Related
I was reading about in-memory database which incorporates a feature like data compression. Using that, instead of storing first name, last name, father's name etc. values as it is in the column (which leads to a lot of data duplication and waste of disk storage), it creates a dictionary and attribute vector table for each column, so that only unique values are stored in dictionary and its corresponding attribute vector is stored in original table.
Clear advantage of this approach is that it a lot of space by removing overhead of data duplication.
I want to know:
Does RDBMS like Oracle, MySQL etc. implicitly follow this approach when they store the data on disk? Or when we use these RDBMS we have to implement the same if we want to take advantage of the same?
As we know there is no free lunch, so I would like to understand what are the trade-offs if developer implements above explained data compression approach? One I can think of is that in order to fetch the data from database, I will have to make a join between my dictionary table and main table. Isn't it?
Please share your thoughts and inputs.
This answer is based on my understanding of your query. It appears that you are mixing up two concepts : data normalisation and data storage optimisation.
Data Normalisation : This is a process that needs to be undertaken by the application developer. Here pieces of data that would need to be stored repeatedly are stored only once and are referenced using their identifiers which would typically be integers. This way the database consumes spaces only as much as needed to store the repeating data once. This is a common practice while storing string and variable length data into the database tables. In order to retrieve data, the application would have to perform joins between the related tables. And this process contributes directly to application performance depending on the manner in which the related tables are designed.
Data storage optimisation : This is what is handled by the RDBMS itself. This involves various steps like maintaining the B-Tree structures to hold data, compressing data before storage, managing the free space within the data files etc. Different RDBMS systems would handle them in different ways (some of them patented and proprietary while others are more general); however when we are speaking of RDBMS like Oracle and MySQL you can be assured that they would follow the best in class storage algorithms to efficiently store this data.
Hope this helps.
This is a question that has probably been asked before, but I'm having some difficulty to find exactly my case, so I'll explain my situation in search for some feedback:
I have an application that will be registering locations, I have several types of locations, each location type has a different set of attributes, but I need to associate notes to locations regardless of their type and also other types of content (mostly multimedia entries and comments) to said notes. With this in mind, I came up with a couple of solutions:
Create a table for each location type, and a "notes" table for every location table with a foreign key, this is pretty troublesome because I would have to create a multimedia and comments table for every comments table, e.g.:
LocationTypeA
ID
Attr1
Attr2
LocationTypeA_Notes
ID
Attr1
...
LocationTypeA_fk
LocationTypeA_Notes_Multimedia
ID
Attr1
...
LocationTypeA_Notes_fk
And so on, this would be quite annoying to do, but after it's done, developing on this structure should not be so troublesome.
Create a table with a unique identifier for the location and point content there, like so:
Location
ID
LocationTypeA
ID
Attr1
Attr2
Location_fk
Notes
ID
Attr1
...
Location_fk
Multimedia
ID
Attr1
...
Notes_fk
As you see, this is far more simple and also easier to develop, but I just don't like the looks of that table with only IDs (yeah, that's truly the only objection I have to this, it's the option I like the most, to be honest).
Similar to option 2, but I would have an enormous table of attributes shaped like this:
Location
ID
Type
Attribute
Name
Value
And so on, or a table for each attribute; a la Drupal. This would be a pain to develop because then it would take several insert/update operations to do something on a location and the Attribute table would be several times bigger than the location table (or end up with an enormous amount of attribute tables); it also has the same issue of the surrogate-keys-only table (just it has a "type" now, which I would use to define the behavior of the location programmatically), but it's a pretty solution.
So, to the question: which would be a better solution performance and scalability-wise?, which would you go with or which alternatives would you propose? I don't have a problem implementing any of these, options 2 and 3 would be an interesting development, I've never done something like that, but I don't want to go with an option that will collapse on itself when the content grows a bit; you're probably thinking "why not just use Drupal if you know it works like you expect it to?", and I'm thinking "you obviously don't know how difficult it is to use Drupal, either that or you're an expert, which I'm most definitely not".
