Why exactly do we use NoSQL? [closed]

Why exactly do we use NoSQL? [closed] - nosql

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Having understood some of the advantages that NoSQL offers (scalability, availability, etc.), I am still not clear why a website would want to use a non-relational database.
Can I get some help on this, preferably with an example?

Better performance
NoSQL databases sometimes have better performance, although this depends on the situation and is disputed.
Adaptability
You can add and remove "columns" without downtime. In most SQL servers, this takes a long time and takes up a load of load.
Application design
It is desirable to separate the data storage from the logic. If you join and select things in SQL queries, you are mixing business logic with storage.

The main reason not to use an SQL database is scalability. The transactional guarantees and the relational model make it almost impossible to scale a database usefully across more than a few machines, especially given the write-heavy workloads generated by modern web applications.
An app like Facebook can't be made to work on a straightforward SQL database, except by massive partitioning and sharding, which requires significant adjustments to the app logic as well. That's why Facebook developed Cassandra.
NoSQL basically means you make do without some SQL-typical features like immediate consistency or easy joins, in exchange for being able to use a database that scales much better.
Conversely, there is no point in using NoSQL if your website never has more than a dozen concurrent users (which is true for the vast majority of all sites).

We need understand what is your problem in the current application?
Transactions
Amount of data
Data structure
NoSQL solves the problems of scalability and availability against that of atomicity or consistency.
Basic drive us to CAP theorem. Eric Brewer also noted that Of the three properties of shared-data systems – Consistency, Availability and tolerance to network Partitions – only two can be achieved any given moment in time. (CAP theorem)
NOSQL Approach
Schemaless data representation:
Most of them offer schemaless data representation & allow storing semi-structured data.
Can continue to evolve over time— including adding new fields or even nesting the data, for example, in case of JSON representation.
Development time:
No complex SQL queries.
No JOIN statements.
Speed:
Very High speed delivery & Mostly in-built entity-level caching
Plan ahead for scalability:
Avoiding rework

There are many types of NoSQL databases. The web applications uses document based databases. The document db allows us to store JSON,XML,YAML and even Word documents and manipulate them. So, NoSQL is the obvious choice, especially MongoDB which is a Document Database which supports JSON format by default is the most preferred choice of developers and designers.

Related

Why would you use NoSQL to build posts/comments over relational? [duplicate]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?

There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.

What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).

Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.

If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.

In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.

It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.

NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.

NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.

Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.

Product Catalog - Document Store or Column Family Store [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Wondering which technology would do better for a typical product catalog of a webshop. I'm writing my master thesis about nosql in the enterprise environment and focused on document stores for to long now I think.
Read a lot articles which recommend document stores because of it's flexibilty which is needed to model thousands of different products. But as far as I know now, Column-Family Stores like Cassandra offer the same flexibility.
What I like most of the idea of using cassandra is, what nosql-database.org says about it (marked the most interesting features):
massively scalable, partitioned row store, masterless architecture, linear scale performance, no single points of failure, read/write support across multiple data centers & cloud availability zones. API / Query Method: CQL and Thrift, replication: peer-to-peer, written in: Java, Concurrency: tunable consistency, Misc: built-in data compression, MapReduce support, primary/secondary indexes, security features.
In the end I focus on building a prototype of a highly available and scaleable Multishop System which makes use of polyglot persistence, saying K/V Stores for Sessions, Document Store or Column-Family Store for Product Catalog and maybe RDBMS for Inventory/Pricing like Sadalage and Fowler mentioned in their book "NoSQL Destilled".
If possible, provide scientific papers or other reliable sources for your answers.
Thanks!

