What scenario makes more sense - host several EC2 instances with MongoDB installed, or much rather use the Amazon SimpleDB webservice?
When having several EC2 instances with MongoDB I have the problem of setting the instance up by myself.
When using SimpleDB I have the problem of locking me into Amazons data structure right?
What differences are there development-wise? Shouldn't I be able to just switch the DAO of my service layers, to either write to MongoDB or AWS SimpleDB?
SimpleDB has some scalability limitations. You can only scale by sharding and it has higher latency than mongodb or cassandra, it has a throughput limit and it is priced higher than other options. Scalability is manual (you have to shard).
If you need wider query options and you have a high read rate and you don't have so much data mongodb is better. But for durability, you need to use at least 2 mongodb server instances as master/slave. Otherwise you can lose the last minute of your data. Scalability is manual. It's much faster than simpledb. Autosharding is implemented in 1.6 version.
Cassandra has weak query options but is as durable as postgresql. It is as fast as mongo and faster on higher data size. Write operations are faster than read operations on cassandra. It can scale automatically by firing ec2 instances, but you have to modify config files a bit (if I remember correctly). If you have terabytes of data cassandra is your best bet. No need to shard your data, it was designed distributed from the 1st day. You can have any number of copies for all your data and if some servers are dead it will automatically return the results from live ones and distribute the dead server's data to others. It's highly fault tolerant. You can include any number of instances, it's much easier to scale than other options. It has strong .net and java client options. They have connection pooling, load balancing, marking of dead servers,...
Another option is hadoop for big data but it's not as realtime as others, you can use hadoop for datawarehousing. Neither cassandra or mongo have transactions, so if you need transactions postgresql is a better fit. Another option is Amazon RDS, but it's performance is bad and price is high. If you want to use databases or simpledb you may also need data caching (eg: memcached).
For web apps, if your data is small I recommend mongo, if it is large cassandra is better. You don't need a caching layer with mongo or cassandra, they are already fast. I don't recommend simpledb, it also locks you to Amazon as you said.
If you are using c#, java or scala you can write an interface and implement it for mongo, mysql, cassandra or anything else for data access layer. It's simpler in dynamic languages (eg rub,python,php). You can write a provider for two of them if you want and can change the storage maybe in runtime by a only a configuration change, they're all possible. Development with mongo,cassandra and simpledb is easier than a database, and they are free of schema, it also depends on the client library/connector you're using. The simplest one is mongo. There's only one index per table in cassandra, so you've to manage other indexes yourself, but with the 0.7 release of cassandra secondary indexes will bu possible as I know. You can also start with any of them and replace it in the future if you have to.
I think you have both a question of time and speed.
MongoDB / Cassandra are going to be much faster, but you will have to invest $$$ to get them going. This means you'll need to run / setup server instances for all them and figure out how they work.
On the other hand, you don't have to per a "per transaction" cost directly, you just pay for the hardware which is probably more efficient for larger services.
In the Cassandra / MongoDB fight here's what you'll find (based on testing I'm personally involved with over the last few days).
Cassandra:
Scaling / Redundancy is very core
Configuration can be very intense
To do reporting you need map-reduce, for that you need to run a hadoop layer. This was a pain to get configured and a bigger pain to get performant.
MongoDB:
Configuration is relatively easy (even for the new sharding, this week)
Redundancy is still "getting there"
Map-reduce is built-in and it's easy to get data out.
Honestly, given the configuration time required for our 10s of GBs of data, we went with MongoDB on our end. I can imagine using SimpleDB for "must get these running" cases. But configuring a node to run MongoDB is so ridiculously simple that it may be worth skipping the "SimpleDB" route.
In terms of DAO, there are tons of libraries already for Mongo. The Thrift framework for Cassandra is well supported. You can probably write some simple logic to abstract away connections. But it will be harder to abstract away things more complex than simple CRUD.
Now 5 years later it is not hard to set up Mongo on any OS. Documentation is easy to follow, so I do not see setting up Mongo as a problem. Other answers addressed the questions of scalability, so I will try to address the question from the point of view of a developer (what limitations each system has):
I will use S for SimpleDB and M for Mongo.
