I'm starting with Databases. I've been playing around with MySQL and Informix, but never had a real life project.
What is the real responsibility of a Database? Should we add Store procedures and functions to de Database or just let it to be a data repository with no logic?
What is the real responsibility of a Database?
A database at its core is a system to store and retrieve data. A CSV file on disk + suitable tools (e.g. Excel) is a simple example of this. In addition, a database might provide additional capabilities, such as transaction control, data integrity, and security.
Should we add Store procedures and functions to de Database or just let it to be a data repository with no logic?
What do you want from the database? If all you want is a "bit bucket", then by all means, store it in a plain file on disk and call it "the database". If you want a bit more than that, use a product that suits your needs. If you want to be able to query it using a 4GL like SQL, use MySQL. If you want transaction control, security, advanced query features, etc etc, use another DBMS if appropriate. Whatever product you choose, however, take advantage of that product. Otherwise you're wasting your time and money. Sure, you'll never use all of the features (only a subset will be useful to you), but if you use very few of them, you may as well downgrade to a simpler product.
If you're using Oracle, you can store procedures and functions (even better, whole packages) right there in the database alongside the data. The real question is, what do you need to write in those procedures and functions - business logic or presentation logic?
Personally, I usually prefer to keep business logic close to the data, whereas presentation logic is custom-made for each interface.
It is possible to create an API layer over your data so that no matter how your applications access your database, they will get a consistent view of it, and they will all modify it using a consistent mechanism. In other words, instead of writing the business logic multiple times (once for each interface), you write it once and once only, then re-use it everywhere.
There are two reasons I've heard why business logic should not be stored in the database:
1. Maintainability: it's hard to change. I never really understood this one. How hard is it to type CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE? I suspect it's just the burden of having to learn "yet another language".
2. Database independence: what works in Oracle won't work elsewhere. This is a biggie, and better minds than I have written about this one. Basically, if you really need it to be "database agnostic", you won't be able to use any of the advanced features of the database you bought, so you may as well just use the simplest/cheapest one you can find; in which case, you don't need it to work on every database anyway!
Generally it's considered good practice to not place business logic in your database. The main reason is maintainability. It is ok to use stored procedures still, but including business logic within those stored procedures makes your application harder to debug and update.
Including business logic in your database will also effectively tie you to using that one DBMS, and not allow the data layer to remain independent from your application. For example, you may encounter performance and scalability problems with one DB once your application is live, but due to business logic scattered throughout the db, migrating to a more scalable database will be time consuming at best.
If business logic is kept in application code (eg java or c#) and the data layer is abstracted using a data abstraction layer, and an ORM if language permits, then interchanging databases is much less problematic.
We should be striving for separation of concerns, and keeping business logic out of the db helps achieve that.
edit: There are also performance concerns which may dictate that stored procedures are a good place to keep business logic. Containing logic within the data tier (ie the sproc) in some cases reduces the many round trips between the data abstraction layer and the database, which can give a performance boost. I've worked on systems like this in the past, for this reason, but I've always found then difficult to maintain. The problem being that you can look through the classes and procedures to see the business logic and think that's it and you will not see how a particular bug or process can be occurring, then you'll find the stored procedure and see the other half of the business operation (a real pain when the sproc is a 1000 lines!)
As with many things, where you place your business logic depends on the particular problem you're trying to solve.
We have a lot of data around us which can be of great use to us. Ordered collection of information helps businesses to take more proper decisions. Databases are ordered storage of information.
Responsibility: In a common scenario, we can state that there is a lot of information around, ordered collection of information is called data, this information relates to an entity, and ordered collection of data is a database, information relating to a group of entities. Collection of these databases is a DBMS. Responsibility of the database is organizing information.
Stored procedures, functions are more like the business processes that you require in order to collect the data you desire to.
First starting point,
Begin:
Select database in {postgreSQL, MySQL, SQL Server(Express edition)} and install it.
Learn about Codd Rules, Normal forms, Good resource
Start learning SQL, write queries.
Understand the basics involved in schema creation.
Learn procedural language implementation in database.
Ask doubts in SO.
Related
how much work should we do in the database?
Ok I'm really confused as to exactly how much "work" should be done IN the database, and how much work had to be done instead at the application level?
I mean I'm not talking about obvious stuff like we should convert strings into SHA2 hashes at the application level instead of the database level..
But rather stuff that are more blur, including, but not limited to "should we retrieve the data for 4 column and do a uppercase/concatenation at the application level, or should we do those stuff at the database level and send the calculated result to the application level?
And if you could list any more other examples it would be great.
