I have huge database (kinda wordnet) and want to know if it's easier to use Cassandra instead of MySQL|PostrgreSQL
All my life I was using MySQL and PostrgreSQL and I could easily think in terms of relational algebra, but several weeks ago I learned about Cassandra and that it's used in Facebook and Twitter.
Is it more convenient?
What DBMS are usually used nowadays to store social net's data, relationships between objects, wordnet?
There is nothing like a Silver bullet solution, everything is built to solve specific problem and has its own pros and cons. It is up to you to decide - what problem statement you have and what is best solution that fits your problem. Whether you use Cassandra (NoSQL) or MySQL(RDBMS), it is all driven from your system's requirements. Below are the inputs that will help you in taking better decision while deciding on database.
Why to Use NoSQL
In the case of RDBMS database, making choice is quite easy because almost all the databases like MySQL, Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL in this category offer almost same kind of solutions oriented to the ACID property. When it comes to NoSQL, decision becomes difficult because every NoSQL database offers different solution and you have to understand which one is best suited for your app/system requirement. For example, MongoDB fits for use cases where your system demands schema-less document store. HBase might fit for Search engines, analysing log data, any place where scanning huge, two-dimensional join-less tables is a requirement. Redis is built to provide In-Memory search for varieties of data structures like tree, queue, link list etc and can be good fit for making real time leader board, pub-sub kind of system. Similarly there are other database in this category (including Cassandra) which fits for different problems. Now lets move to original question, and answer them one by one.
When to use Cassandra
Being a part of NoSQL family, Cassandra offers solution for problem where your requirement is to have very heavy write system and you want to have quite responsive reporting system on top of that stored data. Consider use case of Web analytics where log data is stored for each request and you want to built analytical platform around it to count hits by hour, by browser, by IP, etc in real time manner. You can refer to blog post (http://blogs.shephertz.com/2015/04/22/why-cassandra-excellent-choice-for-realtime-analytics-workload/) to understand more about the use cases where Cassandra fits in.
When to Use a RDMS instead of Cassandra/NoSQL
Cassandra is based on NoSQL database and does not provide ACID and relational data property. If you have strong requirement of ACID property (for example Financial data), Cassandra would not be a fit in that case. Obviously, you can make work out of it, however you will end up writing lots of application code to handle ACID property and will loose on time to market badly. Also managing that kind of system with Cassandra would be complex and tedious for you.
There are many different flavours of "NoSQL" databases. If your application is really like Wordnet perhaps you should look at a graph database such as Neo4j.
I would suggest to analyse your request.
If you are going with more clusters, machines take NoSQL
If your data model is complicated - require efficient structures take NoSQL (no limits with type of columns)
If you fit in a few machines without scales, and you don't need super performance for multi request (as for example in social network - where lot of users send http request), and you don't think you involve saleability take RDBMS (Postgres have some good functions and structures which you can use, like array column type).
Cassandra should work better with large scales of data, multi purpose.
neo4j - would be better for special structures, graphs.
Cassandra and other NoSQL stores are being used for social based sites because of their need for massive write based operations. Not that MySQL and Postgres can't achieve this but NoSQL requires far less time and money, generally speaking.
Sounds like you may want to look at Neo4J though, just in terms of your object model needs.
All different products and they all have their pro's and conn's. What kind of problem do you have to solve?
Huge, as in TB's?
Related
Are there any benefits to using MongoDB for a Node.js application rather than a traditional SQL database such as MySQL, if I'm not planning to have large (>1000 item) collections and am already comfortable with SQL?
MongoDB is schema-less document based database. This means you can insert a JSON object with other nested objects. This can make development easier, especially for prototyping.
For a small project, why not? For a larger project you should do more research. Large or small, doesn't hurt to do the research anyway. You want to consider how your application uses the database (reads vs writes) and how MongoDB scales horizontally, and how it handles failures.
There's a thing called the CAP theorem that defines NoSQL databases. MongoDB is CP. This visual guide shows the relationships between different databases. What is most important to you and your application?
Something else to consider is that most NoSQL databases are not ACID compliant. If you're using MySQL with InnoDB, that can be something significant to give up, depending on your application. For example, transactions might be something you might not want to give up.
Lots of pros and cons. Best thing to ask yourself is: What am I gaining? What am I giving up? There are many things, and it really depends on your use-case.
There are lots of reasons to stick with a simple dbms for a small-scale application. One of them is the widespread availability of cheap hosting services providing MySQL. Another is ease of deployment and maintenance.
Of course, if you're trying to learn to use MongoDB, go for it!
I can't discuss things in great detail due to an NDA, but I'm hoping an overview of the system being built can help you in aiding me in making a decision concerning our databases.
I'm building an app that will help vendors compete to gain clientele by making strategic offers based on records of inventory/purchase from the storefronts.
One side of the app is for the store owners to see presented offers, network, etc. I've got that going with a standard php/MySQL setup.