M is written in C++, S is written in Erlang (not the fastest language)
M is open source, installed everywhere, S is proprietary, can run only on amazon AWS. You should also pay for a whole bunch of staff for S
S has whole bunch of strange limitations. M limitations are way more reasonable. The most strange limitations are:
maximum size of domain (table) is 10 GB
attribute value length (size of field) is 1024 bytes
maximum items in Select response - 2500
maximum response size for Select (the maximum amount of data S can return you) - 1Mb
S supports only a few languages (java, php, python, ruby, .net), M supports way more
both support REST
S has a query syntax very similar to SQL (but way less powerful). With M you need to learn a new syntax which looks like json (also it is straight-forward to learn the basics)
with M you have to learn how you architect your database. Because many people think that schemaless means that you can throw any junk in the database and extract this with ease, they might be surprised that Junk in, Junk out maxim works. I assume that the same is in S, but can not claim it with certainty.
both do not allow case insensitive search. In M you can use regex to somehow (ugly/no index) overcome this limitation without introducing the additional lowercase field/application logic.
in S sorting can be done only on one field
because of 5s timelimit count in S can behave strange. If 5 seconds passed and the query has not finished, you end up with a partial number and a token which allows you to continue query. Application logic is responsible for collecting all this data an summing up.
everything is a UTF-8 string, which makes it a pain in the ass to work with non string values (like numbers, dates) in S. M type support is way richer.
both do not have transactions and joins
M supports compression which is really helpful for nosql stores, where the same field name is stored all-over again.
S support just a single index, M has single, compound, multi-key, geospatial etc.
both support replication and sharding
One of the most important things you should consider is that SimpleDB has a very rudimentary query language. Even basic things like group by, sum average, distinct as well as data manipulation is not supported, so the functionality is not really way richer than Redis/Memcached. On the other hand Mongo support a rich query language.
Related
My client has an existing PostgreSQL database with around 100 tables and most every table has one or more relationships to other tables. He's got around a thousand customers who use an app that hits that database.
Recently he hired a new frontend web developer, and that person is trying to tell him that we should throw out the PostgreSQL database and replace it with a MongoDB solution. That seems odd to me, but I don't have experience with MongoDB.
Is there any clear reasons why he should, or should not, make the change? Obviously I'm arguing against it and the other guy for it, but I would like to remove the "I like this one better" from the argument and really hear from the community on their experience with such things.
1) Performance
During last years, there were several benchmarks comparing Postgres and Mongo.
Here you can find the most recent performance benchmark (Yahoo): https://www.slideshare.net/profyclub_ru/postgres-vs-mongo-postgres-professional (start with slide #58, where some overview of the past becnhmarks is given).
Notice, that traditionally, MongoDB provided benchmarks, where they didn't turn on write ahead logging or even turned fsync off, so their benchmarks were unfair -- in such states the database system doesn't wait for filesystem, so TPS are high but probability to lose data is also very high.
2) Flexibility – JSON
Postgres has non-structured and semistructured data types since 2003 (hstore, XML, array data types). And now has very strong JSON support with indexing (jsonb data type), you can create partial indexes, functional indexes, index only part of JSON documents, index whole documents in different manners (you can tweek index to reduce it's size and speed).
More interestingly, with Postgres, you can combine relational approach and non-relational JSON data – see this talk again https://www.slideshare.net/profyclub_ru/postgres-vs-mongo-postgres-professional for details. This gives you a lot of flexibility and power (I wouldn't keep money-related or basic accounts-related data in JSON format).
3) Standards and costs of support
SQL experiences new born now -- NoSQL products started to add SQL dialects, there is a lot of people making big data analysis with SQL, you can even run machine learning algorithms inside RDBMS (see MADlib project http://madlib.incubator.apache.org).
When you need to work with data, SQL was, is and will be for long time the best language – there are such many things included to it, so all other languages are lagging too much. I recommend http://modern-sql.com/ to learn modern SQL features and https://use-the-index-luke.com (from the same author) to learn how reach the best performance using SQL.
When Mongo needed to create "BI connector", they also needed to speak SQL, so guess what they chose? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-32-now-powered-postgresql-john-de-goes
SQL will go nowhere, it's extended with SQL/JSON now and this means that for future, Postgres is an excellent choice.