Document Store's Achilles Heel
Stuart Halloway mentioned that a document store is the biggest schema lock solution that is way too inflexible, which I agree with. Couch/Mongo and others try to mitigate that by providing workarounds to create secondary indicies, ability and necessity to be aware of plain object ids, etc. And of course if you think about versioning (i.e. add a "time" variable to your system), document stores fail fast to provide a smooth support and time travel.
Column Store: Problem Relevance
Cassandra is a really compelling solution for building "scalable"/"distributed" systems with real examples such as Netflix, where 500 Cassandra nodes can be brought up in AWS for several minutes, and all the requests hit a Cassandra ring.
However, given the problem as it is stated in your question, Cassandra would be an unnecessary overkill. Not just because it is a bit more complex than "others", or because it is mentally harder to create a solid data model on top of column oriented stores, but also because a "product catalog" problem is not quite a rocket science. It can be, if you want to add machine learning later to predict/recognize/etc.., but a catalog itself is not, and simpler stores such as PostgreSQL for example would solve it easily.
Simple Desire to NoSQL
If you really want to use NoSQL for a product catalog, I would definitely consider 3 solutions to fit your prototype:
Riak as a "K/V for Sessions"
Datomic to solve "Product Catalog, Inventory and Pricing"
Depending on the size and nature of the problem and the final solution, I would consider Redis to cache those sessions, while having Datomic comfortably sit on top of Riak as its storage service.
Practice vs. Theory
Two classical NoSQL papers that made NoSQL sound real in practice for the first time are Dynamo and BigTable. I consider Datomic to be the next evolutionary step in the DB universe by introducing a hybrid data model with true indicies and relations without a schema lock, and immutability from which everything follows: safe time travel, caching, local db values, etc.
Practically, if it wasn't a master theses, depending on the real problem scale and definition, I would be choosing between Datomic and PostreSQL to solve catalog, inventory, pricing, etc.
A big advantage of Datomic here is time travel. In practice it is very important to be able to safely and easily do that in a "Shopping System".
A big advantage of PostgreSQL is its familiarity and SQL tools availability for analytics and reporting.

By now I think that Column-Family Stores are not well suited for product calaloges.
It's because products often contain some kind of collections like tags, tracklists for music records, different sizes for clothes and so on.
Cassandra supports collections by now BUT they are not searchable! This is a must have feature for tags for example.
In contrast MongoDb for example offers the $in operator to search in nested arrays...
I don't want to say it is not possible to model a product calalog in Cassandra but I think it is much more straight forward to do it in a document store.

Is nosql Database good for Online Money Transaction management [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 months ago.
Improve this question
I am planning to use a nosql database as the back-end for my web product. I have a few very basic doubts.
I have read in a blog that Nosql database are not so good for Online Money Transaction i.e. where data integrity is highest importance (my product has online money transactions).
There will be around daily minimum 1000 users.
Will availability be a problem?
Can you please state any more pros and cons related to Nosql database? I am planning to use MongoDb. Can this satisfy my above queries?

NoSQL databases are there to solve several things, mainly:
(buzz) BigData => think TB, PB, etc..
Working with Distributed Systems / datasets => say you have 42 products, so 13 of them will live in Chicago datacenter, 21 in NY's and another and 8 somewhere in Japan, but once you query against all 42 products, you would not need to know where they are located: NoSQL DB will. This also allows to engage a lot more brain power ( servers ) to solve hard computational problems [ does not seem it would fit your use case, but it is an interesting thing to note ]
Partitioning => having your DB be easily distributed, besides those cool 8 products in Japan, also allows for an easy data replication, so those 42 products will be replicated with a factor of 3, for example, which would mean you DB would have 3 copies for every product. Hence if something goes down, no problem => here is a replica available. This is where NoSQL databases actually shine vs. RDBMS. Granted you can shard, partition and cluster Oracle / MySQL / PostgreSQL / etc.. BUT it is a several magnitudes more complicated process and usually a maintenance headache for most people you'd employ.
(to your questions)
There will be around daily minimum 1000 users
1000 users daily is an extremely low volume, unless you choose a NoSQL solution that was written yesterday at 3 a.m. as a proof concept, there should be no worries here. But if you are successful, and will have 100,000,000 users in a couple of months, NoSQL would be simpler to scale.
Will availability be a problem ?
Solid NoSQL solutions allow you to specify something that is called a quorum: "The quantity of replicas that must respond to a read or write request before it is considered successful". Some solutions also do something called a hinted handoff: "neighboring nodes temporarily take over storage operations for the failed node". In general, you should be able to control availability depending on your requirements.
(from your comments)
We are planning to expand. And dont want the database to be a constraint
Expanding is a very relative term. "Financial industry is pretty expanded", and they still mostly use RDBMS for day to day operations. Facebook uses MySQL. Major banks, I did work for, use Oracle / MySQL / PostgreSQL / DB2 / etc.. and only some of them do use NoSQL, but NOT for data that requires 100% consistency all the time. Even Facebook uses Cassandra only for things like "inbox search". But if by expand you mean more data and more users ( requests, connections, etc.. ), NoSQL will be a lot easier to scale. Again, it does not mean that you can't scale RDBMS, it is just more tedious/complicated.
From what I have read, in no SQL database we dont have to think about the schema a lot
In my experience, if I build a system that is any good, I ALWAYS have to think about the schema. NoSQL databases allow you to be a bit more flexible with the data you persist, but it does not mean you should think about the schema any less. Think of indexing the data for example, or sharding it over multiple clusters, or even contracts/interfaces that you may expose to clients, etc..
The maintenance required for NoSQL database is very less
I would not say this is true in general, unless we are talking about BigData. Take PostgreSQL for example. It is an extremely awesome piece of software, that is quite easy to work with and maintain. Another plus to RDBMS world => people feel A LOT more comfortable with SQL. For that reason, for example, Cassandra guys, released CQL in 0.8, which is a very limited subset of SQL. Terms like maintenance also should stand shoulder to shoulder with terms like Talent, Knowledge, Expertise. Since if you use Cassandra, for instance, that girl is a very "high maintenance", but not for guys from DataStax who do have Expertise, but you'd have to pay for that.
Your Main Question
I have read in a blog that NoSQL database are not so good for Online Money Transaction i.e. where data integrity is highest importance.( My product has Online money transactions )
Without truly knowing what your product is, it is hard to say whether a NoSQL database would / would not be a good fit. If the primary goal of the product is "Online Money Transaction", then I would suggest against NoSQL database ( at least today in the year of 2011 ). If "Online Money Transaction" is just one of the requirements, but not "the core" of your product, depending on what "the core" is, you can definitely give NoSQL database a try, and for example use an external service to process (e.g. Google Checkout, etc..) your transactions with a guaranteed consistency.
As a technical note, if the problem you are trying to solve benefits from being solved with distribution, I would recommend databases that are written in Erlang ( e.g. Riak, CouchDB, etc. ), since Erlang as a language already solves successfully most of distributed things for decades.

