what is the difference between a relation of a relational database and a dimension as represented in a star diagram?
As part of an assignment I have a relational datawarehouse design, where most of the tables have been normalised using many to many, one to one, one to many relationship schema (I think this is the right terminology? please correct me if I'm wrong). The next step is to draw a star diagram that could be used in a data-mining environment, which I guess means a fact table that draws from different dimensions...
I'm a little confused here because 1. any data-analysis I could think of could be taken from the relational database, so whats the point of re-structuring it? and 2. If some of the tables that you want to draw data from contain foreign keys, how do you split that into dimensions.
for example:
I have these relations:
Courses {course_id, description}
Modules {module_id, description}
Course_modules {course_id, module_id}
Students {student_id, address, enrollment_option, enrollment_date, name, surname, nationality, home_language, gender ...}
Module_grades {student_id, module_id, assignment_1, assignment_1_sub_date, assignment_2, assignment_2_sub_date, exam, exam_date, overall_result}
and I'd like to know how course results relate to module grades. With a relational database I would query to join a table containing students information with the module grades table. What would be the equivalent with dimensions and reports? Especially as I'm using multiple columns as my primary key in the grades relation..
An operational database is highly normalized, which improves write performance, and minimizes write anomalies. It is designed to facilitate transaction processing.
An analytic database (data warehouse) is highly denormalized, which improves read performance, and makes it easier for non DBAs to understand. It is designed to facilitate analysis.
what is the difference between a relation of a relational database and a dimension
A data warehouse can be in a relational database, and can use its relations (tables), so there is no difference.
any data-analysis I could think of could be taken from the relational
database, so whats the point of re-structuring it?
A data warehouse often includes data from many sources, not just your operational database. Examples: emails, website scraping.
If you tell your boss to join ten tables to do a simple analysis, you will get fired.
If some of the tables that you want to draw data from contain foreign keys, how do you split that into dimensions.
This depends entirely on what you are trying to analyze, but in general you denormalize and copy the data to dimension tables.
Dimensional Design
You need to start with a process or event that you want to analyze.
Use Excel. Add all the columns that are pertinent to your analysis. For example, if you were analyzing the process of people visiting your website, each row in Excel would represent a site visit, and columns might be start_time, # pages visited, first page, last page, etc.
Now do ONE level of normalization. Find categorical columns that you can group together (like info about the user's web browser). These would go in a browsers dimension table. Find (true) numerical values that you cannot normalize out. These are measures. Example, the number of pages visited.
The measures, and keys that refer to your dimension tables, are your fact table.
Now go read this book.
Related
Say I have an application that adds companies. I have a table like this:
create table companies(
id primary key,
name varchar
)
For each company, I have to store loads of business-type information. Since they are so many, I've decided to create one database per company to avoid collision, very slow performance and complicated queries. The database name would be the company name in my companies table.
My problem is I would like to give the company name and the database a one-to-one relationship so they would be in sink with each other. Is that possible? If not, is there a better approach besides creating a database per company?
This is an elaboration on my comment.
Databases are designed to handle tables with millions, even billions of rows. I am guessing that your data is not that big.
Why do you want to store all the data for a single entity in a single table? Here are some reasons:
You can readily run queries across different companies.
You can define foreign key relationships between entities.
If you change the data structure, you can do it in one place.
It can be much more efficient in terms of space. Databases generally store data on data pages, and partially filled pages will eat up lots of space.
You have a single database for backup and recovery purposes.
A where clause to select a single company's data is not particularly "complicated".
(Note: This is referring to "entities", a database term. Data for the companies can still be spread across multiple tables.)
For performance, you can then adjust the data model, add indexes, and partition tables. This is sufficient for the vast myriad of applications that run on databases.
There are a handful of situations where a separate database per company/client is needed. Here are some I've encountered:
You are told this is what you have to do.
Each client really is customized, so there is little common data structure among them.
Security requirements specify that data must be in different databases or even on different servers (this is "good reason" for 1.).
I am planning on using this SQL schema to store/generate statistics and player data for various sports. I wanted to keep it as agnostic as possible, but given that each sport has different metrics for scoring and gameplay, I had to break it up at the end.