It really depends on what you need.
I like to do my business logic in the database, other people are religously against that.
You can use triggers and stored procedures/functions in SQL.
Links for MySQL:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/triggers.html
http://www.mysqltutorial.org/introduction-to-sql-stored-procedures.aspx
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/stored-routines.html
My reasons for doing business logic in triggers and stored proces
Note that I'm not talking about bending the database structure towards the business logic, I'm talking about putting the business logic in triggers and stored procedures.
It centralizes your logic, the database is a central place, everything has to go through it. If you have multiple insert/update/delete points in your app (or you have multiple apps) you'll need to do the checks multiple times, if you do it in the database you only have to do the checks in one place.
It simplifies the application e.g., you can just add a member, the database will figure out if the member is already known and take the appopriate action.
It hides the internals of your database from the application, if you do all your logic in the application you will need intricate knowledge of your database in the application. If you use database code (triggers/procs) to hide that, you don't need to know every database detail in your app.
It makes it easier to restucture your database If you have the logic in your database, you can just change a tablelayout, replace the old table with a blackhole table, put a trigger on that and let the trigger do the updates to the new table, your app does not even need to know the database has changed, this allows legacy apps to keep working unchanged, whilst new apps can use the improved database layout.
Some things are easier in SQL
Some things work faster in SQL
I don't like to use (lots of and/or complicated) SQL code in my application, I like to put SQL code in a stored procedure/function and try to only put simple queries in my application code, that way I can just write code that explains what I mean in my application and let the database layer do the heavy lifting.
Some people disagree strongly with this, but this approach works well for me and has simplified debugging and maintenance of my applications a lot.
Generally, its a good practice to expect only "Data" from the Database. Its upto Application(s), to apply Business/Domain Logic and make sense of the data retrieved. Its highly recommended to do the following things in the Application Layer:
1) Formatting Date
2) Applying Math functions, such as interpolation/extrapolation, etc
3) Dynamic sorting (based on columns)
However, situations sometime warrant few things to be done at the database level.
In my opinion application should use data and database should provide them and that should be clear separation of concerns. So database gives records sorted, ordered and filtered according to requested conditions but it is up to application to apply some business logic to that records and "convert" them into something meaningful to the user.
For example, in my previous company we worked on big application for work time calculations. One of obvious functionalities in this kind of application is tracking vacation days of employees - how many days employee has per year, how many he used, how many left, etc. Basically we could write some triggers and procedures that would update those columns automatically. So when employee had his vacation days approved amount of days he applied for is taken from his "vacation pool" and added to "vacation days used". Pretty easy stuff but we decided to make it explicit on application level and boy, very soon we were happy we did it that way. Application had to be labor law compliant and it quickly turned out that not for all employees vacation days are calculated equally and sometimes vacation day can be not so vacation day at all but that is beside the point. Had we put this "easy" operation in database we had to version our database with every little change to a vacation days related logic and that would lead us straight to hell in customer support field due to a fact that it was possible to update only application without a need to update database (except clear "breakthrough" moments where database structure was changed of course).
In my experience I've found that many applications start with a straight-forward set of tables and then and handful of stored procedures to provide basic functionality. This works very well; it usually yields high performance and is simple to understand, it also mitigates any need for a complex middle-tier.
However, applications grow. It's not unusual to see large data-driven applications with thousands of stored procedures. Throw triggers into the mix and you have an application which, for anybody other than the original developers (if they're still working on it), is very difficult to maintain.
I will put a word in for applications which place most logic in the database - they can work well when you have some good database developers and/or you have a legacy schema which cannot be changed. The reason I say this is that ORMs take much of the pain out of this part of application development when you let them control the schema (if not, you often need to do a lot of fiddling to get it working).
If I was designing a new application then I would usually opt for a schema which is dictated by my application domain (the design of which will be in code). I would normally let an ORM handle the mapping between the objects and the database. I would treat stored procedures as exceptions to the rule when it came to data access (reporting can be much easier in sprocs than trying to coax an ORM into producing a complex output efficiently).
The most important thing to remember though, is that there are no "best practices" when it comes to design. It is up to you the developer to weigh up the pros and cons of each option in the context of your design.
We are at the beginning of a new project, and we are really wondering if we should use stored procedures in MySQL or not.
We would use the stored procedures only to insert and update business model entities. There are several tables which represent a model entity, and we would abstract it in those stored procedures insert/update.
On the other hand, we can call insert and update from the Model layer but not in MySQL but in PHP.
In your experience, Which is the best option? advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. Which is the fastest one in terms of high performance?