My question is concerning the records of inventory. We are talking millions of records here nearly immediately. The sample data I'm using is roll up of four of their managers (they have dozens) over the course of a year or two and it had over 500k rows with about 30 or more columns. When we get scores of stores with all of their managers it will be massive, at least compared to anything I've worked with as of yet.
The vendors will have a side of the product in which they can search through these records and make competitive offers based off of it.
Is the sheer size a good reason to use something like mongo? Or is it more a matter of how the data is laid out / what it consists of? Or some other element that I'm not considering?
And, if not mongo/nosql, then is there some other methodology or technology that such large data stores would benefit from me using (sharding, amazon cloud database, etc).
Thanks
Answers ...
Q: Is the sheer size a good reason to use something like mongo?
A: I think so. Mongo was built from the ground up to scale in a massive way. You have replica sets and sharding that can help you scale. They also have features to make sure your data gets stored in the appropriately geographically distributed data centers.
Q: Or is it more a matter of how the data is laid out / what it consists of?
A: Mongo is a document database and you're right, the data models will be different. You have to think of data in a denormalized way instead of normalized. Just like any technology, there are pros and cons to storing things as documents.
Some pros: Schema management is a breeze. Data more naturally fits objects in your application. Don't have to pay the price of complicated/slow joins.
Some cons: Schemas can be inconsistent - you have to manage it. Data is repeated, which is not managed means it can become inconsistent.
In general I think Mongo would be a good choice to deal with that scale. Mongo has a new aggregation framework that brings a lot of SQL concepts to queries on documents. Easier to make complex queries. Also Mongo has map/reduce to run any kind of query you might have.
After using Mongo daily for about a year, I've really enjoyed the support around it as a product and the general ease of setting it up and working with it.
I am building a data ware house that is the range of 15+ TBs. While storage is cheap, but due to limited budget we have to squeeze as much data as possible in to that space while maintaining performance and flexibility since the data format changes quiet frequently.
I tried Infobright(community edition) as a SQL solution and it works wonderful in term of storage and performance, but the limitation on data/table alteration is making it almost a no go. and infobright's pricing on enterprise version is quiet steep.
After checking out MongoDB, it seems promising except one thing. I was in a chat with a 10gen guy, and he stated that they don't really give much of a thought in term of storage space since they flatten out the data to achieve the performance and flexibility, and in their opinion storage is too cheap nowadays to be bother with.
So any experienced mongo user out there can comment on its storage space vs mysql (as it is the standard for what we comparing against to right now). if it's larger or smaller, can you give rough ratio? I know it's very situation dependent on what sort of data you put in SQL and how you define the fields, indexing and such... but I am just trying to get a general idea.
Thanks for the help in advance!
MongoDB is not optimized for small disk space - as you've said, "disk is cheap".
From what I've seen and read, it's pretty difficult to estimate the required disk space due to:
Padding of documents to allow in-place updates
Attribute names are stored in each collection, so you might save quite a bit by using abbreviations
No built in compression (at the moment)
...
IMHO the general approach is to build a prototype, insert data and see how much disk space your specific use case requires. The more realistic you can model your queries (inserts and updates) the better your result will be.
For more details see http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Excessive+Disk+Space as well.
Pros and Cons of MongoDB
For the most part, users seem to like MongoDB. Reviews on TrustRadius give the document-oriented database 8.3 out of 10 stars.
Some of the things that authenticated MongoDB users say they like about the database include its:
Scalability.
Readable queries.
NoSQL.
Change streams and graph queries.
A flexible schema for altering data elements.
Quick query times.
Schema-less data models.
Easy installation.
Users also have negative things to say about MongoDB. Some cons reported by authenticated users include:
User interface, which has a fairly steep learning curve.
Lack of joins, which can make some data retrieval projects difficult.
Occasional slowness in the cloud environment.
High memory consumption
Poorly structured documentation.
Lack of built-in analytics.
Pros and Cons of MySQL
MySQL gets a slightly higher rating (8.6 out of 10 stars) on TrustRadius than MongoDB. Despite the higher rating, authenticated users still mention plenty of pros and cons of choosing MySQL.
Some of the positive features that users mention frequently include MySQL’s:
Portability that lets it connect to secondary databases easily.
Ability to store relational data.
Fast speed.
Excellent reliability.
Exceptional data security standards.
User-friendly interface that helps beginners complete projects.
Easy configuration and management.
Quick processing.
Of course, even people who enjoy using MySQL find features that they don’t like. Some of their complaints include:
Reliance on SQL, which creates a steeper learning curve for users who
do not know the language.
Lack of support for full-text searches in InnoDB tables.
Occasional stability issues.
Dependence on add-on features.
Limitations on fine-tuning and common table expressions.
Difficulties with some complex data types.
MongoDB vs MySQL Performance
When comparing the performance of MongoDB and MySQL, you must consider how each database will affect your projects on a case-by-case basis. While some performance features may appear to be objectively promising, your team members may never use the features that drew you to a database in the first place.