There are two "red flags" in there:
Any time you name a table with the value of what should be a foreign key's value, you have almost certainly got a problem:
NBAGamePerformance
NCAABPerformance
These should be merged to GamePerformance and a foreign key added to League. If there's no such thing as an "assist" in NCAAB (the only difference between the tables), just make it null able.
You should fm do thus because:
the code behind these two table can be the shared
if you want to start supporting performance stats for another league, you can without changing your schema (rather than create yer another table)
you can query overall statistics, or compare statics between leagues easily (possible, but not realistic with split tables)
Remember:
adding rows is trivial compared to adding columns
adding columns is trivial compared to adding tables
Design your schema with these principles in mind and your system will be easier to build and maintain.
I’m developing a database. I’d appreciate some help restructuring 2 to 3 tables so the database is both compliant with the first 3 normal forms; and practical to use and to expand on / add to in the future. I want to invest time now to reduce effort / and confusion later.
PREAMBLE
Please be aware that I'm both a nube, and an amateur, though I have a certain amount of experience and skill and an abundance of enthusiasm!
BACKGROUND TO PROJECT
I am writing a small (though ambitious!) web application (using PHP and AJAX to a MySQL database). It is essentially an inventory management system, for recording and viewing the current location of each individual piece of equipment, and its maintenance history. If relevant, transactions will be very low (probably less than 100 a day, but with a possibility of simultaneous connections / operations). Row count will also be very low (maybe a few thousand).
It will deal with many completely different categories of equipment, eg bikes and lamps (to take random examples). Each unit of equipment will have its details or specifications recorded in the database. For a bike, an important specification might be frame colour, whereas a lamp it might require information regarding lampshade material.
Since the categories of equipment have so little in common, I think the most logical way to store the information is 1 table per category. That way, each category can have columns specific to that category.
I intend to store a list of categories in a separate table. Each category will have an id which is unique to that category. (Depending on the final design, this may function as a lookup table and / or as a table to run queries against.) There are likely to be very few categories (perhaps 10 to 20), unless the system is particulary succesful and it expands.
A list of bikes will be held in the bikes table.
Each bike will have an id which is unique to that bike (eg bike 0001).
But the same id will exist in the lamp table (ie lamp 0001).
With my application, I want the user to select (from a dropdown list) the category type (eg bike).
They will then enter the object's numeric id (eg 0001).
The combination of these two ids is sufficient information to uniquely identify an object.
Images:
Current Table Design
Proposed Additional Table
PROBLEM
My gut feeling is that there should be an “overarching table” that encompasses every single article of equipment no matter what category it comes from. This would be far simpler to query against than god knows how many mini tables. But when I try to construct it, it seems like it will break various normal forms. Eg introducing redundancy, possibility of inconsistency, referential integrity problems etc. It also begins to look like a domain table.
Perhaps the overarching table should be a query or view rather than an entity?
Could you please have a look at the screenshots and let me know your opinion. Thanks.
For various reasons, I’d prefer to use surrogate keys rather than natural keys if possible. Ideally, I’d prefer to have that surrogate key in a single column.
Currently, the bike (or lamp) table uses just the first column as its primary key. Should I expand this to a composite key including the Equipment_Category_ID column too? Then make the Equipment_Article table into a view joining on these two columns (iteratively for each equipment category). Optionally Bike_ID and Lamp_ID columns could be renamed to something generic like Equipment_Article_ID. This might make the query simpler, but is there a risk of losing specificity? It would / could still be qualified by the table name.
Speaking of redundancy, the Equipment_Category_ID in the current lamp or bike tables seems a bit redundant (if every item / row in that table has the same value in that column).
It all still sounds messy! But surely this must be very common problem for eg online electronics stores, rental shops, etc. Hopefully someone will say oh that old chestnut! Fingers crossed! Sorry for not being concise, but I couldn't work out what bits to leave out. Most of it seems relevant, if a bit chatty. Thanks in advance.
UPDATE 27/03/2014 (Reply to #ElliotSchmelliot)
Hi Elliot.
Thanks for you reply and for pointing me in the right direction. I studied OOP (in Java) but wasn't aware that something similar was possible in SQL. I read the link you sent with interest, and the rest of the site/book looks like a great resource.
Does MySQL InnoDB Support Specialization & Generalization?
