I'd like to migrate an existing MySQL database (around 40tables, 400mb data) to Postgres before it gets bigger. I searched the web and tried some migration-scripts (some of them can be found here). None of them works seamlessly - if it would be just a few glitches I had to fix manually, it wouldn't be a problem, but the resulting dumps don't look like valid PostgreSQL at all.
Did anybody succeed in migrating a production table without using a full workday - is there an easy solution to that problem?
Note: I also would consider commercial products (as long as pricing is still feasible).
In spite of SQL being a standard, it's not full featured enough to do without each server software implementing extensions. The translation from MySQL to PostgreSQL is not simple, unless your schema is trivial. Automated translation scripts will only get you so far.
The very best approach would be to hand translate the schema, and then write your own transfer scripts for the data itself. You should also write verification scripts to make sure the schema and data come over correctly.
This isn't a cop-out answer. If your database is important enough to migrate then it's important enough to spend some time on yourself. In the end you would spend at least as much time figuring out the quirks and subtle messes than an automated migration script would cause as in the time to migrate the data yourself. But doing it yourself you have the chance to take advantage of features in PostgreSQL that aren't present in MySQL, as well as the chance to make the kinds of improvements that only come from having the chance to do something a second time.
Bite the bullet and do it.
Related
I am currently working on an application like to analitics, i has Angularjs app which communicates with Spring REST Client App from which user creates token(trackingID) and use generated script with this id putting on his website to collect information about visitor's actions through another Spring REST tracking App, for tracking app i am using as mongodb to collect visitor actions/visitor info for fast insertion, but for rest client app mysql with user/accounts details.
My question is how to migrate mongo data from tracking app to mysql maybe for getting posibility of join for easily and fastest way of analyze data with any kind of filters from angularjs client app, to create manually any workers that periodically will transfer data from last point to present state from mongo to mysql, or are any existed tools that can be setted for this transfer?
There is no official library to do this.
But you can use mongoexport feature from mongoDB to export it in a CSV format and mysqlimport to import them into MySQL.
Here are links to the documentation MySQL import and MongoDB Export.
One more method you can try to write a program in one of your favorite language and read from MongoDB and write into MySQL
MySQL 5.7 has a new JSON data type, that can be very convenient.
You can create a table at MySQL to receive the JSON messages AS IS, and then use SQL to query it or do a post processing to load the data in a structured set of database tables.
Check this out: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/json.html
I realise this question is a few years old - but recently I've had a number of people enquiring whether a tool I developed (https://virtual.blue/apps/json-converter) can do exactly what the OP is asking (convert MongoDB to SQL) so I am guessing it is still something people want. Keep reading to find out why I am honestly not surprised by this.
The short answer to whether the tool can help you is: perhaps. If your existing data relationships are not too complicated, and your database is not enormous, it may well be worth a try.
However, I thought it might help to try and explain what the issues are with this kind of conversion, since all the answers I have seen so far are along the lines of "try tool X" or "first convert to format Y and then you can slurp it into MySQL using utility Z". ie there is no thought to whether what you get at the end of doing this is going to make sense in terms of data relationships and integrity.
For example, you could just stick your entire database dump in a single field of a single SQL table (ok space limitations might prevent this in reality, but hopefully you get my point). Then your database would be "in MySQL format", but it would be absolutely no use to anyone.
The point is, what you actually want is a fully defined database model, correctly encapsulating all of the intrinsic data relationships. ("Database normalization" as it is known.) If your conversion process gets those relationships wrong, then you have a broken model, and any queries you try to run over it are likely to return nonsense. Unfortunately there is no magic tool that is just going to "know" the best way to represent your data in MySQL, and closing your eyes and shovelling it into a bunch of random tools is unlikely to miraculously get you what you want.