PS: It is is a web project with mostly read and high performance is the most important requisite.
Unlike actual programming language code, they:
not portable (every db has its own version of PL/SQL. Sometimes different versions of the same database are incompatible - I've seen it!)
not easily testable - you need a real (dev) database instance to test them and thus unit testing their code as part of a build is virtually impossible
not easily updatable/releasable - you must drop/create them, ie modify the production db to release them
do not have library support (why write code when someone else has)
are not easily integratable with other technologies (try calling a web service from them)
they use a language about as primitive as Fortran and thus are inelegant and laborious to get useful coding done, so it is difficult to express business logic, even though typically that is what their primary purpose is
do not offer debugging/tracing/message-logging etc (some dbs may support this - I haven't seen it though)
lack a decent IDE to help with syntax and linking to other existing procedures (eg like Eclipse does for java)
people skilled in coding them are rarer and more expensive than app coders
their "high performance" is a myth, because they execute on the database server they usually increase the db server load, so using them will usually reduce your maximum transaction throughput
inability to efficiently share constants (normally solved by creating a table and questing it from within your procedure - very inefficient)
etc.
If you have a very database-specific action (eg an in-transaction action to maintain db integrity), or keep your procedures very atomic and simple, perhaps you might consider them.
Caution is advised when specifying "high performance" up front. It often leads to poor choices at the expense of good design and it will bite you much sooner than you think.
Use stored procedures at your own peril (from someone who's been there and never wants to go back). My recommendation is to avoid them like the plague.
Unlike programming code, they:
render SQL injection attacks almost
impossible (unless you are are
constructing and executing dynamic
SQL from within your procedures)
require far less data to be sent over
the IPC as part of the callout
enable the database to far better
cache plans and result sets (this is
admittedly not so effective with
MySQL due to its internal caching
structures)
are easily testable in isolation
(i.e. not as part of JUnit tests)
are portable in the sense that they
allow you to use db-specific
features, abstracted away behind a
procedure name (in code you are stuck
with generic SQL-type stuff)
are almost never slower than SQL
called from code
but, as Bohemian says, there are plenty of cons as well (this is just by way of offering another perspectve). You'll have to perhaps benchmark before you decide what's best for you.
As for performances, they have the potential to be really performant in a future MySQL version (under SQL Server or Oracle, they are a real treat!). Yet, for all the rest... They totally blow up competition. I'll summarize:
Security: You can give your app the EXECUTE right only, everything is fine. Your SP will insert update select ..., with no possible leak of any sort. It means global control over your model, and an enforced data security.
Security 2: I know it's rare, but sometimes php code leaks out from the server (i.e. becomes visible to public). If it includes your queries, possible attackers know your model. This is pretty odd but I wanted to signal it anyway
Task force: yes, creating efficient SQL SPs requires some specific resources, sometimes more expensive. But if you think you don't need these resources just because you're integrating your queries in your client... you're going to have serious problems. I'd mention the analogy of web development: it's good to separate the view from the rest because your designer can work on their own technology while the programmers can focus on programming the business layer.
Encapsulating business layer: using stored procedures totally isolates the business where it belongs: the damn database.
Quickly testable: one command line under your shell and your code is tested.
Independence from the client technology: if tomorrow you'd like to switch from php to something else, no problem. Ok, just storing these SQL in a separate file would do the trick too, that's right. Also, good point in the comments about if you decide to switch sql engines, you'd have a lot of work to do. You have to have a good reason to do that anyway, because for big projects and big companies, that rarely happens (due to the cost and HR management mostly)
Enforcing agile 3+-tier developments: if your database is not on the same server than your client code, you may have different servers but only one for the database. In that case, you don't have to upgrade any of your php servers when you need to change the SQL related code.
Ok, I think that's the most important thing I had to say on the subject. I developed in both spirits (SP vs client) and I really, really love the SP style one. I just wished Mysql had a real IDE for them because right now it's kind of a pain in the ass limited.
Stored procedures are good to use because they keep your queries organized and allow you to perform a batch at once. Stored procedures are normally quick in execution because they are pre-compiled, unlike queries that are compiled on every run. This has significant impact in situations where database is on a remote server; if queries are in a PHP script, there are multiple communication between the application and the database server - the query is send, executed, and result thrown back. However, if using stored procedures, it only need to send a small CALL statement instead of big, complicated queries.
It might take a while to adapt to programming a stored procedure because they have their own language and syntaxes. But once you are used to it, you'll see that your code is really clean.
In terms of performance, it might not be any significant gain if you use stored procedures or not.