MarkLogic is a NoSQL database with ACID transactions that gets used to manage both virtual currency in games as well as real-life banking trades.

When should I use a NoSQL database instead of a relational database? Is it okay to use both on the same site?

What are the advantages of using NoSQL databases? I've read a lot about them lately, but I'm still unsure why I would want to implement one, and under what circumstances I would want to use one.

Relational databases enforces ACID. So, you will have schema based transaction oriented data stores. It's proven and suitable for 99% of the real world applications. You can practically do anything with relational databases.
But, there are limitations on speed and scaling when it comes to massive high availability data stores. For example, Google and Amazon have terabytes of data stored in big data centers. Querying and inserting is not performant in these scenarios because of the blocking/schema/transaction nature of the RDBMs. That's the reason they have implemented their own databases (actually, key-value stores) for massive performance gain and scalability.
NoSQL databases have been around for a long time - just the term is new. Some examples are graph, object, column, XML and document databases.
For your 2nd question: Is it okay to use both on the same site?
Why not? Both serves different purposes right?

NoSQL solutions are usually meant to solve a problem that relational databases are either not well suited for, too expensive to use (like Oracle) or require you to implement something that breaks the relational nature of your db anyway.
Advantages are usually specific to your usage, but unless you have some sort of problem modeling your data in a RDBMS I see no reason why you would choose NoSQL.
I myself use MongoDB and Riak for specific problems where a RDBMS is not a viable solution, for all other things I use MySQL (or SQLite for testing).
If you need a NoSQL db you usually know about it, possible reasons are:
client wants 99.999% availability on
a high traffic site.
your data makes
no sense in SQL, you find yourself
doing multiple JOIN queries for
accessing some piece of information.
you are breaking the relational
model, you have CLOBs that store
denormalized data and you generate
external indexes to search that data.
If you don't need a NoSQL solution keep in mind that these solutions weren't meant as replacements for an RDBMS but rather as alternatives where the former fails and more importantly that they are relatively new as such they still have a lot of bugs and missing features.
Oh, and regarding the second question it is perfectly fine to use any technology in conjunction with another, so just to be complete from my experience MongoDB and MySQL work fine together as long as they aren't on the same machine

Martin Fowler has an excellent video which gives a good explanation of NoSQL databases. The link goes straight to his reasons to use them, but the whole video contains good information.
You have large amounts of data - especially if you cannot fit it all on one physical server as NoSQL was designed to scale well.
Object-relational impedance mismatch - Your domain objects do not fit well in a relaitional database schema. NoSQL allows you to persist your data as documents (or graphs) which may map much more closely to your data model.