Also, now that I've written all of this, do you think option 2 is a good idea overall?, do you know of a better way to group entities / simulate inheritance? (please, don't say "just use inheritance!", I'm restricted to using MySQL).
Thanks for your feedback, I'm sorry if I wrote too much and meant too little.
ORM systems usually use the following, mostly the same solutions as you listed there:
One table per hierarchy
Pros:
Simple approach.
Easy to add new classes, you just need to add new columns for the additional data.
Supports polymorphism by simply changing the type of the row.
Data access is fast because the data is in one table.
Ad-hoc reporting is very easy because all of the data is found in one table.
Cons:
Coupling within the class hierarchy is increased because all classes are directly coupled to the same table.
A change in one class can affect the table which can then affect the other classes in the hierarchy.
Space potentially wasted in the database.
Indicating the type becomes complex when significant overlap between types exists.
Table can grow quickly for large hierarchies.
When to use:
This is a good strategy for simple and/or shallow class hierarchies where there is little or no overlap between the types within the hierarchy.
One table per concrete class
Pros:
Easy to do ad-hoc reporting as all the data you need about a single class is stored in only one table.
Good performance to access a single object’s data.
Cons:
When you modify a class you need to modify its table and the table of any of its subclasses. For example if you were to add height and weight to the Person class you would need to add columns to the Customer, Employee, and Executive tables.
Whenever an object changes its role, perhaps you hire one of your customers, you need to copy the data into the appropriate table and assign it a new POID value (or perhaps you could reuse the existing POID value).
It is difficult to support multiple roles and still maintain data integrity. For example, where would you store the name of someone who is both a customer and an employee?
When to use:
When changing types and/or overlap between types is rare.
One table per class
Pros:
Easy to understand because of the one-to-one mapping.
Supports polymorphism very well as you merely have records in the appropriate tables for each type.
Very easy to modify superclasses and add new subclasses as you merely need to modify/add one table.
Data size grows in direct proportion to growth in the number of objects.
Cons:
There are many tables in the database, one for every class (plus tables to maintain relationships).
Potentially takes longer to read and write data using this technique because you need to access multiple tables. This problem can be alleviated if you organize your database intelligently by putting each table within a class hierarchy on different physical disk-drive platters (this assumes that the disk-drive heads all operate independently).
Ad-hoc reporting on your database is difficult, unless you add views to simulate the desired tables.
When to use:
When there is significant overlap between types or when changing types is common.
Generic Schema
Pros:
Works very well when database access is encapsulated by a robust persistence framework.
It can be extended to provide meta data to support a wide range of mappings, including relationship mappings. In short, it is the start at a mapping meta data engine.
It is incredibly flexible, enabling you to quickly change the way that you store objects because you merely need to update the meta data stored in the Class, Inheritance, Attribute, and AttributeType tables accordingly.
Cons:
Very advanced technique that can be difficult to implement at first.
It only works for small amounts of data because you need to access many database rows to build a single object.
You will likely want to build a small administration application to maintain the meta data.
Reporting against this data can be very difficult due to the need to access several rows to obtain the data for a single object.
When to use:
For complex applications that work with small amounts of data, or for applications where you data access isn’t very common or you can pre-load data into caches.
I am implementing the following model for storing user related data in my table - I have 2 columns - uid (primary key) and a meta column which stores other data about the user in JSON format.
uid | meta
--------------------------------------------------
1 | {name:['foo'],
| emailid:['foo#bar.com','bar#foo.com']}
--------------------------------------------------
2 | {name:['sann'],
| emailid:['sann#bar.com','sann#foo.com']}
--------------------------------------------------
Is this a better way (performance-wise, design-wise) than the one-column-per-property model, where the table will have many columns like uid, name, emailid.
What I like about the first model is, you can add as many fields as possible there is no limitation.