I will let know my opinion, despite my toughts possibly are not directly related to the question.:
As in many issues, reply about using Stored Procedures or an application-layer driven solution relies on questions that will drive the overall effort:
What you want to get.
Are you trying to do either batch operations or on-line operations? are they completely transactional? how recurrent are those operations? how heavy is the awaited workload for the database?
What you have in order to get it.
What kind of database technology you have? What kind of infrastucture? Is your team fully trained in the database technology? Is your team better capable of building a database-aegnostic solution?
Time for get it.
No secrets about that.
Architecture.
Is your solution required to be distributed onto several locations? is your solution required to use remote communications? is your solution working on several database servers, or possibly using a cluster-based architecture?
Mainteinance.
How much is the application required to change? do you have personal specifically trained for maintain the solution?
Change Management.
Do you see your database technology will change at a short, middle, long time? do you see will be required to migrate the solution frequently?
Cost
How much will cost to implement that solution using one or another strategy?
The overall of those points will drive the answer. So you have to care each of this points when making a decision about using or not any strategy. There are cases where using of stored procedures are better than application-layer managed queries, and others when, conducting queries and using an application-layer based solution is best.
Using of stored procedures tends to be more addequate when:
Your database technology isn't provided to change at a short time.
Your database technology can handle parallelized operations, table partitions or anything else strategy for divide the workload onto several processors, memory and resources (clustering, grid).
Your database technology is fully integrated with the stored proceduce definition language, that is, support is inside the database engine.
You have a development team who aren't afraid about using a procedural language (3rd. Generation language) for getting a result.
Operations you wanna achieve are built-in or supported inside the database (Exporting to XML data, managing data integrity and coherence appropiately with triggers, scheduled operations, etc).
Portability isn't an important issue and you do not whatch a technology change at a short time into your organization, even, it is not desirable. Generally, portability is seen like a milestone by the application-driven and layered-oriented developers. From my point of view, portability isn't an issue when your application isn't required to be deployed for several platforms, less when there are no reasons for making a technology change, or the effort for migrating all the organizational data is higher than the benefit for making a change. What you can win by using an application-layer driven approach (portability) you can loose in performance and value obtained from your database (Why to spend thousands of dollars for to get a Ferrari that you'll drive no more than 60 milles/hr?).
Performance is an issue. First: In several cases, you can achieve better results by using a single stored procedure call than multiple requests for data from another application. Moreover, some characteristics you need to perform may be built-in your database and its use less expensive in terms of workload. When you use an application-layer driven solution you have to take in account the cost associated to make database connections, making calls to the database, network traffic, data wrapping (i.e., using either Java or .NET, there is an implicit cost when using JDBC/ADO.NET calls as you have to wrap your data into objects that represents the database data, so instantiation has an associated cost in terms of processing, memory, and network when data comes from and goes to outside).
Using of application-layer driven solutions tends to be more addequate when:
Portability is an important issue.
Application will be deployed onto several locations with only one or few database repositories.
Your application will use heavy business-oriented rules, that need to be agnostic of the underlying database technology.
You have in mind to do change technology providers based on market tendencies and budget.
Your database isn't fully integrated with the stored procedure language that calls to the database.
Your database capabilities are limited and your requirement goes beyond what you can achieve with your database technology.
Your application can support the penalty inherent to external calls, is more transactional-based with business-specific rules and has to abstract the database model onto a business model for the users.
Parallelizing database operations isn't important, moreover, your database has not parallelization capabilities.
You have a development team which is not well-trained onto the database technology and is better productive by using an application-driven based technology.
Hope this may help to anyone asking himself/herself what is better to use.
I would recommend you don't use stored procedures:
Their language in MySQL is very crappy
There is no way to send arrays, lists, or other types of data structure into a stored procedure
A stored procedure cannot ever change its interface; MySQL permits neither named nor optional parameters
It makes deploying new versions of your application more complicated - say you have 10x application servers and 2 databases, which do you update first?
Your developers all need to learn and understand the stored procedure language - which is very crap (as I mentioned before)
Instead, I recommend to create a layer / library and put all your queries in there
You can
Update this library and ship it on your app servers with your app
Have rich data types, such as arrays, structures etc passed around
Unit test this library, instead of the stored procedures.
On performance:
Using stored procedures will decrease the performance of your application developers, which is the main thing you care about.
It is extremely difficult to identify performance problems within a complicated stored procedure (it is much easier for plain queries)
You can submit a query batch in a single chunk over the wire (if CLIENT_MULTI_STATEMENTS flag is enabled), which means you don't get any more latency without stored procedures.