4) Scalability
If you data size is up to several terabytes -- it's easy to live on "single master - multiple replicas" architectuyre either on your own installation or in clouds (Amazon RDS, Heroku, Google Cloud Platform, and since recently, Azure – all them support Postgres). There is an increasing number of solutions which help you to work with microservice architecture, have automatic failover, and/or shard your data. Here is only few of them, which are actively developed and supported, without specific order:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PL/Proxy
https://github.com/zalando/spilo and https://github.com/zalando/patroni
https://github.com/dalibo/PAF
https://github.com/postgrespro/postgres_cluster
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/bdr/
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/postgres-fdw.html
5) Extensibility
There are much more additional projects built to work with Postgres than with Mongo. You can work with literally any data type (including but not limited to time ranges, geospatial data, JSON, XML, arrays), have index support for it, ACID and manipulate with it using standard SQL. You can develop your own functions, data types, operators, index structures and much more!
If your data is relational (and it appears that it is), it makes no sense whatsoever to use a non-relational db (like mongodb). You can't underestimate the power and expressiveness of standard SQL queries.
On top of that, postgres has full ACID. And it can handle free-form JSON reasonably well, if that is that guy's primary motivation.
I am working on a project were we are batch loading and storing huge volume of data in Oracle database which is constantly getting queried via Hibernate against this 100+ million records table (the reads are much more frequent than writes).
To speed things up we are using Lucene for some of queries (especially geo bounding box queries) and Hibernate second level cache but thats still not enough. We still have bottleneck in Hibernate queries against Oracle (we dont cache 100+ million table entities in Hibernate second level cache due to lack of that much memory).
What additional NoSQL solutions (apart from Lucene) I can leverage in this situation?
Some options I am thinking of are:
Use distributed ehcache (Terracotta) for Hibernate second level to leverage more memory across machines and reduce duplicate caches (right now each VM has its own cache).
To completely use in memory SQL database like H2 but unfortunately those solutions require loading 100+ mln tables into single VM.
Use Lucene for querying and BigTable (or distributed hashmap) for entity lookup by id.
What BigTable implementation will be suitable for this? I was considering HBase.
Use MongoDB for storing data and for querying and lookup by id.
recommending Cassandra with ElasticSearch for a scalable system (100 million is nothing for them). Use cassandra for all your data and ES for ad hoc and geo queries. Then you can kill your entire legacy stack. You may need a MQ system like rabbitmq for data sync between Cass. and ES.
It really depends on your data sets. The number one rule to NoSQL design is to define your query scenarios first. Once you really understand how you want to query the data then you can look into the various NoSQL solutions out there. The default unit of distribution is key. Therefore you need to remember that you need to be able to split your data between your node machines effectively otherwise you will end up with a horizontally scalable system with all the work still being done on one node (albeit better queries depending on the case).
You also need to think back to CAP theorem, most NoSQL databases are eventually consistent (CP or AP) while traditional Relational DBMS are CA. This will impact the way you handle data and creation of certain things, for example key generation can be come trickery.
Also remember than in some systems such as HBase there is no indexing concept. All your indexes will need to be built by your application logic and any updates and deletes will need to be managed as such. With Mongo you can actually create indexes on fields and query them relatively quickly, there is also the possibility to integrate Solr with Mongo. You don’t just need to query by ID in Mongo like you do in HBase which is a column family (aka Google BigTable style database) where you essentially have nested key-value pairs.
So once again it comes to your data, what you want to store, how you plan to store it, and most importantly how you want to access it. The Lily project looks very promising. THe work I am involved with we take a large amount of data from the web and we store it, analyse it, strip it down, parse it, analyse it, stream it, update it etc etc. We dont just use one system but many which are best suited to the job at hand. For this process we use different systems at different stages as it gives us fast access where we need it, provides the ability to stream and analyse data in real-time and importantly, keep track of everything as we go (as data loss in a prod system is a big deal) . I am using Hadoop, HBase, Hive, MongoDB, Solr, MySQL and even good old text files. Remember that to productionize a system using these technogies is a bit harder than installing Oracle on a server, some releases are not as stable and you really need to do your testing first. At the end of the day it really depends on the level of business resistance and the mission-critical nature of your system.