NoSQL is a database system where data is organized into the document (MongoDB), key-value pair (MemCache, Redis), and graph structure form(Neo4J).
Maybe there are possible questions and answer for "When to go for NoSQL":
Require flexible schema or deal with tree-like data?
Generally, in agile development we start designing systems without knowing all requirements upfront, whereas later on throughout the development database system may need to accommodate frequent design changes, showcasing MVP (Minimal Viable product).
Or you are dealing with a data schema that is dynamic in nature.
e.g. System logs, very precise example is AWS cloudtrail logs.
Data set is vast/big?
Yes NoSQL databases are the better candidate for applications where the database needs to manage millions or even billions of records without compromising performance and availability while may be trading for inconsistency(though modern databases are exception here where it allows tunable consistency over availability e.g. Casandra, Cloud provider databases CosmosDB, DynamoDB).
Trade-off between scaling over consistency
Unlike RDMS, NoSQL databases may make the dataset consistent across other nodes eventually which is the default behavior, but it's easy to scale in terms of performance and availability.
Example: This may be good for storing people who are online in the instant messaging app, API tokens in DB, and logging website traffic stats.
Performing Geolocation Operations:
MongoDB hash rich support for doing GeoQuerying & Geolocation operations. I really loved this feature of MongoDB. So does the PostresSQL but ease of implementation is something that depends on the use case
In nutshell, MongoDB is a great fit for applications where you can store dynamic structured data on a large scale.
Edits:
Updated the answer about the consistency of the database.

Some essential information is missing to answer the question: Which use cases must the database be able to cover? Do complex analyses have to be performed from existing data (OLAP) or does the application have to be able to process many transactions (OLTP)? What is the data structure? That is far from the end of question time.
In my view, it is wrong to make technology decisions on the basis of bold buzzwords without knowing exactly what is behind them. NoSQL is often praised for its scalability. But you also have to know that horizontal scaling (over several nodes) also has its price and is not free. Then you have to deal with issues like eventual consistency and define how to resolve data conflicts if they cannot be resolved at the database level. However, this applies to all distributed database systems.
The joy of the developers with the word "schema less" at NoSQL is at the beginning also very big. This buzzword is quickly disenchanted after technical analysis, because it correctly does not require a schema when writing, but comes into play when reading. That is why it should correctly be "schema on read". It may be tempting to be able to write data at one's own discretion. But how do I deal with the situation if there is existing data but the new version of the application expects a different schema?
The document model (as in MongoDB, for example) is not suitable for data models where there are many relationships between the data. Joins have to be done on application level, which is additional effort and why should I program things that the database should do.
If you make the argument that Google and Amazon have developed their own databases because conventional RDBMS can no longer handle the flood of data, you can only say: You are not Google and Amazon. These companies are the spearhead, some 0.01% of scenarios where traditional databases are no longer suitable, but for the rest of the world they are.
What's not insignificant: SQL has been around for over 40 years and millions of hours of development have gone into large systems such as Oracle or Microsoft SQL. This has to be achieved by some new databases. Sometimes it is also easier to find an SQL admin than someone for MongoDB. Which brings us to the question of maintenance and management. A subject that is not exactly sexy, but that is a part of the technology decision.

Handling A Large Number Of Read Write Operations
Look towards NoSQL databases when you need to scale fast. And when do you generally need to scale fast?
When there are a large number of read-write operations on your website & when dealing with a large amount of data, NoSQL databases fit best in these scenarios. Since they have the ability to add nodes on the fly, they can handle more concurrent traffic & big amount of data with minimal latency.
Flexibility With Data Modeling
The second cue is during the initial phases of development when you are not sure about the data model, the database design, things are expected to change at a rapid pace. NoSQL databases offer us more flexibility.
Eventual Consistency Over Strong Consistency
It’s preferable to pick NoSQL databases when it’s OK for us to give up on Strong consistency and when we do not require transactions.
A good example of this is a social networking website like Twitter. When a tweet of a celebrity blows up and everyone is liking and re-tweeting it from around the world. Does it matter if the count of likes goes up or down a bit for a short while?
The celebrity would definitely not care if instead of the actual 5 million 500 likes, the system shows the like count as 5 million 250 for a short while.
When a large application is deployed on hundreds of servers spread across the globe, the geographically distributed nodes take some time to reach a global consensus.
Until they reach a consensus, the value of the entity is inconsistent. The value of the entity eventually gets consistent after a short while. This is what Eventual Consistency is.
Though the inconsistency does not mean that there is any sort of data loss. It just means that the data takes a short while to travel across the globe via the internet cables under the ocean to reach a global consensus and become consistent.
We experience this behaviour all the time. Especially on YouTube. Often you would see a video with 10 views and 15 likes. How is this even possible?
It’s not. The actual views are already more than the likes. It’s just the count of views is inconsistent and takes a short while to get updated.
Running Data Analytics
NoSQL databases also fit best for data analytics use cases, where we have to deal with an influx of massive amounts of data.