Also, I was wondering, now that I have implemented the first model. How do I perform a query on it, like, I want to fetch all the users who have name like 'foo'?
Question - Which is the better way to store user related data (keeping in mind that number of fields is not fixed) in database using - JSON or column-per-field? Also, if the first model is implemented, how to query database as described above? Should I use both the models, by storing all the data which may be searched by a query in a separate row and the other data in JSON (is a different row)?
Update
Since there won't be too many columns on which I need to perform search, is it wise to use both the models? Key-per-column for the data I need to search and JSON for others (in the same MySQL database)?
Updated 4 June 2017
Given that this question/answer have gained some popularity, I figured it was worth an update.
When this question was originally posted, MySQL had no support for JSON data types and the support in PostgreSQL was in its infancy. Since 5.7, MySQL now supports a JSON data type (in a binary storage format), and PostgreSQL JSONB has matured significantly. Both products provide performant JSON types that can store arbitrary documents, including support for indexing specific keys of the JSON object.
However, I still stand by my original statement that your default preference, when using a relational database, should still be column-per-value. Relational databases are still built on the assumption of that the data within them will be fairly well normalized. The query planner has better optimization information when looking at columns than when looking at keys in a JSON document. Foreign keys can be created between columns (but not between keys in JSON documents). Importantly: if the majority of your schema is volatile enough to justify using JSON, you might want to at least consider if a relational database is the right choice.
That said, few applications are perfectly relational or document-oriented. Most applications have some mix of both. Here are some examples where I personally have found JSON useful in a relational database:
When storing email addresses and phone numbers for a contact, where storing them as values in a JSON array is much easier to manage than multiple separate tables
Saving arbitrary key/value user preferences (where the value can be boolean, textual, or numeric, and you don't want to have separate columns for different data types)
Storing configuration data that has no defined schema (if you're building Zapier, or IFTTT and need to store configuration data for each integration)
I'm sure there are others as well, but these are just a few quick examples.
Original Answer
If you really want to be able to add as many fields as you want with no limitation (other than an arbitrary document size limit), consider a NoSQL solution such as MongoDB.
For relational databases: use one column per value. Putting a JSON blob in a column makes it virtually impossible to query (and painfully slow when you actually find a query that works).
Relational databases take advantage of data types when indexing, and are intended to be implemented with a normalized structure.
As a side note: this isn't to say you should never store JSON in a relational database. If you're adding true metadata, or if your JSON is describing information that does not need to be queried and is only used for display, it may be overkill to create a separate column for all of the data points.
Like most things "it depends". It's not right or wrong/good or bad in and of itself to store data in columns or JSON. It depends on what you need to do with it later. What is your predicted way of accessing this data? Will you need to cross reference other data?
Other people have answered pretty well what the technical trade-off are.
Not many people have discussed that your app and features evolve over time and how this data storage decision impacts your team.
Because one of the temptations of using JSON is to avoid migrating schema and so if the team is not disciplined, it's very easy to stick yet another key/value pair into a JSON field. There's no migration for it, no one remembers what it's for. There is no validation on it.
My team used JSON along side traditional columns in postgres and at first it was the best thing since sliced bread. JSON was attractive and powerful, until one day we realized that flexibility came at a cost and it's suddenly a real pain point. Sometimes that point creeps up really quickly and then it becomes hard to change because we've built so many other things on top of this design decision.
Overtime, adding new features, having the data in JSON led to more complicated looking queries than what might have been added if we stuck to traditional columns. So then we started fishing certain key values back out into columns so that we could make joins and make comparisons between values. Bad idea. Now we had duplication. A new developer would come on board and be confused? Which is the value I should be saving back into? The JSON one or the column?
The JSON fields became junk drawers for little pieces of this and that. No data validation on the database level, no consistency or integrity between documents. That pushed all that responsibility into the app instead of getting hard type and constraint checking from traditional columns.