Application-side code generally scales better than database-side code
If your database is complex and not a forum type with responses, but true warehousing SP will definitely benefit. You can out all your business logic in there and not a single developer is going to care about it, they just call your SP's. I have been doing this joining over 15 tables is not fun, and you cannot explain this to a new developer.
Developers also don't have access to a DB, great! Leave that up to database designers and maintainers. If you also decide that the table structure is going to get changed, you can hide this behind your interface. n-Tier, remember??
High performance and relational DB's is not something that goes together, not even with MySQL InnoDB is slow, MyISAM should be thrown out of the window by now. If you need performance with a web-app, you need proper cache, memcache or others.
in your case, because you mentioned 'Web' I would not use stored procedures, if it was data warehouse I would definitely consider it (we use SP's for our warehouse).
Tip:
Since you mentioned Web-project, ever though about nosql sort of solution? Also, you need a fast DB, why not use PostgreSQL? (trying to advocate here...)
I used to use MySql and my understanding of sql was poor at best, I spent a fair amount of time using Sql Server, I have a clear separation of a data layer and an application layer, I currently look after a server with 0.5 terabytes.
I have felt frustrated at times not using an ORM as development is really quick with stored procedures it is much slower. I think much of our work could have been sped up by using an ORM.
When your application reaches critical mass, the ORM performance will suffer, a well written stored procedure, will give you your results faster.
As an example of performance I collect 10 different types of data in an application, then convert that to XML, which I process in the stored procedure, I have one call to the database rather than 10.
Sql is really good at dealing with sets of data, one thing that gets me frustrated is when I see someone getting data from sql in a raw form and using application code to loop over the results and format and group them, this really is bad practice.
My advice is to learn and understand sql enough and your applications will really benefit.
Lots of info here to confuse people, software development is a evolutionary. What we did 20 years ago isn't best practice now. Back in the day with classic client server you wouldnt dream of anything but SPs.
It is absolutely horses for courses, if you are a big organisation with you will use multi tier, and probably SPs but you will care little about them because a dedicated team will be sorting them out.
The opposite which is where I find myself trying to quickly knock up a web app solution, that fleshes out business requirements, it was super fast to leave the developer (remote to me) to knock up the pages and SQL queries and I define the DB structure.
However complexity is growing and without an easy way to provide APIs, I am staring to use SPs to contain the business logic. I think it is working well and sensible, I control this because I can build logic and provide a simple result set for my offshore developer to build a front end around.
Should I find my software a phenomenal success, then more separation of concerns will occur and different implementations of n teir will come about but for now SPs are perfect.
You should know all the tool sets available to you and match them is wise to start with. Unless you are building an enterprise system to start with then fast and simple is best.
I would recommend that you stay away from DB specific Stored Procedures.
I've been through a lot of projects where they suddently want to switch DB platform and the code inside a SP is usually not very portable = extra work and possible errors.
Stored Procedure development also requires the developer to have access directly to the SQL-engine, where as a normal connection can be changed by anyone in the project with code-access only.
Regarding your Model/layer/tier idea: yes, stick with that.
Website calls Business layer (BL)
BL calls Data layer (DL)
DL calls whatever storage (SQL, XML, Webservice, Sockets, Textfiles etc.)
This way you can maintain the logic level between tiers. IF and ONLY IF the DL calls seems to be very slow, you can start to fiddle around with Stored Procedures, but maintain the original none-SP code somewhere, if you suddently need to transfer the DB to a whole new platform. With all the Cloud-hosting in the business, you never know whats going to be the next DB platform...
I keep a close eye on Amazon AWS of the very same reason.
I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around about database stored queries.
I would recommend using MySQL Stored Procedures if you're doing many static queries for data manipulation. Especially if you're moving things from one table to another (i.e. moving from a live table to a historical table for whatever reason). There are drawbacks of course in that you'll have to keep a separate log of changes to them (you could in theory make a table that just holds changes to the stored procedures that the DBA's update). If you have many different applications interfacing with the database, especially if say you have a desktop program written in C# and a web program in PHP, it might be more beneficial to have some of your procedures stored in the database as they are platform independent.
This website has some interesting information on it you may find useful.
https://www.sitepoint.com/stored-procedures-mysql-php/
As always, build in a sandbox first, and test.
Try to update 100,000,000 records on a live system from a framework, and let me know how it goes. For small apps, SPs are not a must, but for large serious systems, they are a real asset.
Is it considered crazy to store common SQL queries for my web app in a database for use in execution? Or is that common practice? Or is it impossible?
My thinking is, this way, I avoid hard-coding SQL into my application files, and add another level of abstraction.