MongoDB Performance
Many people claim that MongoDB outperforms MySQL because it allows them to create queries in multiple ways. To put it another way, MongoDB can be used without knowing SQL. While the flexibility improves MongoDB's performance for some organizations, SQL queries will suffice for others.
MongoDB is also praised for its ability to handle large amounts of unstructured data. Depending on the types of data you collect, this feature could be extremely useful.
MongoDB does not bind you to a single vendor, giving you the freedom to improve its performance. If a vendor fails to provide you with excellent customer service, look for another vendor.
MySQL Performance
MySQL performs extremely well for teams that want an open-source relational database that can store information in multiple tables. The performance that you get, however, depends on how well you configure the MySQL database. Configurations should differ depending on the intended use. An e-commerce site, for example, might need a different MySQL configuration than a team of research scientists.
No matter how you plan to use MySQL, the database’s performance gets a boost from full-text indexes, a high-speed transactional system, and memory caches that prevent you from losing crucial information or work.
If you don’t get the performance that you expect from MySQL data warehouses and databases, you can improve performance by integrating them with an excellent ETL tool that makes data storage and manipulation easier than ever.
MySQL vs MongoDB Speed
In most speed comparisons between MySQL and MongoDB, MongoDB is the clear winner. MongoDB is much faster than MySQL at accepting large amounts of unstructured data. When dealing with large projects, it's difficult to say how much faster MongoDB is than MySQL. The speed you get depends on a number of factors, including the bandwidth of your internet connection, the distance between your location and the database server, and how well you organise your data.
If all else is equal, MongoDB should be able to handle large data projects much faster than MySQL.
Choosing Between MySQL and MongoDB
Whether you choose MySQL or MongoDB probably depends on how you plan to use your database.
Choosing MySQL
For projects that require a strong relational database management system, such as storing data in a table format, MySQL is likely to be the better choice. MySQL is also a great choice for cases requiring data security and fault tolerance. MySQL is a good choice if you have high-quality data that you've been collecting for a long time.
Keep in mind that to use MySQL, your team members will need to know SQL. You'll need to provide training to get them up to speed if they don't already know the language.
Choosing MongoDB
When you want to use data clusters and search languages other than SQL, MongoDB may be a better option. Anyone who knows how to code in a modern language will be able to get started with MongoDB. MongoDB is also good at scaling quickly, allowing multiple teams to collaborate, and storing data in a variety of formats.
Because MongoDB does not use data tables to make browsing easy, some people may struggle to understand the information stored there. Users can grow accustomed to MongoDB's document-oriented storage system over time.
I'm in the process of designing and planning a new website.
it is mainly a message boards site
I have past experience with MySQL, but I hear many voices (not in my head)
which telling NoSQL can be as good solution as RDBMS.
the main claim for NoSQL is performance. what do you think about it?
so,
I need a scalable database-design technology for my website.
if I go with NoSQL, I know there are couple of technologies in this area
(document store, key-value store etc) . how to choose?
what do you think is more suitable for a message boards website:
NoSQL or MySQL?
thanks,
socksocket
Both SQL and no-SQL can be used for your purpose. The two main reasons to go with no-SQL is if you really have a lot of traffic (and your sql solution is not working performance-wise) and if you have a lot of unstructured and changing data that benefits from being schema-less.
Personally I believe a significant factor for you to consider is maintainability.
If you create anything using no-sql you are going to have less than 10% of the audience for maintaining it when compared to SQL.
It is common for programmers to want to use the 'best' solution technically but not factor in the maintainability and costs aspects, especially when the solution is considered 'simple' by them.
), for your purposes, I think a NoSQL is probably a better choice than MySQL. You should check out like MongoDB or CouchDB, both are open-source scalable NoSQL DBs (and as already mentioned, there are other NoSQL DBs and file storage systems commercially available)
Basically, messaging boards do not really need a DBMS. In a DBMS, query processing actions are slower than in a NoSQL DB and messaging boards can have a high volume of traffic as well as data that does not necessarily have a fixed schema. The flexibility of NoSQL with regard to data structure enables utilizing and implementing sharding, partitioning, indexing and other technologies easily.
Although performance is one of the key elements, this is not a feature in NoSQL, it is more a consequence of design, what I think is THE feature is the flexibility of its data structure and the possibility to store information in a single row avoiding multiple round trips when you work with records that are close related (take a look of this post http://djondb.com/blog to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about ).
For any website which requires to change its model on a daily basis it's wise to choose a DB which can keep up with this flexibility.
I'm a little bit biased because I'm the author of a NoSQL document store but I suggest you to give NoSQL document store a try, you'll be surprise on how fast you can create solutions using that kind of easy to store approach.
Have you looked at Redis (http://redis.io/) ?
You can model almost everything you have in your RDBMS with Redis. In most cases you will get x10 performance, and it is supported by a great and very active community .
I suggest that you detail your needs in the Redis forum, and you will probably get the most honest and professional responses; part of them may suggest that you use other NoSQL technologies on different parts of your architecture
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.