Unfortunately, after 3 hours searching and reading, I still can't find the answer to this question. Keywords I'm searching with include: MySQL + (inheritance | EER | specialization | generalization | parent | child | class | subclass). The only positive result I found is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_entity%E2%80%93relationship_model. It mentions MySQL Workbench.
Possible Redundancy of Equipment_Category (Table 3)
Yes and No. Because this is a lookup table, it currently has a function. However because every item in the Lamp or the Bike table is of the same category, the column itself may be redundant; and if it is then the Equipment_Category table may be redundant... unless it is required elsewhere. I had intended to use it as the RowSource / OptionList for a webform dropdown. Would it not also be handy to have Equipment_Category as a column in the proposed Equipment parent table. Without it, how would one return a list of all Equipment_Names for the Lamp category (ignoring distinct for the moment).
Implementation
I have no way of knowing what new categories of equipment may need to be added in future, so I’ll have to limit attributes included in the superclass / parent to those I am 100% sure would be common to all (or allow nulls I suppose); sacrificing duplication in many child tables for increased flexibility and hopefully simpler maintenance in the long run. This is particulary important as we will not have professional IT support for this project.
Changes really do have to be automated. So I like the idea of the stored procedure. And the CreateBike example sounds familiar (in principle if not in syntax) to creating an instance of a class in Java.
Lots to think about and to teach myself! If you have any other comments, suggestions etc, they'd be most welcome. And, could you let me know what software you used to create your UML diagram. Its styling is much better than those that I've used.
Cheers!
You sound very interested in this project, which is always awesome to see!
I have a few suggestions for your database schema:
You have individual tables for each Equipment entity i.e. Bike or Lamp. Yet you also have an Equipment_Category table, purely for identifying a row in the Bike table as a Bike or a row in the Lamp table as a Lamp. This seems a bit redundant. I would assume that each row of data in the Bike table represents a Bike, so why even bother with the category table?
You mentioned that your "gut" feeling is telling you to go for an overarching table for all Equipment. Are you familiar with the practice of generalization and specialization in database design? What you are looking for here is specialization (also called "top-down".) I think it would be a great idea to have an overarching or "parent" table that represents Equipment. Then, each sub-entity such as Bike or Lamp would be a child table of Equipment. A parent table only has the fields that all child tables share.
With these suggestions in mind, here is how I might alter your schema:
In the above schema, everything starts as Equipment. However, each Equipment can be specialized into Lamp, Bike, etc. The Equipment entity has all of the common fields. Lamp and Bike each have fields specific to their own type. When creating an entity, you first create the Equipment, then you create the specialized entity. For example, say we are adding the "BMX 200 Ultra" bike. We first create a record in the Equipment table with the generic information (equipmentName, dateOfPurchase, etc.) Then we create the specialized record, in this case a Bike record with any additional bike-specific fields (wheelType, frameColor, etc.) When creating the specialized entities, we need to make sure to link them back to the parent. This is why both the Lamp and Bike entities have a foreign key for equipmentID.
An easy and effective way to add specialized entities is to create a stored procedure. For example, lets say we have a stored procedure called CreateBike that takes in parameters bikeName, dateOfPurchase, wheelType, and frameColor. The stored procedure knows we are creating a Bike, and therefore can easily create the Equipment record, insert the generic equipment data, create the bike record, insert the specialized bike data, and maintain the foreign key relationship.
Using specialization will make your transactional life very simple. For example, if you want all Equipment purchased before 1/1/14, no joins are needed. If you want all Bikes with a frameColor of blue, no joins are needed. If you want all Lamps made of felt, no joins are needed. The only time you will need to join a specialized table back to the Equipment table is if you want data both from the parent entity and the specialized entity. For example, show all Lamps that use 100 Watt bulbs and are named "Super Lamp."
Hope this helps and best of luck!
Edit
Specialization and Generalization, as mentioned in your provided source, is part of an Enhanced Entity Relationship (EER) which helps define a conceptual data model for your schema. As such, it does not need to be "supported" per say, it is more of a design technique. Therefore any database schema naturally supports specialization and generalization as long as the designer implements it.
