I'm fairly new to NoSQL type databases, including Azure's DocumentDB. I've read through the documentation and understand the basics.
The documentation left me with some questions about data modeling, particularly in how it relates to pricing.
Microsoft charges fees on a "per collection" basis, with a collection being a list of JSON objects with no particular schema, if I understand it correctly.
Now, since there is no requirement for a uniform schema, is the expectation that your "collection" is analogous to a "database" in that the collection itself might contain different types of objects? Or is the expectation that each "collection" is analogous to a "table" in that it contains only objects of similar type (allowing for variance in the object properties, perhaps).
Does query performance dictate one way or another here?
Thanks for any insight!
The normal pattern under DocumentDB is to store lots of different types of objects in the same "collection". You distinguish them by either have a field type = "MyType" or with isMyType = true. The latter allows for subclassing and mixin behavior.
As for performance, DocumentDB gives you guaranteed 10ms read/15ms write latency for your chosen throughput. For your production system, put everything in one big "partitioned collection" and slide the size and throughput levers over time as your space needs and load demands. You'll get essentially infinite scalability and DocumentDB will take care of allocating (and deallocating) resources (secondaries, partitions, etc.) as you increase (or decrease) your throughput and size levers.
A collection is analogous to a database, more so than a relational table. Normally, you would store a type property within documents to distinguish between types, and add the AND type='MyType' filter to each of your queries if restricting to a certain type.
Query performance will not be significantly different if you store different types of documents within the same collection vs. different collections because you're just adding another filter against an indexed property (type). You might however benefit from pooling throughput into a single collection, vs. spreading small amounts of throughput for each type/collection.
Related
I looked at some existing implementations of adjacency lists online, and most if not all of them have been implemented using dynamic arrays. But wouldn't hashtable based data structures be more suitable? (set and map)
There are very limited scenarios where we would access graph nodes by index. Even if that's the case, if some indices are missing from the graph, there will be wasted space. And if the nodes are not inserted in order, lookups are O(n).
However, if we use a hashtable based data structure, lookups will be O(1) whether the nodes are indexed or otherwise.
So why are maps and sets not the default data structures used when implementing adjacency lists?
The choice of the right container is not quite easy.
I will consider some of the most common:
a list (elements which contain a reference to the next and/or previous)
an array (with consecutive storage)
an associated array
a hash table.
Each of them has advantages and disadvantages.
Concerning a list, insertions and removals can be very fast (worst case O(1) if the insertion point / removal element is known) but a look-up has worst case time complexity of O(N).
The look-up in an array has a complexity of O(1) in worst case if the index is known (but insertion and removal can be slow if the order must be kept).
A hash table has a look-up of O(1) in best case but the worst case might be O(N) (even if it's unlikely to happen often if the hash table isn't completely bad implemented).
An associated array has a time complexity of O(lg N) in worst case.
So the choice always depends on the expected use cases to find the best compromise where the advantages pay off most while the disadvantages doesn't hurt too much.
For the management of node and edge lists in graphs, OP made the observation that arrays seem to be very common.
I recently had a look into the Boost Graph Library (for curiosity and inspiration). Concerning the data structures, it is mentioned:
The adjacency_list class is the general purpose “swiss army knife” of graph classes. It is highly parameterized so that it can be optimized for different situations: the graph is directed or undirected, allow or disallow parallel edges, efficient access to just the out-edges or also to the in-edges, fast vertex insertion and removal at the cost of extra space overhead, etc.
For the configuration (according to a specific use case), there is spent an extra page BGL – adjacency_list.
However, the defaults for vertex (node) list and edge list are in fact vectors (aka. dynamic arrays). Assuming that the average use case is an non-mutable graph (loaded once and never modified) which is explored by algorithms to answer certain user questions, the worst case of O(1) for look-up in arrays is hard to beat and will very probably pay off.
To organize this, the nodes and edges have to be enumerated. If the input data doesn't provide this, it's easy to add this as a kind of internal ID to the in-memory representation of the graph.
In this case, "public" node references have to be mapped into the internal IDs, and answers have to be mapped back. For the mapping of the public node references, the most appropriate container should be used. This might be in fact an associated array or hash table.
Considering that a request like e.g. find the shortest route from A to B has to map A and B once to the corresponding internal IDs but may need many look-up of nodes and edges to compute the answer, the choice of the array for storage of nodes and edges makes very sense.
There are very limited scenarios where we would access graph nodes by index.
This is true, and exactly what you should be thinking about: you want a data structure which can efficiently do whatever operations you actually want to use it for. So the question is, what operations do you want to be efficient?