I came across this question while looking for convincing grounds to deviate from RDBMS design.
There is a great post by Julian Brown which sheds lights on constraints of distributed systems. The concept is called Brewer's CAP Theorem which in summary goes:
The three requirements of distributed systems are : Consistency, Availability and Partition tolerance (CAP in short). But you can only have two of them at a time.
And this is how I summarised it for myself:
You better go for NoSQL if Consistency is what you are sacrificing.

I designed and implemented solutions with NoSQL databases and here is my checkpoint list to make the decision to go with SQL or document-oriented NoSQL.
DON'Ts
SQL is not obsolete and remains a better tool in some cases. It's hard to justify use of a document-oriented NoSQL when
Need OLAP/OLTP
It's a small project / simple DB structure
Need ad hoc queries
Can't avoid immediate consistency
Unclear requirements
Lack of experienced developers
DOs
If you don't have those conditions or can mitigate them, then here are 2 reasons where you may benefit from NoSQL:
Need to run at scale
Convenience of development (better integration with your tech stack, no need in ORM, etc.)
More info
In my blog posts I explain the reasons in more details:
7 reasons NOT to NoSQL
2 reasons to NoSQL
Note: the above is applicable to document-oriented NoSQL only. There are other types of NoSQL, which require other considerations.

Ran into this thread and wanted to add my experience.. Many SQL databases support json data in columns and support querying of this json. So what I have used is a hybrid using a relational database with columns containing json..

Key-Value Stores vs. RDBMs vs. "Cloud" DBs (SDB) [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm comfortable in the MySQL space having designed several apps over the past few years, and then continuously refining performance and scalability aspects. I also have some experience working with memcached to provide application side speed-ups on frequently queried result sets. And recently I implemented the Amazon SDB as my primary "database" for an ecommerce experiment.
To oversimplify, a quick justification I went through in my mind for using the SDB service was that using a schema-less database structure would allow me to focus on the logical problem of my project and rapidly accumulate content in my data-store. That is, don't worry about setting up and normalize all possible permutations of a product's attributes before hand; simply start loading in the products and the SDB will simply remember everything that is available.
Now that I have managed to get through the first few iterations of my project and I need to setup simple interfaces to the data, I am running to issues that I had taken for granted working with MySQL. Ex: grouping in select statements and limit syntax to query "items 50 to 100". The ease advantage I gained using schema free architecture of SDB, I lost to a performance hit of querying/looping a resultset with just over 1800 items.
Now I'm reading about projects like Tokyo Cabinet that are extending the concept of in-memory key-value stores to provide pseudo-relational functionality at ridiculously faster speeds (14x i read somewhere).
My question:
Are there some rudimentary guidelines or heuristics that I as an application designer/developer can go through to evaluate which DB tech is the most appropriate at each stage of my project.
Ex: At a prototyping stage where logical/technical unknowns of the application make data structure fluid: use SDB.
At a more mature stage where user deliverables are a priority, use traditional tools where you don't have to spend dev time writing sorting, grouping or pagination logic.
Practical experience with these tools would be very much appreciated.
Thanks SO!
Shaheeb R.

The problems you are finding are why RDBMS specialists view some of the alternative systems with a jaundiced eye. Yes, the alternative systems handle certain specific requirements extremely fast, but as soon as you want to do something else with the same data, the fleetest suddenly becomes the laggard. By contrast, an RDBMS typically manages the variations with greater aplomb; it may not be quite as fast as the fleetest for the specialized workload which the fleetest is micro-optimized to handle, but it seldom deteriorates as fast when called upon to deal with other queries.

The new solutions are not silver bullets.
Compared to traditional RDBMS, these systems make improvements in some aspect (scalability, availability or simplicity) by trading-off other aspects (reduced query capability, eventual consistency, horrible performance for certain operations).
Think of these not as replacements of the traditional database, but they are specialized tools for a known, specific need.
Take Amazon Simple DB for example, SDB is basically a huge spreadsheet, if that is what your data looks like, then it probably works well and the superb scalability and simplicity will save you a lot of time and money.
If your system requires very structured and complex queries but you insist with one of these cool new solution, you will soon find yourself in the middle of re-implementing a amateurish, ill-designed RDBMS, with all of its inherent problems.
In this respect, if you do not know whether these will suit your need, I think it is actually better to do your first few iterations in a traditional RDBMS because they give you the best flexibility and capability especially in a single server deployment and under modest load. (see CAP Theorem).
Once you have a better idea about what your data will look like and how will they be used, then you can match your need with an alternative solution.
If you want the simplicity of a cloud hosted solution, but needs a relational database, you can check out: Amazon Relational Database Service

We Keep Coding

iphone swift flutter scala powershell matlab mongodb postgresql perl eclipse