As far as your Equipment_Category table goes, I see where you are coming from. It would indeed make it easy to have a dropdown of all categories. However, you could simply have a static table (only contains Strings that represent each category) to help with this population, and still keep your Equipment tables separate. You mentioned there will only be around 10-20 categories, so I see no reason to have a bridge between Equipment and Equipment_Category. The fewer joins the better. Another option would be to include an "equipmentCategory" field in the Equipment table instead of having a whole table for it. Then you could simply query for all unique equipmentCategory values.
I agree that you will want to keep your Equipment table to guaranteed common values between all children. Definitely. If things get too complicated and you need more defined entities, you could always break entities up again down the road. For example maybe half of your Bike entities are RoadBikes and the other half are MountainBikes. You could always continue the specialization break down to better get at those unique fields.
Stored Procedures are great for automating common queries. On top of that, parametrization provides an extra level of defense against security threats such as SQL injections.
I use SQL Server. The diagram I created is straight out of SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS). You can simply expand a database, right click on the Database Diagrams folder, and create a new diagram with your selected tables. SSMS does the rest for you. If you don't have access to SSMS I might suggest trying out Microsoft Visio or if you have access to it, Visual Paradigm.
I have read many strong statements here and elsewhere on the subject of storing arrays in mysql. The rules of normalization seem to suggest its a bad idea and searching within the stored array fosters inelegant code. HOWEVER, for the application I am working on it seems like a reasonable solution to store an array in a field. I'm sure that is what everyone wrongly thinks in this position but I can't figure out a better way. Here is the setup:
I have a series of tables that store registered students, courses they can take and their performance on each course. All are "normalized" to avoid duplication and errors. I want to be able to generate a "myCourses" section so after login the student sees courses they are eligible for and courses they have taken but are free to review. The approach that comes to mind is two arrays; my_eligible_courses and my_completed_courses. On registration, the student is given a set of courses for which they are eligible. This could be stored as rows where there are multiple occurrences of studentid, one for each course they can take:
student1 course 1
student1 course 2
student1 course n
The table could then be queried for all of student 1's eligible courses and displayed as a list when the student logs in.
Alternately, studentid could be a primary key and in a column "eligible_courses" there would be an array (course 1,course 2, course n).
There is a table for student performance, to record every course taken and metrics associated with student performance. It will be queried to report on student performance, quality of course etc but this table will grow quite large. I'm having a hard time believing that the most efficient way to generate a list of my_completed_courses is to query this table by studentid every time they login just to give them a list of completed courses.
One other complication is that the set of courses a student is eligible is variable and expanding as new courses are developed, which to me seems to suggest that generating a set of new columns for each new course is a bad idea-for example, new course_name, pretest_score, posttest_score, time_to_complete, ... Also, a table for each new course seems like a complicated solution for the relatively mundane endpoint of generating a simple set of lists.
So to restate the question, is it better to store "inelegant" arrayed list of eligible and completed courses in a registered student table or dynamically generate these lists?
I'm guessing this is still too vague but any discussion of db design that gives an example of an inelegant array vs a restructured schema would be appreciated.
You should feel confident that if you have indexes on your tables for the appropriate columns, querying for my_completed_courses will be pretty snappy.
When your table grows to the point that you notice slowdown, you can configure your MySQL server with appropriate memory allocation settings so that it can keep more data cached in memory. Or you could look into that now.
In response to the edit you made about adding new courses: Don't add a new column for each course. Don't add a new table for each course. Create a table for courses, and add rows for each course.
You should then be able to join your tables together on indexed columns to generate the list of data you need.
This is a bad idea for two obvious reasons:
DBMS can't enforce proper referentialX (and possibly domain) integrity and relying on application-level integrity is almost always a bad idea.
While the database will be able to answer the query: "based on given student, give me courses", you won't be able to (efficiently) go in the opposite direction, should you ever need to.
X What's to stop a buggy application from storing a non-existent ID in array? Or deleting a course that is still referenced by students? Even if your application is careful about course deletion, there is no way to do it efficiently - you'll need a full table scan to examine all arrays.
Why are you even trying this? A link (aka. junction) table would solve these problems, for a moderate cost of some additional storage space.
If you are really concerned about storage space, you could even switch the DBMS and use one that supports leading-edge index compression (such as Oracle).
I'm having a hard time believing that the most efficient way to generate a list of my_completed_courses is to query this table by studentid every time they login just to give them a list of completed courses.