And herein lies the fundamental problem with the "NoSQL" philosophy (fad). They sold people the bogus notion of "non-relational data". My first thought when I heard this was, "How does that work? Surely all data is relational?" By the looks of things we are steadily getting more and more evidence that my instincts were right. ("NoSQL? Why stop there? I go with 'NoDatabase'. It returns no results at all, but it sure is fast!")
The NoSQL madness throws several important fundamental engineering principles to the wind. We shouted "don't hard code!", "DRY!" (Don't Repeat Yourself) because these actions infuse inflexibility into systems. Traditional wisdom makes precisely the same flexibility argument when it advises "create a fully described model with all the data relationships represented". Then you can execute any arbitrary query over it and expect meaningful results. "Yes but there are a whole bunch of queries we are never going to need to run," says the NoSQL proponent. But surely we learnt our lesson on things we are "never going to need to do"? ("I hard code liberally, because I know I am never going to want to change my code." Hmm...)
The arguments about speed are largely moot. Say it turns out you are frequently doing a complex 9 table join, with unsurprisingly sluggish performance. So create an index. Cache it. Swap some disk space for speed. The NoSQL philosophy is to swap data integrity for speed, which makes no sense at all.
When you generate your fast lookup index (cache/table/map/whatever) what you are really doing is creating a view over your model. If your model changes, you can readily update your view. Going from a model to a view is easy - it's a one to many operation and you are on the right side of entropy.
However, when you went with MongoDB you effectively decided to create views without bothering to describe your fundamental model. Now you discover there are queries you want to run, but can't - and so it's no wonder you want to move over to SQL and actually have your data modelled correctly. The problem is you now want to go from a view to a model. Now you're on the wrong side of entropy. Your view is a lossy representation of the model's fundamental relationships. You can't expect a tool to "translate" your database, because you are asking it to insert new relationships which were not originally defined. These are real world relationships that are not machine-guessable. The tool cannot know what relationships were intended.
In short the only way you can do this reliably is to get your hands dirty. An intelligent human, with complete understanding of the system you are modelling needs to sit down and carefully come up with (possibly a substantial amount of) code which effectively picks through the data and resolves all of the insufficiently represented data relationships. If your data is complex then it's going to be a headache and there is no way to cheat.
If your data is still relatively simple then I would suggest making the conversion as soon as possible, before it becomes difficult. In this case my tool (https://virtual.blue/apps/json-converter) may be able to help.
(They really should have asked a Physicist before they came up with all this nonsense...!)
You can download a trial version of Studio 3T for Mongo and export your database to SQL (or JSON) directly
I have the following architechture:
I Import data from a SQL datbase into a mongodb. I use the importer to migrate data into the mongodb that provides the data to a website via an API.
The importing can take a couple of minutes and if it fails I would like to be able to either rollback (it would be awsome to be able to rollback multiple imports) or drop the database/collections of the uncommited rows (if you think of it as SQL transactions).
I tried to import everything into a transactions collection that, on success, moved the data into the correct collection. This took way to much time to be performant. I also tried the solution of importing into a temp db and then swapping them. But then I run into problems if someone e.g. registers a new user on the website after the db-copy but before the importing is done (that user will be lost when swapping).
How can a perform an import in a safe way and not have the most basic concurrency problems?
EDIT:
To clarify the solution:
I will run the importer in a cron job, at least once a day. I currently keep a timestamp for the latest synchronization and select everything that is newer than that from the SQL-db. Things will automagically appear in the SQL-db over time.
At the end of the importing I run a downloader that downloads all the images from urls in the SQL db.
I don't want to start a new sync before the images are downloaded since that could result in strange behaviour.
In cases like this, where you need to move data between very different types of databases, you're going to tend to want something really reliable, robust, and, most-importantly, with its primary concern being transferring data and doing it well. Node.js is wonderful, but I would highly recommend you find some tool out there that is focused on only doing the transfer/mapping/etc. and use that regardless of what language/technology it uses. There's nothing about node.js, as much as I love it, that particularly recommends it for this sort of thing (e.g., it's best characteristics don't necessarily make it good for this sort of transfer/migration).
