows but it would have indexes and secondary indexes to optimize performance.
My question is: Is this a common method mongodb developers use? Why or why not? What are the downfalls, if any? If this is a commonly used method, please also give any positives to using this method. thank you.
This is a really big point in Mongo and the answer is a little bit more of an art than science. Having one collection full of gigantic documents is definitely an anti-pattern because it works against many of Mongo's features.
For instance, when retrieving documents, you can only retrieve a whole document out of a collection (not entirely true, but mostly). So if you have huge documents, you're retrieving huge documents each time. Also, having huge documents makes sharding less flexible since only the top level documents are indexed (and hence, sharded) in each collection. You can index values deep into a document, but the index value is associated with the top level document.
At the same time, going purely relational is also an anti-pattern because you've lost a lot of the referential integrity by going to Mongo in the first place. Also, all joins are done in application memory, so each one requires a full round-trip (slow).
So the answer is to do something in between. I'm thinking you'll probably want a collection for individuals and a different collection for businesses in this case. I say this because it seem like businesses have enough meta-data associated that it could bulk up a lot. (Also, I individual-business relationship seems like a many-to-many). However, an individual might have a Name object (with first and last properties). That would be a bad idea to make Name into a separate collection.
Some info from 10gen about schema design: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
EDIT
Also, Mongo has limited support for transactions - in the form of atomic aggregates. When you insert an object into mongo, the entire object is either inserted or not inserted. So you're application domain requires consistency between certain objects, you probably want to keep them in the same document/collection.
For example, consider an application that requires that a User always has a Name object (containing FirstName, LastName, and MiddleInitial). If a User was somehow inserted with no corresponding Name, the data would be considered to be corrupted. In an RDBMS you would wrap a transaction around the operations to insert User and Name. In Mongo, we make sure Name is in the same document (aggregate) as User to achieve the same effect.
Your example is a little less clear, since I don't understand the business cases. One thing that does come to mind is that Mongo has excellent support for inheritance. It might make sense to put all users, individuals, and potentially businesses into the same collection (depending on how the application is modeled). If one individual has many contacts, you probably want individuals to have an array of IDs. If your application requires that you get a quick preview of contacts, you might consider duplicating part of an individual and storing an array of contact objects.
If you're used to RDBMS thinking, you probably think all your data always has to be consistent. The truth is, that's probably not entirely true. This concept of applying atomic aggregates to the domain has been preached heavily by the DDD community recently. When you look at your domain in depth, like your business users do, the consistency boundaries should become distinct.
MongoDB, and NoSQL in general, is about de-normalising data and about reducing joins. It goes against normal SQL thinking.
In your case, I don't see any reason why you would want to have separate collections because it introduces unnecessary complexity and performance overhead. Consider, for example, if you wanted to have a screen that displayed all contacts, in alphabetical order. If you have one single collection for contacts, then its really easy, but if you have two collections it becomes a more complicated proposition.
Where I would have multiple collections is if your application had multiple users storing contacts. I would then have one collection for each user. This makes it so easy to extract out that users contacts.
I have 1 collection called Visit, in it I save documents with information about visit referrer, page, keyword, dates, so on.
I think Keyword can be considered a collection on it's own, the same for Page.
This will force me to create different collections but I'm not sure if this is the right way to go.
In a traditional DB model, they will clearly be stored in separate tables connected with FK.
But what about mongo ?
Is it a good practice for keys to have the same value over and over again for different documents and just create a collection in this case ?
One of the benefits of MongoDB is its ability to embed documents.
It is perfectly reasonable for the documents in your Visits collection to contain Keyword and Page Sub-Documents.
The rule of thumb is embed documents for speed, normalize documents for consistency.
If you embed the Keyword and Page documents in your Visit document, your application will only have to make one query to retrieve all of the relevant information. (speed)
However, the drawback is that if the Keyword and/or Page information is updated, it will have to be updated in every other Visit document where it appears. If many different Visit documents will rely on the same Keyword and Page documents, it may be better to keep them in a separate collection, especially if they will be changed frequently. (consistency)
This is of course a generalization, and ultimately it is up to you, the application developer to decide which works best for your unique situation. There is additional information on Embedding versus Linking in the Mongo Document titled "Schema Design"
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
You may also find the article "MongoDB Data Modeling and Rails" to be beneficial:
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/MongoDB+Data+Modeling+and+Rails
The example is given in Rails, but the theory on Document design applies to any language.
Good luck!
Im looking to use MongoDB for my database implementation. Why would you want to embded a document insode a document?
It is one way to do what in a relational database you would do with a JOIN (something that you cannot do in MongoDB).
For example, you could have a MongoDB document as a blog post, and embed the list of comments right in there.
Then you can (for example):
load post and comments in a single query
search for posts which have replies
search for posts by user A which have replies by user B
atomically update both post and comments in a single transaction
All that would be impossible (or at least difficult) if the comments were stored in their own collection as separate documents.
In simple terms, embed if its NOT a top level object, if it does NOT have complex relationships, if there will be a lot of duplicate data if you do NOT embed, and if your documents become bigger then a few megabytes.
Taken from the MongoDB site: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
Summary of Best Practices
Embed "First class" objects, that are at top level, typically have their own collection.
Line item detail objects typically are embedded.
Objects which follow an object modelling "contains" relationship should generally be embedded.
Many to many relationships are generally done by linking.
Collections with only a few objects may safely exist as separate collections, as the whole collection is quickly cached in application server memory.
Embedded objects are a bit harder to link to than "top level" objects in collections.
It is more difficult to get a system-level view for embedded objects. When needed an operation of this sort is performed by using MongoDB's map/reduce facility.
If the amount of data to embed is huge (many megabytes), you may reach the limit on size of a single object. See also GridFS.
If performance is an issue, embed.
I'd like to code a web app where most of the sections are dependent on the user profile (for example different to-do lists per person etc) and I'd love to use MongoDB. I was thinking of creating about 10 embedabble documents for the main profile document and keep everything related to one user inside his own document.
I don't see a clear way of using foreign keys for mongodb, the only way would be to create a field to_do_id with the type of ObjectId for example, but they would be totally unrelated internally, just happen to have the same Ids I'd have to query for.
Is there a limit on the number of embedded document types inside a top level document that could degrade performance?
How do you guys solve the issue of having a central profile document that most of the documents have to relate to in presenting a view per person?
Do you use semi foreign keys inside MongoDb and have fields with ObjectId types that would have some other document's unique Id instead of embedding them?
I cannot feel what approach should be taken when. Thank you very much!
There is no special limit with respect to performance. The larger the document, though, the longer it takes to transmit over the wire. The whole document is always retrieved.
I do it with references. You can choose between simple manual references and the database DBRef as per this page: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Database+References
The link above documents how to have references in a document in a semi-foreign key way. The DBRef might be good for what you are trying to do, but the simple manual reference is very efficient.
I am not sure a general rule of thumb exists for which reference approach is best. Since I use Java or Groovy mostly, I like the fact that I get a DBRef object returned. I can check for this datatype and use that to decide how to handle the reference in a generic way.
So I tend to use a simple manual reference for references to different documents in the same collection, and a DBRef for references across collections.
I hope that helps.