Databases are very good at querying humongous amounts of data. In this case, if you use the clustering properly, the DBMS will be able to get this data in very few I/O operations, meaning very fast. Did you perform any actual benchmarks? Have you measured any actual performance problem?
Also, a table for each new course seems like a complicated solution for the relatively mundane endpoint of generating a simple set of lists.
Generating a new table may be justified in case it will have different columns. But, that doesn't sound like what you are trying to do.
It seems to me that you simply need:
CHECK (
(COMPLETED = 0 AND (performance fields) IS NULL)
OR (COMPLETED = 1 AND (performance fields) IS NOT NULL)
)
When a student enrolls into course, insert a row in STUDENT_COURSE, set COMPLETED to 0 and leave performance fields NULL.
When the student completed the course, set COMPLETED to 1 and fill the performance fields.
(BTW, you could even omit COMPLETED altogether and just rely on testing the performance fields for NULL.)
InnoDB tables are clustered, which means that rows in STUDENT_COURSE belonging to the same student are stored physically close together, which means that getting courses of the given student is extremely fast.
If you need to go in the opposite direction (get students of a given course), add an index on same fields but in opposite order: {COURSE_ID, STUDENT_ID}. You might even consider covering in this case.
Since we are talking about small number of rows, leaving COMPLETED unindexed is just fine. If you are really concerned about that, you can even do something like:
The COMPLETED_STUDENT_COURSE is a B-Tree only for completed courses (and essentially a subset of STUDENT_COURSE which is a B-Tree for all enrolled courses).
Here are a few thoughts that I believe may assist you in making a good decision.
Generally, it is a rule to use correctly normalised tables. But there can be exceptions to this. Perhaps your project may be such.
Most of the time, new developers tend to focus on getting the data into a DB. They get stuck when it comes to retrieving it for a specific purpose. So given both cases of arrays vs. relational tables, ask your self if either method serves your purpose. For example, if you wanted to list the courses of student X, your array method is just fine. This is because you can retrieve it by the primary key like a student ID. But if you wanted to know how many students are on course A, the array method will be a horrible way to go.
Then again, the above point would depend on your data volume as well. For example, if you only have about a hundred students, you'll probably not notice a difference in performance. But if you're looking at several thousand records and you have a big list of courses for students, the array approach is not the way to go.
Benchmark. This is the best way for you to find out your answer. You can use MySQL's explain or just time it using your program that executes the queries. Try each method with your standard volume of data and see which one works best. For example, in the recent past, MySQL was boasting about their strength of the ISAM engine. Then I had to work on a large application that involved millions of records. And here, I noticed that each time a new record came in, Indexes had to be rebuilt. So now we had to bend the rules. Likewise, you'd better do your tests with the correct volumes of data and make a better decision.
But do not take this example as a rule. Rather, go by the standards of normalisation and only bend the rules for exceptions.
MySQL, PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server are relational database systems, and NoSQL, MongoDB, etc. are non-relational DBMSs.
What are the differences between the two types of system?
Hmm, not quite sure what your question is.
In the title you ask about Databases (DB), whereas in the body of your text you ask about Database Management Systems (DBMS). The two are completely different and require different answers.
A DBMS is a tool that allows you to access a DB.
Other than the data itself, a DB is the concept of how that data is structured.
So just like you can program with Oriented Object methodology with a non-OO powered compiler, or vice-versa, so can you set-up a relational database without an RDBMS or use an RDBMS to store non-relational data.
I'll focus on what Relational Database (RDB) means and leave the discussion about what systems do to others.
A relational database (the concept) is a data structure that allows you to link information from different 'tables', or different types of data buckets. A data bucket must contain what is called a key or index (that allows to uniquely identify any atomic chunk of data within the bucket). Other data buckets may refer to that key so as to create a link between their data atoms and the atom pointed to by the key.
A non-relational database just stores data without explicit and structured mechanisms to link data from different buckets to one another.
As to implementing such a scheme, if you have a paper file with an index and in a different paper file you refer to the index to get at the relevant information, then you have implemented a relational database, albeit quite a simple one. So you see that you do not even need a computer (of course it can become tedious very quickly without one to help), similarly you do not need an RDBMS, though arguably an RDBMS is the right tool for the job. That said there are variations as to what the different tools out there can do so choosing the right tool for the job may not be all that straightforward.