Better to find a mature, well-developed library that handles this sort of thing :)
Some tools/resources that turned up in my research:
mongify
SQL to MongoDB Mapping Chart
Would love if people could suggest more in comments :)
I am working on a feature and could use opinions on which database I should use to solve this problem.
We have a Rails application using MySQL. We have no issues with MySQL and it runs great. But for a new feature, we are deciding whether to stay MySQL or not. To simplify the problem, let's assume there is a User and Message model. A user can create messages. The message is delivered to other users based on their association with the poster.
Obviously there is an association based on friendship but there are many many more associations based on the user's profile. I plan to store some metadata about the poster along with the message. This way I don't have to pull the metadata each time when I query the messages.
Therefore, a message might look like this:
{
id: 1,
message: "Hi",
created_at: 1234567890,
metadata: {
user_id: 555,
category_1: null,
category_2: null,
category_3: null,
...
}
}
When I query the messages, I need to be able to query based on zero or more metadata attributes. This call needs to be fast and occurs very often.
Due to the number of metadata attributes and the fact any number can be included in a query, creating SQL indexes here doesn't seem like a good idea.
Personally, I have experience with MySQL and MongoDB. I've started research on Cassandra, HBase, Riak and CouchDB. I could use some help from people who might have done the research as to which database is the right one for my task.
And yes, the messages table can easily grow into millions or rows.
This is a very open ended question, so all we can do is give advice based on experience. The first thing to consider is if it's a good idea to decide on using something you haven't used before, instead of using MySQL, which you are familiar with. It's boring not to use shiny new things when you have the opportunity, but believe me that it's terrible when you've painted yourself in a corner because you though that the new toy would do everything it said on the box. Nothing ever works the way it says in the blog posts.
I mostly have experience with MongoDB. It's a terrible choice unless you want to spend a lot of time trying different things and realizing they don't work. Once you scale up a bit you basically can't use things like secondary indexes, updates, and other things that make Mongo an otherwise awesomely nice tool (most of this has to do with its global write lock and the database format on disk, it basically sucks at concurrency and fragments really easily if you remove data).
I don't agree that HBase is out of the question, it doesn't have secondary indexes, but you can't use those anyway once you get above a certain traffic load. The same goes for Cassandra (which is easier to deploy and work with than HBase). Basically you will have to implement your own indexing which ever solution you choose.
What you should consider is things like if you need consistency over availability, or vice versa (e.g. how bad is it if a message is lost or delayed vs. how bad is it if a user can't post or read a message), or if you will do updates to your data (e.g. data in Riak is an opaque blob, to change it you need to read it and write it back, in Cassandra, HBase and MongoDB you can add and remove properties without first reading the object). Ease of use is also an important factor, and Mongo is certainly easy to use from the programmer's perspective, and HBase is horrible, but just spend some time making your own library that encapsulates the nasty stuff, it will be worth it.
Finally, don't listen to me, try them out and see how they perform and how it feels. Make sure you try to load it as hard as you can, and make sure you test everything you will do. I've made the mistake of not testing what happens when you remove lots of data in MongoDB, and have paid for that dearly.
I would recommend to look at presentation about Why databases suck for messaging which is mainly targeted on the fact why you shouldn't use databases such as MySQL for messaging.
I think in this scenario CouchDB's changes feed may come quite handy although you probably would also have to create some more complex views based on querying message metadata. If speed is critical try to also look at redis which is really fast and comes with pub/sub functionality. MongoDB with it's ad hoc queries support may also be a decent solution for this use case.
I think you're spot-on in storing metadata along with each message! Sacrificing storage for faster retrieval time is probably the way to go. Note that it could get complicated if you ever need to change a user's metadata and propagate that to all the messages. You should consider how often that might happen, whether you'll actually need to update all the message records, and based on that whether it's worth paying the price for the sake of less queries (it probably is worth it, but that depends on the specifics of your system).