Looking back, JSON allowed us to iterate very quickly and get something out the door. It was great. However after we reached a certain team size it's flexibility also allowed us to hang ourselves with a long rope of technical debt which then slowed down subsequent feature evolution progress. Use with caution.
Think long and hard about what the nature of your data is. It's the foundation of your app. How will the data be used over time. And how is it likely TO CHANGE?
Just tossing it out there, but WordPress has a structure for this kind of stuff (at least WordPress was the first place I observed it, it probably originated elsewhere).
It allows limitless keys, and is faster to search than using a JSON blob, but not as fast as some of the NoSQL solutions.
uid | meta_key | meta_val
----------------------------------
1 name Frank
1 age 12
2 name Jeremiah
3 fav_food pizza
.................
EDIT
For storing history/multiple keys
uid | meta_id | meta_key | meta_val
----------------------------------------------------
1 1 name Frank
1 2 name John
1 3 age 12
2 4 name Jeremiah
3 5 fav_food pizza
.................
and query via something like this:
select meta_val from `table` where meta_key = 'name' and uid = 1 order by meta_id desc
the drawback of the approach is exactly what you mentioned :
it makes it VERY slow to find things, since each time you need to perform a text-search on it.
value per column instead matches the whole string.
Your approach (JSON based data) is fine for data you don't need to search by, and just need to display along with your normal data.
Edit: Just to clarify, the above goes for classic relational databases. NoSQL use JSON internally, and are probably a better option if that is the desired behavior.
Basically, the first model you are using is called as document-based storage. You should have a look at popular NoSQL document-based database like MongoDB and CouchDB. Basically, in document based db's, you store data in json files and then you can query on these json files.
The Second model is the popular relational database structure.
If you want to use relational database like MySql then i would suggest you to only use second model. There is no point in using MySql and storing data as in the first model.
To answer your second question, there is no way to query name like 'foo' if you use first model.
It seems that you're mainly hesitating whether to use a relational model or not.
As it stands, your example would fit a relational model reasonably well, but the problem may come of course when you need to make this model evolve.
If you only have one (or a few pre-determined) levels of attributes for your main entity (user), you could still use an Entity Attribute Value (EAV) model in a relational database. (This also has its pros and cons.)
If you anticipate that you'll get less structured values that you'll want to search using your application, MySQL might not be the best choice here.
If you were using PostgreSQL, you could potentially get the best of both worlds. (This really depends on the actual structure of the data here... MySQL isn't necessarily the wrong choice either, and the NoSQL options can be of interest, I'm just suggesting alternatives.)
Indeed, PostgreSQL can build index on (immutable) functions (which MySQL can't as far as I know) and in recent versions, you could use PLV8 on the JSON data directly to build indexes on specific JSON elements of interest, which would improve the speed of your queries when searching for that data.
EDIT:
Since there won't be too many columns on which I need to perform
search, is it wise to use both the models? Key-per-column for the data
I need to search and JSON for others (in the same MySQL database)?
Mixing the two models isn't necessarily wrong (assuming the extra space is negligible), but it may cause problems if you don't make sure the two data sets are kept in sync: your application must never change one without also updating the other.
A good way to achieve this would be to have a trigger perform the automatic update, by running a stored procedure within the database server whenever an update or insert is made. As far as I'm aware, the MySQL stored procedure language probably lack support for any sort of JSON processing. Again PostgreSQL with PLV8 support (and possibly other RDBMS with more flexible stored procedure languages) should be more useful (updating your relational column automatically using a trigger is quite similar to updating an index in the same way).
short answer
you have to mix between them ,
use json for data that you are not going to make relations with them like contact data , address , products variabls
some time joins on the table will be an overhead. lets say for OLAP. if i have two tables one is ORDERS table and other one is ORDER_DETAILS. For getting all the order details we have to join two tables this will make the query slower when no of rows in the tables increase lets say in millions or so.. left/right join is too slower than inner join.