Suppose you are implementing some kind of standard algorithm which uses an adjacency list, e.g. Dijkstra's algorithm, A* search, depth-first search, breadth-first search, topological sorting, or so on. For almost every algorithm like this, you will find that the only operation you need to use the adjacency list for is: for a given node, iterate over its neighbours.
That operation is more efficient for a dynamic array than for a hashtable, because a hashtable has to be sufficiently sparse to prevent too many collisions. Besides that, dynamic arrays will use less memory than hashtables, for the same reason; and the dynamic arrays are more efficient to build in the first place, because you don't have to compute any hashes.
Now, if you have a different algorithm where you need to be able to test for the existence of an edge in O(1) time, then an adjacency list implemented using hashtables may be a good choice; but you should also consider whether an adjacency matrix is more suitable.
We are building a REST API in .NET deployed to Azure App Service / Azure API App. From this API, client can create "Products" and query "Products". The product entity has a set of fields that are common, and that all clients have to provide when creating a product, like the fields below (example)
{
"id": "cbf3f7aa-4743-4198-b307-260f703c42c1"
"name": "Product One"
"description": "The number one product"
}
We store these products currently as self-contained documents in Azure Cosmos DB.
Question 1: Partitioning.
The collection will not store a huge amount of documents, we talk about maximum around 2 500 000 documents between 1 - 5 kb each (estimates). We currently have chosen the id field (which is our system generated id, not the internal Cosmos DB document id) as partition key which means 2 500 000 logical partitions with one document each partition. The documents will be used in some low-latency workloads, but these workloads will query by id (the partition key). Clients will also query by e.g. name, and then we have a fan-out query, but those queries will not be latency-critical. In the portal, you can't create a single partition collection anymore, but you can do it from the SDK or have a fixed partition key value. If we have all these documents in one single partition (we talk about data far below 10 GB here), we will never get any fan-out queries, but rely more on the index within the one logical partition. So the question: Even if we don't have huge amounts of data, is it still wise to partition like we currently have done?
Question 2: Extended metadata.
We will face clients that want to write client/application/customer-specific metadata beyond the basic common fields. What is the best way to do this?
Some brainstorming from me below.
1: Just dump everything in one self-contained document.
One option is to allow clients in the API to add a type of nested "extendedMetadata" field with key-value pairs when creating a product. Cosmos DB is schema agnostic, so in theory this should work fine. Some products can have zero extended metadata, while other products can have a lot of extended metadata. For the clients, we can promise the basic common fields, but for the extended metadata field we cannot promise anything in terms of number of fields, naming etc. The document size will then vary. These products will as mentioned still be used in latency-critical workloads that will query by "id" (the partition key"). The extended metadata will never be used in any latency-critical workloads. How much and how in general affects the document size the performance / throughput? For the latency-critical read scenario, the query optimizer will go straight to the right partition, and then use the index to quickly retrieve the document fields of interest. Or will the whole document always be loaded and processed independent of which fields you want to query?
{
"id": "cbf3f7aa-4743-4198-b307-260f703c42c1"
"name": "Product One"
"description": "The number one product"
"extendedMetadta" : {
"prop1": "prop1",
"prop2": "prop2",
"propN": "propN"
}
}
The extended metadata is only useful to retrieve from the same API in certain situations. We can then do something like:
api.org.com/products/{id} -- will always return a product with the basic common fields
api.org.com/products/{id}/extended -- will return the full document (basic + extended metadata)
2: Split the document
One option might be to do some kind of splitting. If a client from the API creates a product that contains extended metadata, we can implement some logic that splits the document if extendedMetadata contains data. I guess the split can be done in many ways, brainstorming below. I guess the main objetive to split the documents (which require more work on write operations) is to get better throughput in case the document size plays a significant role here (in most cases, the clients will be ok with the basic common fields).
One basic document that only contains the basic common fields, and one extended document that (with the same id) contains the basic common fields + extended metadata (duplication of the basic common fields) We can add a "type" field that differentiates between the basic and extended document. If a client asks for extended, we will only query documents of type "extended".
One basic document that only contains the basic common fields + a reference to an extended document that only contains the extended metadata. This means a read operation where client asks for product with extended metadata require reading two documents.
Look into splitting it in different collections, one collection holds the basic documents with throughput dedicated to low-latency read scenarios, and one collection for the extended metadata.
Sorry for a long post. Hope this was understandable, looking forward for your feedback!
Answer 1:
If you can guarantee that the documents total size will never be more than 10GB, then creating a fixed collection is the way to go for 2 reasons.