Another path that no one thus far has mentioned is NewSQL - i.e. Horizontally scalable RDBMSs... There are a few out there like MySQL cluster (i think) and VoltDB which may suit your cause.
Again it comes to understanding your data and the access patterns, NoSQL systems are also Non-Rel i.e. non-relational and are there for better suit to non-relational data sets. If your data is inherently relational and you need some SQL query features that really need to do things like Cartesian products (aka joins) then you may well be better of sticking with Oracle and investing some time in indexing, sharding and performance tuning.
My advice would be to actually play around with a few different systems. Look at;
MongoDB - Document - CP
CouchDB - Document - AP
Redis - In memory key-value (not column family) - CP
Cassandra - Column Family - Available & Partition Tolerant (AP)
HBase - Column Family - Consistent & Partition Tolerant (CP)
Hadoop/Hive
VoltDB - A really good looking product, a relation database that is distributed and might work for your case (may be an easier move). They also seem to provide enterprise support which may be more suited for a prod env (i.e. give business users a sense of security).
Any way thats my 2c. Playing around with the systems is really the only way your going to find out what really works for your case.
As you suggest MongoDB (or any similar NoSQL persistence solution) is an appropriate fit for you. We've run tests with significantly larger data sets than the one you're suggesting on MongoDB and it works fine. Especially if you're read heavy MongoDB's sharding and/or distributing reads across replicate set members will allow you to speed up your queries significantly. If your usecase allows for keeping your indexes right balanced your goal of getting close to 20ms queries should become feasable without further caching.
You should also check out the Lily project (lilyproject.org). They have integrated HBase with Solr. Internally they use message queues to keep Solr in sync with HBase. This allows them to have the speed of solr indexing (sharding and replication), backed by a highly reliable data storage system.
you could group requests & split them specific to a set of data & have a single (or a group of servers) process that, here you can have the data available in the cache to improve performance.
e.g.,
say, employee & availability data are handled using 10 tables, these can be handled b a small group of server (s) when you configure hibernate cache to load & handle requests.
for this to work you need a load balancer (which balances load by business scenario).
not sure how much of it can be implemented here.
At the 100M records your bottleneck is likely Hibernate, not Oracle. Our customers routinely have billions of records in the individual fact tables of our Oracle-based data warehouse and it handles them fine.
What kind of queries do you execute on your table?
I currently run a MySQL-powered website where users promote advertisements and gain revenue every time someone completes one. We log every time someone views an ad ("impression"), every time a user clicks an add ("click"), and every time someone completes an ad ("lead").
Since we get so much traffic, we have millions of records in each of these respective tables. We then have to query these tables to let users see how much they have earned, so we end up performing multiple queries on tables with millions and millions of rows multiple times in one request, hundreds of times concurrently.
We're looking to move away from MySQL and to a key-value store or something along those lines. We need something that will let us store all these millions of rows, query them in milliseconds, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, use adhoc queries where we can query any single column, so we could do things like:
FROM leads WHERE country = 'US' AND user_id = 501 (the NoSQL equivalent, obviously)
FROM clicks WHERE ad_id = 1952 AND user_id = 200 AND country = 'GB'
etc.
Does anyone have any good suggestions? I was considering MongoDB or CouchDB but I'm not sure if they can handle querying millions of records multiple times a second and the type of adhoc queries we need.
Thanks!
With those requirements, you are probably better off sticking with SQL and setting up replication/clustering if you are running into load issues. You can set up indexing on a document database so that those queries are possible, but you don't really gain anything over your current system.
NoSQL systems generally improve performance by leaving out some of the more complex features of relational systems. This means that they will only help if your scenario doesn't require those features. Running ad hoc queries on tabular data is exactly what SQL was designed for.
CouchDB's map/reduce is incremental which means it only processes a document once and stores the results.
Let's assume, for a moment, that CouchDB is the slowest database in the world. Your first query with millions of rows takes, maybe, 20 hours. That sounds terrible. However, your second query, your third query, your fourth query, and your hundredth query will take 50 milliseconds, perhaps 100 including HTTP and network latency.
You could say CouchDB fails the benchmarks but gets honors in the school of hard knocks.