I hope this is layman terms enough and is helpful to your understanding.
Relational databases have a mathematical basis (set theory, relational theory), which are distilled into SQL == Structured Query Language.
NoSQL's many forms (e.g. document-based, graph-based, object-based, key-value store, etc.) may or may not be based on a single underpinning mathematical theory. As S. Lott has correctly pointed out, hierarchical data stores do indeed have a mathematical basis. The same might be said for graph databases.
I'm not aware of a universal query language for NoSQL databases.
Most of what you "know" is wrong.
First of all, as a few of the relational gurus routinely (and sometimes stridently) point out, SQL doesn't really fit nearly as closely with relational theory as many people think. Second, most of the differences in "NoSQL" stuff has relatively little to do with whether it's relational or not. Finally, it's pretty difficult to say how "NoSQL" differs from SQL because both represent a pretty wide range of possibilities.
The one major difference that you can count on is that almost anything that supports SQL supports things like triggers in the database itself -- i.e. you can design rules into the database proper that are intended to ensure that the data is always internally consistent. For example, you can set things up so your database asserts that a person must have an address. If you do so, anytime you add a person, it will basically force you to associate that person with some address. You might add a new address or you might associate them with some existing address, but one way or another, the person must have an address. Likewise, if you delete an address, it'll force you to either remove all the people currently at that address, or associate each with some other address. You can do the same for other relationships, such as saying every person must have a mother, every office must have a phone number, etc.
Note that these sorts of things are also guaranteed to happen atomically, so if somebody else looks at the database as you're adding the person, they'll either not see the person at all, or else they'll see the person with the address (or the mother, etc.)
Most of the NoSQL databases do not attempt to provide this kind of enforcement in the database proper. It's up to you, in the code that uses the database, to enforce any relationships necessary for your data. In most cases, it's also possible to see data that's only partially correct, so even if you have a family tree where every person is supposed to be associated with parents, there can be times that whatever constraints you've imposed won't really be enforced. Some will let you do that at will. Others guarantee that it only happens temporarily, though exactly how long it can/will last can be open to question.
The relational database uses a formal system of predicates to address data. The underlying physical implementation is of no substance and can vary to optimize for certain operations, but it must always assume the relational model. In layman's terms, that's just saying I know exactly how many values (attributes) each row (tuple) in my table (relation) has and now I want to exploit the fact accordingly, thoroughly and to it's extreme. That's the true nature of the beast.
Since we're obviously the generation that has had a relational upbringing, if you look at NoSQL database models from the perspective of the relational model, again in layman's terms, the first obvious difference is that no assumptions about the number of values a row can contain is ever made. This is really oversimplifying the matter and does not cleanly apply to the intricacies of the physical models of every NoSQL database, but it's the pinnacle of the relational model and the first assumption we have to leave behind or, if you'd rather, the biggest leap we have to make.
We can agree to two things that are true for every DBMS: it can store any kind of data and has enough mathematical underpinnings to make it possible to manage the data in any way imaginable. The reality is that you'll never want to make the mistake of putting any of the two points to the test, but rather just stick with what the actual DBMS was really made for. In layman's terms: respect the beast within!
(Please note that I've avoided comparing the (obviously) well founded standards revolving around the relational model against the many flavors provided by NoSQL databases. If you'd like, consider NoSQL databases as an umbrella term for any DBMS that does not completely assume the relational model, in exclusion to everything else. The differences are too many, but that's the principal difference and the one I think would be of most use to you to understand the two.)
Try to explain this question in a level referring to a little bit technology
Take MongoDB and Traditional SQL for comparison, imagine the scenario of posting a Tweet on Twitter. This tweet contains 9 pictures. How do you store this tweet and its corresponding pictures?
In terms of traditional relationship SQL, you can store the tweets and pictures in separate tables, and represent the connection through building a new table.
What's more, you can set a field which is an image type, and zip the 9 pictures into a binary document and store it in this field.
Using MongoDB, you could build a document like this (similar to the concept of a table in relational SQL):
{
"id":"XXX",
"user":"XXX",
"date":"xxxx-xx-xx",
"content":{
"text":"XXXX",
"picture":["p1.png","p2.png","p3.png"]
}
Therefore, in my opinion, the main difference is about how do you store the data and the storage level of the relationships between them.