First, there is no need for a cross partition query. I'm not saying it will be lightning fast without partitioning but because you are only interacting
with a simple physical partition, it will be faster than going in every single physical partition looking for data.
(Keep in mind however that every time people think that they can guarantee things like max size of something, it usually doesn't work out.)
The /id partitioning strategy is only efficient if you can ALWAYS provide the id. This is called a read. If you need to search by any other property, this means that
you are performing a query. This is where the system wouldn't do so well.
Ideally you should design your Cosmos DB collection in a way that you never do a cross partition query as part of your every day work load. Maybe once in a blue moon for reporting reasons.
Answer 2:
Cosmos DB is a NoSQL schema-less database for a reason.
The second approach in your brainstorming would be fitting for a traditional RDBMS database but we don't have that here.
You can simply go with your first approach and either have everything under a single property or just have them at the top level.
Remember that you can just map the response to any object that you want, so you can simply have 2 DTOs. A slim and an extended version
and just map to different versions depending on the endpoint.
Hope this helps.
Im am currently searching for an alternative to our aging MySQL database using an EAV approach. Current projects seem to have outgrown traditional table oriented database structures and especially searches in such database.
I head and researched about various NoSQL database systems but I can't find anything that seems to be what Im looking for. Maybe you can help.
I'll show you a generalized example on what kind of data I have and what operations I want to execute on them:
I have an object that has a small number of META attributes. Attributes that are common to all instanced of my objects. For example these
DataObject Common (META) Attributes
Unique ID (Some kind of string containing a unique identifier)
Created Date (A date time showing creation time of the object)
Type (Some kind of type identifier, maybe something like "Article", "News", "Image" or "Video"
... I think you get the Idea
Then each of my Objects has a variable number of other attributes. Most probably, many Objects will share a number of these attributes, but there is no rule. For my sample, we say each Object instance has between 5 to 20 such attributes. Here are some samples
Data Object variable Attributes
Color (Some CSS like color string)
Name (A string)
Category (The category or Tag of this item) (Maybe we also have more than one of these?)
URL (a url containing some website)
Cost (a number with decimals
... And a whole lot of other stuff mostly being of the usual column types
References to other data is an idea, but not a MUST at the moment. I could provide those within my application logic if needed.
A small sample:
Image
Unique ID = "0s987tncsgdfb64s5dxnt"
Created Date = "2013-11-21 12:23:11"
Type = "Image"
Title = "A cute cat"
Category = "Animal"
Size = "10234"
Mime = "image/jpeg"
Filename = "cat_123.jpg"
Copyright = "None"
Typical Operations
An average storage would probably have around 1-5 million such objects, each with 5-20 attributes.
Apart from the usual stuff like writing one object to database or readin it by it's uid, the most problematic operations are these:
Search by several attributes - Select every DataObject that has Type "News" the Titel contains "blue" and the Created Date is after 2012.
Paged bulk read - Get a large number of objects from a search (see above) starting at element 100 and ending at 250
Get many objects with all of their attributes - When reading larger numbers of objects, I need to get every object with all of it's attributes in one call.
Storage Requirements
Persistance - The storage needs to be persistance and not in memory only. If the server reboots, the data has to be at the same point in time as when it shut down before. No memory only systems.
Integrity - All data is important, nothing can be ignored. So every single write action has to be securely stored. Systems (Redis?) that tend to loose something now and then arent usable. Systems with huge asynchronity are also problematic. If data changes, every responsible node should see that.
Complexity - The system should be fairly easy to setup and maintain. So, systems that force the admin to take many week long courses in it's use arent really a solution here. Same goes for huge data warehouses with loads of nodes. Clustering is nice, but it should also be possible to get a cheap system with one node.
tl;dr
Need super fast database system with object oriented data and fast searched even with hundreds of thousands of items.
A reason as to why I am searching for a better alternative to mysql can be found here: Need MySQL optimization for complex search on EAV structured data
Update
Key-Value stores like Redis weren't an option as we need to do some heavy searching insode our data. Somethng which isnt possible in a typical Key-Value store.
In the end, we are using MongoDB with a slightly optimized scheme to make best use of MongoDBs use of indizes.
Some small drawback still remain but are acceptable at the moment:
- MongoDBs aggregate function can not wotk with very large result sets. We have to use find (and refine our data structure to make that one sufficient)
- You can not sort large datasets on specific values as it would take up to much memory. You also cant create indizes on those values as they are schema free.
I don't know if you wan't a more sophisticated answer than mine. But maybe i can inspire you a little.
MySql are scaleable and can be used for exactly your course. I think it's more of an optimization and server problem if you database i slow. Many system with massive amount of data i using MySql and works perfectly, Though NoSql (Not-Only SQL) is built for large amount of data with different attributes.