I Think if we add JSON string/Object in the respective ORDERS entry JOIN will be avoided. add report generation will be faster...
You are trying to fit a non-relational model into a relational database, I think you would be better served using a NoSQL database such as MongoDB. There is no predefined schema which fits in with your requirement of having no limitation to the number of fields (see the typical MongoDB collection example). Check out the MongoDB documentation to get an idea of how you'd query your documents, e.g.
db.mycollection.find(
{
name: 'sann'
}
)
As others have pointed out queries will be slower. I'd suggest to add at least an '_ID' column to query by that instead.
I have a table that has a lot of fields that are foreign keys referencing a related table. I am writing a script in PHP that will do the db queries. When I query this table for its data I need to know the values associated with these keys not the key.
How do most people go about this?
A 101 way to do this would be to query this table for its data including the foreign keys and then query the related tables to get each key's value. This could be a lot of queries (~10).
Question 1: I think I could write 1 query with a bunch of joins. Would that be better?
This approach also requires the querying script to know which table fields are foreign keys. Since I have many tables like this but all with different fields, this means writing nice generic functions is hard. MySQL InnoDB tables allow for foreign constraints. I know the database has these set up correctly.
Question 2: What about the idea of querying the table and identifying what the constraints are and then matching them up using whatever process I decide on from Question 1. I like this idea but never see it being used in code. Makes me think its not a good idea for some reason. I would use something like SHOW CREATE TABLE tbl_name; to find what constraints/relationships exist for that table.
Thank you for any suggestions or advice.
You talk about writing "nice generic functions", but I think you are thinking a little TOO generic here.
Personally I would just write a query with a bunch of joins in it. If you want to abstract all that join logic away and not have to worry about it, then you should probably look at using an ORM instead of writing the SQL directly.
At some level, the system should run queries using joins, whether those queries are written explicitly by the application programmer or generated automatically by the data access layer. Option 1 is definititely better than the naive option. As for some other query creation options (by no means an exhaustive list):
You could abstract out all database operations, much as PDO abstracts out connecting and query operations (i.e. preparing & executing queries). Use this to get table metadata, including foreign keys, which could then be used to construct queries automatically.
You could write object specifications in some other format (e.g. XML) and a class that would use that to both generate PHP classes and database tables. You find this more in Enterprise applications than smaller projects. This option has more overhead than others, and thus isn't suitable if you only have a few classes to model. Occurrences of this option might also be a consequence of Conway's Law, which I first heard as Richard Fairly's variant: "The structure of a system reflects the structure of the organization that built it."
You could take a LINQ-like approach. In PHP, this would mean writing numerous functions or methods that the application programmer can chain together which would create a query. The application programmers are ultimately responsible for joining tables, though they never write a JOIN themselves.
Rather than thinking about how to create the queries, a better problem approach is to think about how to interface the DB and the application. This leads to patterns such as Data Mapper and Active Record that fall into the category of Object-Relational mapping (ORM). Note that some patterns (such as AR), other ORM techniques and even ORM itself have issues of their own. Any of the above query creation options can be used in the implementation of a data access pattern.
The problem with using SHOW CREATE TABLE is it doesn't work with most (all?) other RDBMSs. If you want to marry your app to MySQL, go ahead, but the decision could haunt you.
What kind of record counts are you working with, both in the main data table(s) and the lookup tables?
As a general rule, you should join the lookup tables to the main table. If you have an excessive amount of joins and there aren't many UDFs involved here, there's a pretty good chance the table should be normalized a bit more. If the normalization is fine and the main data table is really wide, you could still split the table to multiple tables with 1:1 relationships so as to separate the frequently accessed columns from the infrequently accessed columns.
MySQL includes support for the ANSI catalog INFORMATION_SCHEMA.REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS. You could use that to gather information on the FK relationships that exist.
Also, if there are combinations of joins you use frequently, create a views or stored procedures based on those common operations.
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