Is this crazy? Is this what a stored procedure is? Or is that something else?
EDIT: The below answers are useful as a background for 'stored procedures', but didn't answer my core question: Is a 'stored procedure' just when I have a database table that contains queries that can be called? ie, something like this
INDEX | NAME | QUERY
1 | show_names | "SELECT names.first, names.last FROM names;"
2 | show_5_cities | "SELECT cities.city FROM cities LIMIT 0,5;"
etc.
Or is there a more complicated mechanism that encompasses the concept of stored procedures? Is my example an actual example of something people do?
Along with MUG4N's great reasons on why to use stored procedures, here are three more:
Security
You can grant access to your application to execute stored procedures while denying direct table access.
Think defense in depth. If your app is cracked, then they will be limited to executing ONLY the procedures you have defined. This means things like 'drop table' would be explicitly disallowed, unless, of course, you have a procedure to do that.
Conversely, if your app is cracked and you allow the app to have full access to your sql server, then one of two things will happen. Either your data disappears and/or the cracker easily get's a copy.
Unit Testing.
It's much easier to unit test your queries if you can hit them directly without having to go through the application itself.
In Flight Changes:
If you need to modify a query AFTER you have published your site, it's much easier to just make a proc change than redeploy code that may have undergone other changes since the last deployment. For example, let's say you have a page that isn't performing all that well. After evaluation, you determine that just changing the joins on a query will fix this. Modify the proc and go.
Well in my opinion you should definitly use stored procedures. And this is common practice!
Here are just two advantages of using stored procedures:
They will run in all environments, and there is no need to recreate the logic. Since they are on the database server, it makes no difference what application environment is used - the stored procedure remains consistent. If your setup involves different clients, different programming languages - the logic remains in one place. Web developers typically make less use of this feature, since the web server and database server are usually closely linked. However, in complex client-server setups, this is a big advantage. The clients are automatically always in sync with the procedure logic as soon as its been updated.
They can reduce network traffic. Complex, repetitive tasks may require getting results, applying some logic to them, and using this to get more results. If this only has to be done on the database server, there is no need to send result sets and new queries back and forth from application server to database server. Network traffic is a common bottleneck causing performance issues, and stored procedures can help reduce this. More often though, it is the database server itself that is the bottleneck, so this may not be much of an advantage.
The idea certainly has its appeal -- but the problems is, they are nearly impossible to scale.. I have never seen a scalable solution to maintaining stored procs (especially in MySQL) that has not made me shutter.
Since it seems you're heading the PHP/MySQL route, I'll give a few examples of my experience with stored procs in MySQL:
They are generally far less readable and far more difficult to write than PHP.
They make debugging a nightmare
Trying to figure out why changing a value in table_1 triggers a change in table_2 (if you're even lucky enough to recognize that this happens) is much more difficult to determine by looking through dozens of stored procedures than it is to, say, look in the Model that handles changes to table_1.
To my knowledge there is no standardized & automated way to integrate stored procs / triggers / etc into any revision control system
A stored procedure is just one or more SQL statements that are "pre-compiled" and live inside the database. You call them to return one or more rows of data, or to update, insert, or delete data.
If you tell us what web framework and database you are using, we can give you actual examples of how to call a stored procedure, or at least point you to an article or two to get you going.
You could also consider using an ORM framework, such as Hibernate. This will allow you to get away from dealing with SQL code altogether. I am a .Net developer, so I'm not sure what is available to you on the PHP/MySQL platform, but I am sure there is a lot out there to choose from.
You should think about it, when developing a commercial grade tiered application there is always people behind the database making it secure and reliable, other people are behind the application logic and other people behind the web code, so you can get the best of all working together.
Once the application has been designed, everyone start making their implementations, the db people give to the others some kind of API to use hiding the SQL, the developers won't have to think about it and focus on their code, i had worked as db developer and used some COM techniques to overcome the expansion and modification of the application logic or reuse, the database in these kind of products is too important to leave it in the wild so security it's a really serious issue.
But in most cases, web applications are made by web developers and they tend to have no design time, making big changes on the near time so they don't use stored procedures, also they don't even secure execution or try to leave security to the application leaving the database unprotected and prone to attacks.
If you're doing everything and changing your product too often you should avoid them since it will be double work and most of the times will be useless, once you stabilize your logic then you could start migrating your heavier queries to stored procedures.