There's many diffrent NoSql providers and they have different ways of handling you data.
Think about that before you choose a NoSql platform.
The possibilities are
Key–value Stores - ex. Redis, Voldemort, Oracle BDB
Column Store - ex. Cassandra, HBase
Document Store - ex. CouchDB, MongoDb
Graph Database - ex. Neo4J, InfoGrid, Infinite Graph
Most website uses document based storing, but ex. facebook are using the column based, because of the many dynamic atrribute.
You can try the Document based NoSql at http://try.mongodb.org/
In the end, it really depends on how you build and optimize you database, and not from which technology you choose, though chossing the right technology can save a bunch of time.
The system we have developed are using a a combination of MySql and NoSql depending on what data we are working with. MySql for the system itself and NoSql for all the data we import via API's.
Hope this inspires a little and feel free to ask any westions
For a social network site, I need to propose a DB. The application is written in Java & will be hosted on VPS(s) initially.
Broadly classified there is two type of data to be stored at backend:
1. dynamic lists which are:
- frequently appended to
- frequently read
- sometimes reduced
2. fixed set of data keyed by a primary key(sometimes modified).
"For serving any page, I need to have access to both kind of data!"
As demanded by every other SN site, we need to consider for easy scaling in the future, but in addition to that our team & resources are also very very limited. We would like to start with a 1 or 2 medium sized VPS(s) & add more servers as data & load grows.
Personally I usually prefer something that is used by a large community, so ofcourse MySQL is big option but it doesn't fit our entire needs. It could be used for 2nd kind of data(among the list above) ie for storing fixed set of columns/data but not ideal for storing dynamic lists(ie 1st kind).
So should I use a 2nd database just to fit in only that type of data (two database each containing only data best suited for them)? (Some suggested Cassandra to store the 2nd kind of data.)
What is the way to go ?
Use a traditional database when you need transactional integrity and you have a fixed set of relations to map.
Use a document database when you have multiple properties of objects to store in a flat structure; or where the schema (the properties of the objects) may change over time. This is one of the weaknesses of traditional database systems; changing schemas is possible but has lots of performance side-effects. In document databases, the properties of the object being stored have little impact on the overall performance of the system - and more practically the information stored about objects (their properties or "columns") can be modified without having to worry about schemas.
Use a key value store for ephemeral data.
From what you have described, I don't see any use case that would require a relational database.
I'd like to get feedback on how to model the following:
Two main objects: collections and resources.
Each user has multiple collections. I'm not saving user information per se: every collection has a "user ID" field.
Each collection comprises multiple resources.
Any given collection belongs to only one user.
Any given resource may be associated with multiple collections.
I'm committed to using MySQL for the time being, though there is the possibility of migrating to a different database down the road. My main concern is scalability with the following assumptions:
The number of users is about 200 and will grow.
On average, each user has five collections.
About 30,000 new distinct resources are "consumed" daily: when a resource is consumed, the application associates that resource to every collection that is relevant to that resource. Assume that typically a resource is relevant to about half of the collections, so that's 30,000 x (1,000 / 2) = 15,000,000 inserts a day.
The collection and resource objects are both composed of about a half-dozen fields, some of which may reach lengths of 100 characters.
Every user has continual polling set up to periodically retrieve their collections and associated resources--assume that this happens once a minute.
Please keep in mind that I'm using MySQL. Given the expected volume of data, how normalized should the data model be? Would it make sense to store this data in a flat table? What kind of sharding approach would be appropriate? Would MySQL's NDB clustering solution fit this use case?
Given the expected volume of data, how normalized should the data model be?
Perfectly.
Your volumes are small. You're doing 10,000 to 355,000 transactions each day? Let's assume your peak usage is a 12-hour window. That's .23/sec up to 8/sec. Until you get to rates like 30/sec (over 1 million rows on a 12-hour period), you've got get little to worry about.
Would it make sense to store this data in a flat table?
No.
What kind of sharding approach would be appropriate?
Doesn't matter. Pick any one that makes you happy.
You'll need to test these empirically. Build a realistic volume of fake data. Write some benchmark transactions. Run under load to benchmarking sharding alternatives.
Would MySQL's NDB clustering solution fit this use case?
It's doubtful. You can often create a large-enough single server to handle this load.
This doesn't sound anything like any of the requirements of your problem.
MySQL Cluster is designed not to have any single point of failure. In
a shared-nothing system, each component is expected to have its own
memory and disk, and the use of shared storage mechanisms such as
network shares, network file systems, and SANs is not recommended or
supported.