In this example, the data is the tweet and the pictures. The different mechanism about storage level of relationship between them also play a important role in the difference between both.
I hope this small example helps show the difference between SQL and NoSQL (ACID and BASE).
Here's a link of picture about the goals of NoSQL from the Internet:
http://icamchuwordpress-wordpress.stor.sinaapp.com/uploads/2015/01/dbc795f6f262e9d01fa0ab9b323b2dd1_b.png
The difference between relational and non-relational is exactly that. The relational database architecture provides with constraints objects such as primary keys, foreign keys, etc that allows one to tie two or more tables in a relation. This is good so that we normalize our tables which is to say split information about what the database represents into many different tables, once can keep the integrity of the data.
For example, say you have a series of table that houses information about an employee. You could not delete a record from a table without deleting all the records that pertain to such record from the other tables. In this way you implement data integrity. The non-relational database doesn't provide this constraints constructs that will allow you to implement data integrity.
Unless you don't implement this constraint in the front end application that is utilized to populate the databases' tables, you are implementing a mess that can be compared with the wild west.
First up let me start by saying why we need a database.
We need a database to help organise information in such a manner that we can retrieve that data stored in a efficient manner.
Examples of relational database management systems(SQL):
1)Oracle Database
2)SQLite
3)PostgreSQL
4)MySQL
5)Microsoft SQL Server
6)IBM DB2
Examples of non relational database management systems(NoSQL)
1)MongoDB
2)Cassandra
3)Redis
4)Couchbase
5)HBase
6)DocumentDB
7)Neo4j
Relational databases have normalized data, as in information is stored in tables in forms of rows and columns, and normally when data is in normalized form, it helps to reduce data redundancy, and the data in tables are normally related to each other, so when we want to retrieve the data, we can query the data by using join statements and retrieve data as per our need.This is suited when we want to have more writes, less reads, and not much data involved, also its really easy relatively to update data in tables than in non relational databases. Horizontal scaling not possible, vertical scaling possible to some extent.CAP(Consistency, Availability, Partition Tolerant), and ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Duration)compliance.
Let me show entering data to a relational database using PostgreSQL as an example.
First create a product table as follows:
CREATE TABLE products (
product_no integer,
name text,
price numeric
);
then insert the data
INSERT INTO products (product_no, name, price) VALUES (1, 'Cheese', 9.99);
Let's look at another different example:
Here in a relational database, we can link the student table and subject table using relationships, via foreign key, subject ID, but in a non relational database no need to have two documents, as no relationships, so we store all the subject details and student details in one document say student document, then data is getting duplicated, which makes updating records troublesome.
In non relational databases, there is no fixed schema, data is not normalized. no relationships between data is created, all data mostly put in one document. Well suited when handling lots of data, and can transfer lots of data at once, best where high amounts of reads and less writes, and less updates, bit difficult to query data, as no fixed schema. Horizontal and vertical scaling is possible.CAP (Consistency, Availability, Partition Tolerant)and BASE (Basically Available, soft state, Eventually consistent)compliance.
Let me show an example to enter data to a non relational database using Mongodb
db.users.insertOne({name: ‘Mary’, age: 28 , occupation: ‘writer’ })
db.users.insertOne({name: ‘Ben’ , age: 21})
Hence you can understand that to the database called db, and there is a collections called users, and document called insertOne to which we add data, and there is no fixed schema as our first record has 3 attributes, and second attribute has 2 attributes only, this is no problem in non relational databases, but this cannot be done in relational databases, as relational databases have a fixed schema.
Let's look at another different example
({Studname: ‘Ash’, Subname: ‘Mathematics’, LecturerName: ‘Mr. Oak’})
Hence we can see in non relational database we can enter both student details and subject details into one document, as no relationships defined in non relational databases, but here this way can lead to data duplication, and hence errors in updating can occur therefore.
Hope this explains everything
In layman terms it's strongly structured vs unstructured, which implies that you have different degrees of adaptability for your DB.
Differences arise in indexation particularly as you need to ensure that a certain reference index can link to a another item -> this a relation. The more strict structure of relational DB comes from this requirement.
To note that NosDB apaprently provides both relational and non relational DBs and a way to query both http://www.alachisoft.com/nosdb/sql-cheat-sheet.html