I would not worry about performance, but rather if CouchDB can satisfy your ad-hoc query requirements. CouchDB wants to know what queries will occur, so it can do the hard work up-front before the query arrives. When the query does arrive, the answer is already prepared and out it goes!
All of your examples are possible with CouchDB. A so-called merge-join (lots of equality conditions) is no problem. However CouchDB cannot support multiple inequality queries simultaneously. You cannot ask CouchDB, in a single query, for users between age 18-40 who also clicked fewer than 10 times.
The nice thing about CouchDB's HTTP and Javascript interface is, it's easy to do a quick feasibility study. I suggest you try it out!
Most people would probably recommend MongoDB for a tracking/analytic system like this, for good reasons. You should read the „MongoDB for Real-Time Analytics” chapter from the „MongoDB Definitive Guide” book. Depending on the size of your data and scaling needs, you could get all the performance, schema-free storage and ad-hoc querying features. You will need to decide for yourself if issues with durability and unpredictability of the system are risky for you or not.
For a simpler tracking system, Redis would be a very good choice, offering rich functionality, blazing speed and real durability. To get a feel how such a system would be implemented in Redis, see this gist. The downside is, that you'd need to define all the „indices” by yourself, not gain them for „free”, as is the case with MongoDB. Nevertheless, there's no free lunch, and MongoDB indices are definitely not a free lunch.
I think you should have a look into how ElasticSearch would enable you:
Blazing speed
Schema-free storage
Sharding and distributed architecture
Powerful analytic primitives in the form of facets
Easy implementation of „sliding window”-type of data storage with index aliases
It is in heart a „fulltext search engine”, but don't get yourself confused by that. Read the „Data Visualization with ElasticSearch and Protovis“ article for real world use case of ElasticSearch as a data mining engine.
Have a look on these slides for real world use case for „sliding window” scenario.
There are many client libraries for ElasticSearch available, such as Tire for Ruby, so it's easy to get off the ground with a prototype quickly.
For the record (with all due respect to #jhs :), based on my experience, I cannot imagine an implementation where Couchdb is a feasible and useful option. It would be an awesome backup storage for your data, though.
If your working set can fit in the memory, and you index the right fields in the document, you'd be all set. Your ask is not something very typical and I am sure with proper hardware, right collection design (denormalize!) and indexing you should be good to go. Read up on Mongo querying, and use explain() to test the queries. Stay away from IN and NOT IN clauses that'd be my suggestion.
It really depends on your data sets. The number one rule to NoSQL design is to define your query scenarios first. Once you really understand how you want to query the data then you can look into the various NoSQL solutions out there. The default unit of distribution is key. Therefore you need to remember that you need to be able to split your data between your node machines effectively otherwise you will end up with a horizontally scalable system with all the work still being done on one node (albeit better queries depending on the case).
You also need to think back to CAP theorem, most NoSQL databases are eventually consistent (CP or AP) while traditional Relational DBMS are CA. This will impact the way you handle data and creation of certain things, for example key generation can be come trickery.
Also remember than in some systems such as HBase there is no indexing concept. All your indexes will need to be built by your application logic and any updates and deletes will need to be managed as such. With Mongo you can actually create indexes on fields and query them relatively quickly, there is also the possibility to integrate Solr with Mongo. You don’t just need to query by ID in Mongo like you do in HBase which is a column family (aka Google BigTable style database) where you essentially have nested key-value pairs.
So once again it comes to your data, what you want to store, how you plan to store it, and most importantly how you want to access it. The Lily project looks very promising. The work I am involved with we take a large amount of data from the web and we store it, analyse it, strip it down, parse it, analyse it, stream it, update it etc etc. We dont just use one system but many which are best suited to the job at hand. For this process we use different systems at different stages as it gives us fast access where we need it, provides the ability to stream and analyse data in real-time and importantly, keep track of everything as we go (as data loss in a prod system is a big deal) . I am using Hadoop, HBase, Hive, MongoDB, Solr, MySQL and even good old text files. Remember that to productionize a system using these technogies is a bit harder than installing MySQL on a server, some releases are not as stable and you really need to do your testing first. At the end of the day it really depends on the level of business resistance and the mission-critical nature of your system.