Right now I'm developing the prototype of a web application that aggregates large number of text entries from a large number of users. This data must be frequently displayed back and often updated. At the moment I store the content inside a MySQL database and use NHibernate ORM layer to interact with the DB. I've got a table defined for users, roles, submissions, tags, notifications and etc. I like this solution because it works well and my code looks nice and sane, but I'm also worried about how MySQL will perform once the size of our database reaches a significant number. I feel that it may struggle performing join operations fast enough.
This has made me think about non-relational database system such as MongoDB, CouchDB, Cassandra or Hadoop. Unfortunately I have no experience with either. I've read some good reviews on MongoDB and it looks interesting. I'm happy to spend the time and learn if one turns out to be the way to go. I'd much appreciate any one offering points or issues to consider when going with none relational dbms?
The other answers here have focused mainly on the technical aspects, but I think there are important points to be made that focus on the startup company aspect of things:
Availabililty of talent. MySQL is very common and you will probably find it easier (and more importantly, cheaper) to find developers for it, compared to the more rarified database systems. This larger developer base will also mean more tutorials, a more active support community, etc.
Ease of development. Again, because MySQL is so common, you will find it is the db of choice for a great many systems / services. This common ground may make any external integration a little easier.
You are preparing for a situation that may never exist, and is manageable if it does. Very few businesses (nevermind startups) come close to MySQL's limits, and with all due respect (and I am just guessing here); the likelihood that your startup will ever hit the sort of data throughput to cripple a properly structured, well resourced MySQL db is almost zero.
Basically, don't spend your time ( == money) worrying about which db to use, as MySQL can handle a lot of data, is well proven and well supported.
Going back to the technical side of things... Something that will have a far greater impact on the speed of your app than choice of db, is how efficiently data can be cached. An effective cache can have dramatic effects on reducing db load and speeding up the general responsivness of an app. I would spend your time investigating caching solutions and making sure you are developing your app in such a way that it can make the best use of those solutions.
FYI, my caching solution of choice is memcached.
So far no one has mentioned PostgreSQL as alternative to MySQL on the relational side. Be aware that MySQL libs are pure GPL, not LGPL. That might force you to release your code if you link to them, although maybe someone with more legal experience could tell you better the implications. On the other side, linking to a MySQL library is not the same that just connecting to the server and issue commands, you can do that with closed source.
PostreSQL is usually the best free replacement of Oracle and the BSD license should be more business friendly.
Since you prefer a non relational database, consider that the transition will be more dramatic. If you ever need to customize your database, you should also consider the license type factor.
There are three things that really have a deep impact on which one is your best database choice and you do not mention:
The size of your data or if you need to store files within your database.
A huge number of reads and very few (even restricted) writes. In that case more than a database you need a directory such as LDAP
The importance of of data distribution and/or replication. Most relational databases can be more or less well replicated, but because of their concept/design do not handle data distribution as well... but will you handle as much data that does not fit into one server or have access rights that needs special separate/extra servers?
However most people will go for a non relational database just because they do not like learning SQL
What do you think is a significant amount of data? MySQL, and basically most relational database engines, can handle rather large amount of data, with proper indexes and sane database schema.
Why don't you try how MySQL behaves with bigger data amount in your setup? Make some scripts that generate realistic data to MySQL test database and and generate some load on the system and see if it is fast enough.
Only when it is not fast enough, first start considering optimizing the database and changing to different database engine.
Be careful with NHibernate, it is easy to make a solution that is nice and easy to code with, but has bad performance with large amount of data. For example whether to use lazy or eager fetching with associations should be carefully considered. I don't mean that you shouldn't use NHibernate, but make sure that you understand how NHibernate works, for example what "n + 1 selects" -problem means.
Measure, don't assume.
Relational databases and NoSQL databases can both scale enormously, if the application is written right in each case, and if the system it runs on is properly tuned.
So, if you have a use case for NoSQL, code to it. Or, if you're more comfortable with relational, code to that. Then, measure how well it performs and how it scales, and if it's OK, go with it, if not, analyse why.
Only once you understand your performance problem should you go searching for exotic technology, unless you're comfortable with that technology or want to try it for some other reason.
I'd suggest you try out each db and pick the one that makes it easiest to develop your application. Go to http://try.mongodb.org to try MongoDB with a simple tutorial. Don't worry as much about speed since at the beginning developer time is more valuable than the CPU time.
I know that many MongoDB users have been able to ditch their ORM and their caching layer. Mongo's data model is much closer to the objects you work with than relational tables, so you can usually just directly store your objects as-is, even if they contain lists of nested objects, such as a blog post with comments. Also, because mongo is fast enough for most sites as-is, you can avoid dealing the complexities of caching and generally deliver a more real-time site. For example, Wordnik.com reported 250,000 reads/sec and 100,000 inserts/sec with a 1.2TB / 5 billion object DB.