I agree with #Andrej_L that Hbase isn't the right solution for this problem. Cassandra falls in with it for the same reason.
CouchDB could solve your problem, but you're going to have to define views (materialized indices) for any metadata you're going to want to query. If the whole point of not using MySQL here is to avoid indexing everything, then Couch is probably not the right solution either.
Riak would be a much better option since it queries your data using map-reduce. That allows you to build any query you like without the need to pre-index all your data as in couch. Millions of rows are not a problem for Riak - no worries there. Should the need arise, it also scales very well by simply adding more nodes (and it can balance itself too, so this is really a non-issue).
So based on my own experience, I'd recommend Riak. However, unlike you, I've no direct experience with MongoDB so you'll have to judge it agains Riak yourself (or maybe someone else here can answer on that).
From my experience with Hbase is not good solution for your application.
Because:
Doesn't contain secondary index by default(you should install plugins or something like these). So you can effectively search only by primary key. I have implemented secondary index using hbase and additional tables. So you can't use this one in online application because of for getting result you should run map/reduce job and it will take much time on million data.
It's very difficult to support and adjust this db. For effective work you will use HBAse with Hadoop and it's necessary powerful computers or several ones.
Hbase is very useful when you need make aggregation reports on big amount of data. It seems that you needn't.
Due to the number of metadata attributes and the fact any number can
be included in a query, creating SQL indexes here doesn't seem like a
good idea.
It sounds like you need a join, so you can mostly forget about CouchDB till they sort out the multiview code that was worked on (not actually sure it is still worked on).
Riak can query as fast as you make it, depends on the nodes
Mongo will let you create an index on any field, even if that is an array
CouchDB is very different, it builds indexes using a stored Map-Reduce(but without the reduce) they call a "view"
RethinkDB will let you have SQL but a little faster
TokuDB will too
Redis will kill all in speed, but it's entirely stored in RAM
single level relations can be done in all of them, but differently for each.
Is it practical to use SQLite as the database backend for a website with, say, 300,000 unique visitors a month ?
Writes to the database will be pretty limited - user signing up or logging in, adding comments etc. The vast majority of the use will just be queries getting content based on a primary key in the URL. I'd like to know if SQLite can cope as a website backend and won't end up dramatically slower then MySQL.
I've seen this SO question and others, but they're not really the same and seem like they could be out-of-date now too. http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html suggests it'd be fine, but they might be a bit biased!
SQLite is a very cool product - and with HTML5 on the horizon, it's a good idea for any web developer to get acquainted with it. However you should bear in mind that sqlite does not scale well. If you ever need to share data across multiple webservers, it's going to be very difficult using sqlite as the data-substrate.
However to ease the development, you could look at PDO / dbx_ in PHP which provides an abstraction layer (i.e. same code talks to all sorts of databases) however there are some subtle variations between the way different systems implement stuff like transactions - and variations in SQL - if you do go down this route, I'd recommend maintaining your own abstraction layer between the PHP PDO/DBX calls and your application - think stored procedures implemented in PHP.
300,000 unique visitors a month ?
aaaarrrgghhhh! pet hate. While you need to think about how much money your site will be making in order to plan a budget, this is not a useful metric for capacity planning. Really you want to look at expected hit/page rates.
I think you would be fine. Sqlite is able to support multi-threading just fine, and as you are mostly reading from it, there shouldn't be a problem. Also, if you are writing to it, it fully supports transactions as well. You have to remember though that it's still just one file and no service - so if you are going to cluster it you will be out of luck. Maybe you should check what problems exactly you have with mysql and solve them.
sqlite is very fast, but it becomes difficult to use once you need to cluster. However pretty much all databases are difficult once you need to cluster. If you are read oriented, it shouldn't matter too much which you use. Just make sure you are using memcached.
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.