Another path that no one thus far has mentioned is NewSQL - i.e. Horizontally scalable RDBMSs... There are a few out there like MySQL cluster (i think) and VoltDB which may suit your cause.
Again it comes to understanding your data and the access patterns, NoSQL systems are also Non-Rel i.e. non-relational and are there for better suit to non-relational data sets. If your data is inherently relational and you need some SQL query features that really need to do things like Cartesian products (aka joins) then you may well be better of sticking with Oracle and investing some time in indexing, sharding and performance tuning.
My advice would be to actually play around with a few different systems. However for your use case I think a Column Family database may be the best solution, I think there are a few places which have implemented similar solutions to very similar problems (I think the NYTimes is using HBase to monitor user page clicks). Another great example is Facebook and like, they are using HBase for this. There is a really good article here which may help you along your way and further explain some points above. http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/3/22/facebooks-new-realtime-analytics-system-hbase-to-process-20.html
Final point would be that NoSQL systems are not the be all and end all. Putting your data into a NoSQL database does not mean its going to perform any better than MySQL, Oracle or even text files... For example see this blog post: http://mysqldba.blogspot.com/2010/03/cassandra-is-my-nosql-solution-but.html
I'd have a look at;
MongoDB - Document - CP
CouchDB - Document - AP
Redis - In memory key-value (not column family) - CP
Cassandra - Column Family - Available & Partition Tolerant (AP)
HBase - Column Family - Consistent & Partition Tolerant (CP)
Hadoop/Hive - Also have a look at Hadoop streaming...
Hypertable - Another CF CP DB.
VoltDB - A really good looking product, a relation database that is distributed and might work for your case (may be an easier move). They also seem to provide enterprise support which may be more suited for a prod env (i.e. give business users a sense of security).
Any way thats my 2c. Playing around with the systems is really the only way your going to find out what really works for your case.
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'm building a system that tracks and verifies ad impressions and clicks. This means that there are a lot of insert commands (about 90/second average, peaking at 250) and some read operations, but the focus is on performance and making it blazing-fast.
The system is currently on MongoDB, but I've been introduced to Cassandra and Redis since then. Would it be a good idea to go to one of these two solutions, rather than stay on MongoDB? Why or why not?
Thank you
For a harvesting solution like this, I would recommend a multi-stage approach. Redis is good at real time communication. Redis is designed as an in-memory key/value store and inherits some very nice benefits of being a memory database: O(1) list operations. For as long as there is RAM to use on a server, Redis will not slow down pushing to the end of your lists which is good when you need to insert items at such an extreme rate. Unfortunately, Redis can't operate with data sets larger than the amount of RAM you have (it only writes to disk, reading is for restarting the server or in case of a system crash) and scaling has to be done by you and your application. (A common way is to spread keys across numerous servers, which is implemented by some Redis drivers especially those for Ruby on Rails.) Redis also has support for simple publish/subscribe messenging, which can be useful at times as well.
In this scenario, Redis is "stage one." For each specific type of event you create a list in Redis with a unique name; for example we have "page viewed" and "link clicked." For simplicity we want to make sure the data in each list is the same structure; link clicked may have a user token, link name and URL, while the page viewed may only have the user token and URL. Your first concern is just getting the fact it happened and whatever absolutely neccesary data you need is pushed.
Next we have some simple processing workers that take this frantically inserted information off of Redis' hands, by asking it to take an item off the end of the list and hand it over. The worker can make any adjustments/deduplication/ID lookups needed to properly file the data and hand it off to a more permanent storage site. Fire up as many of these workers as you need to keep Redis' memory load bearable. You could write the workers in anything you wish (Node.js, C#, Java, ...) as long as it has a Redis driver (most web languages do now) and one for your desired storage (SQL, Mongo, etc.)
MongoDB is good at document storage. Unlike Redis it is able to deal with databases larger than RAM and it supports sharding/replication on it's own. An advantage of MongoDB over SQL-based options is that you don't have to have a predetermined schema, you're free to change the way data is stored however you want at any time.