There are a few ways to connect to MongoDB from .Net, but I don't have enough experience with that platform to know which is best:
Norm: http://wiki.github.com/atheken/NoRM/
MongoDB-CSharp: http://github.com/samus/mongodb-csharp
Simple-MongoDB: http://code.google.com/p/simple-mongodb/
Disclaimer: I work for 10gen on MongoDB so I am a bit biased.
In what domains do each of these software architectures shine or fail?
Which key requirements would prompt you to choose one over the other?
Please assume that you have developers available who can do good object oriented code as well as good database development.
Also, please avoid holy wars :) all three technologies have pros and cons, I'm interested in where is most appropriate to use which.
Every one of these tools provides differing layers of abstraction, along with differing points to override behavior. These are architecture choices, and all architectural choices depend on trade-offs between technology, control, and organization, both of the application itself and the environment where it will be deployed.
If you're dealing with a culture where DBAs 'rule the roost', then a stored-procedure-based architecture will be easier to deploy. On the other hand, it can be very difficult to manage and version stored procedures.
Code generators shine when you use statically-typed languages, because you can catch errors at compile-time instead of at run-time.
ORMs are ideal for integration tools, where you may need to deal with different RDBMSes and schemas on an installation-to-installation basis. Change one map and your application goes from working with PeopleSoft on Oracle to working with Microsoft Dynamics on SQL Server.
I've seen applications where Generated Code is used to interface with Stored Procedures, because the stored procedures could be tweaked to get around limitations in the code generator.
Ultimately the only correct answer will depend upon the problem you're trying to solve and the environment where the solution needs to execute. Anything else is arguing the correct pronunciation of 'potato'.
I'll add my two cents:
Stored procedures
Can be easily optimized
Abstract fundamental business rules, enhancing data integrity
Provide a good security model (no need to grant read or write permissions to a front facing db user)
Shine when you have many applications accessing the same data
ORMs
Let you concentrate only on the domain and have a more "pure" object oriented approach to development
Shine when your application must be cross db compatible
Shine when your application is mostly driven by behaviour instead of data
Code Generators
Provide you similar benefits as ORMs, with higher maintenance costs, but with better customizability.
Are generally superior to ORMs in that ORMs tend to trade compile-time errors for runtime errors, which is generally to be avoided
I agree that there are pros and cons to everything and a lot depends on your architecture. That being said, I try to use ORM's where it makes sense. A lot of the functionality is already there and usually they help prevent SQL Injection (plus it helps avoid re-inventing the wheel).
Please see these other two posts on the topic (dynamic SQL vs
stored procedures vs ORM) for more information
Dynamic SQL vs. stored procedures
Which is better: Ad hoc queries, or stored procedures?
ORMs vs. stored procedures
Why is parameterized SQL generated by NHibernate just as fast as a stored procedure?
ORMs and code generators are kind of on one side of the field, and stored procedures are on another. Typically, it's easier to use ORMs and code generators in greenfield projects, because you can tailor your database schema to match the domain model you create. It's much more difficult to use them with legacy projects, because once software is written with a "data-first" mindset, it's difficult to wrap it with a domain model.
That being said, all three of the approaches have value. Stored procedures can be easier to optimize, but it can be tempting to put business logic in them that may be repeated in the application itself. ORMs work well if your schema matches the concept of the ORM, but can be difficult to customize if not. Code generators can be a nice middle ground, because they provide some of the benefits of an ORM but allow customization of the generated code -- however, if you get into the habit of altering the generated code, you then have two problems, because you will have to alter it each time you re-generate it.
There is no one true answer, but I tend more towards the ORM side because I believe it makes more sense to think with an object-first mindset.
Stored Procedures
Pros: Encapsulates data access code and is application-independent
Cons: Can be RDBMS-specific and increase development time
ORM
At least some ORMs allow mapping to stored procedures
Pros: Abstracts data access code and allows entity objects to be written in domain-specific way
Cons: Possible performance overhead and limited mapping capability
Code generation
Pros: Can be used to generate stored-proc based code or an ORM or a mix of both
Cons: Code generator layer may have to be maintained in addition to understanding generated code
You forgot a significant option that deserves a category of its own: a hybrid data mapping framework such as iBatis.
I have been pleased with iBatis because it lets your OO code remain OO in nature, and your database remain relational in nature, and solves the impedance mismatch by adding a third abstraction (the mapping layer between the objects and the relations) that is responsible for mapping the two, rather than trying to force fit one paradigm into the other.