I would, however, suggest Redis or Mongo for the "step one" phase of holding data for processing and use a traditional SQL setup (Postgres or MSSQL, perhaps) to store post-processed data. Tracking client behavior sounds like relational data to me, since you may want to go "Show me everyone who views this page" or "How many pages did this person view on this given day" or "What day had the most viewers in total?". There may be even more complex joins or queries for analytic purposes you come up with, and mature SQL solutions can do a lot of this filtering for you; NoSQL (Mongo or Redis specifically) can't do joins or complex queries across varied sets of data.
I currently work for a very large ad network and we write to flat files :)
I'm personally a Mongo fan, but frankly, Redis and Cassandra are unlikely to perform either better or worse. I mean, all you're doing is throwing stuff into memory and then flushing to disk in the background (both Mongo and Redis do this).
If you're looking for blazing fast speed, the other option is to keep several impressions in local memory and then flush them disk every minute or so. Of course, this is basically what Mongo and Redis do for you. Not a real compelling reason to move.
All three solutions (four if you count flat-files) will give you blazing fast writes. The non-relational (nosql) solutions will give you tunable fault-tolerance as well for the purposes of disaster recovery.
In terms of scale, our test environment, with only three MongoDB nodes, can handle 2-3k mixed transactions per second. At 8 nodes, we can handle 12k-15k mixed transactions per second. Cassandra can scale even higher. 250 reads is (or should be) no problem.
The more important question is, what do you want to do with this data? Operational reporting? Time-series analysis? Ad-hoc pattern analysis? real-time reporting?
MongoDB is a good option if you want the ability to do ad-hoc analysis based on multiple attributes within a collection. You can put up to 40 indexes on a collection, though the indexes will be stored in-memory, so watch for size. But the result is a flexible analytical solution.
Cassandra is a key-value store. You define a static column or set of columns that will act as your primary index right up front. All queries run against Cassandra should be tuned to this index. You can put a secondary on it, but that's about as far as it goes. You can, of course, use MapReduce to scan the store for non-key attribution, but it will be just that: a serial scan through the store. Cassandra also doesn't have the notion of "like" or regex operations on the server nodes. If you want to find all customers where the first name starts with "Alex", you'll have to scan through the entire collection, pull the first name out for each entry and run it through a client-side regex.
I'm not familiar enough with Redis to speak intelligently about it. Sorry.
If you are evaluating non-relational platforms, you might also want to consider CouchDB and Riak.
Hope this helps.
Just found this: http://blog.axant.it/archives/236
Quoting the most interesting part:
This second graph is about Redis RPUSH vs Mongo $PUSH vs Mongo insert, and I find this graph to be really interesting. Up to 5000 entries mongodb $push is faster even when compared to Redis RPUSH, then it becames incredibly slow, probably the mongodb array type has linear insertion time and so it becomes slower and slower. mongodb might gain a bit of performances by exposing a constant time insertion list type, but even with the linear time array type (which can guarantee constant time look-up) it has its applications for small sets of data.
I guess everything depends at least on data type and volume. Best advice probably would be to benchmark on your typical dataset and see yourself.
According to the Benchmarking Top NoSQL Databases (download here)
I recommend Cassandra.
If you have the choice (and need to move away from flat fies) I would go with Redis. Its blazingly fast, will comfortably handle the load you're talking about, but more importantly you won't have to manage the flushing/IO code. I understand its pretty straight forward but less code to manage is better than more.
You will also get horizontal scaling options with Redis that you may not get with file based caching.
I can get around 30k inserts/sec with MongoDB on a simple $350 Dell. If you only need around 2k inserts/sec, I would stick with MongoDB and shard it for scalability. Maybe also look into doing something with Node.js or something similar to make things more asynchronous.
The problem with inserts into databases is that they usually require writing to a random block on disk for each insert. What you want is something that only writes to disk every 10 inserts or so, ideally to sequential blocks.
Flat files are good. Summary statistics (eg total hits per page) can be obtained from flat files in a scalable manner using merge-sorty map-reducy type algorithms. It's not too hard to roll your own.
SQLite now supports Write Ahead Logging, which may also provide adequate performance.
I have hand-on experience with mongodb, couchdb and cassandra. I converted a lot of files to base64 string and insert these string into nosql.
mongodb is the fastest. cassandra is slowest. couchdb is slow too.
I think mysql would be much faster than all of them, but I didn't try mysql for my test case yet.