I am trying to prevent duplicate insertion of an item into the collection due to multiple parallel requests at the same time.
My business logic is, if i dont have an unique item XYZ in the collection,
I will insert it. Otherwise i will just return the document.
Now these item cannot be duplicate in db.
In case of multiple concurrent requests in Nodejs, we are getting duplicate items in the database, as all the requests when read from database at same time, finds the item to not be present and then insert the item leading to duplication.
I know we can prevent this using unique indexes, but i don’t want to use indexes as the collection is very large and holds different kind of data, and we are already using heavy indexing on other collections.
Kindly suggest some other methods how can i handle this?
I can use indexes, but need other solution to avoid memory ram over usage.
Are you using insert? If so, I'd suggest using update with opts upsert=true. This, however, is only atomic when there is a unique index, according to this.
Other than that I don't know if you're using any sort of mutex for your concurrency, if not, you should look into it. Here is a good place to start.
Without either atomic operations or mutex locks, you're not guaranteed any data race safety in parallel threads.
Related
I am finding some difficulties in the data modeling of an application which may involve the use of counters.
The app is basically a messaging app. Messages are bounded for free users, hence the initial plan of using a counter column to keep track of the total count.
I've discovered that batches (logged or not) cannot contain operations on both standard tables and counter ones. How do I ensure correctness if I cannot batch the operation I am trying to perform and the counter update together? Is the counter type really needed if there's basically no race condition on the column, being that associated to each individual user?
My second idea would be to use a standard int column to use only inside batches. Is this a viable option?
Thank you
If you can absolutely guarantee that each user will produce only one update at time then you could rely on plain ints to perform the job.
The problem however is that you will need to perform a read-before-write anti-pattern. You could solve this as well, eg skipping the read part by caching your ints and performing in-memory updates followed by writes only. This is viable by coupling your system with a caching server (e.g. Redis).
And thinking about it, you should still need to read these counters at some point, because if the number of messages a free user can send is bound to some value then you need to perform a check when they login/try to send a new message/look at the dashboard/etc and block their action.
Another option (if you store the messages sent by each user somewhere and don't want to add complexity to your system) could be to directly count them with a SELECT COUNT... type query, even if this could be become pretty inefficient very soon in the Cassandra world.
I am going to do a project using nodejs and mongodb. We are designing the schema of database, we are not sure that whether we need to use different collections or same collection to store the data. Because each has its own pros and cons.
If we use single collection, whenever the database is invoked, total collection will be loaded into memory which reduces the RAM capacity.If we use different collections then to retrieve data we need to write different queries. By using one collection retrieving will be easy and by using different collections application will become faster. We are confused whether to use single collection or multiple collections. Please Guide me which one is better.
Usually you use different collections for different things. For example when you have users and articles in the systems, you usually create a "users" collection for users and "articles" collection for articles. You could create one collection called "objects" or something like that and put everything there but it would mean you would have to add some type fields and use it for searches and storage of data. You can use a single collection in the database but it would make the usage more complicated. Of course it would let you to load the entire collection at once but whether or not it is relevant for the performance of your application, that is something that would have to be profiled and tested to give your the performance impact for your particular use case.
Usually, developers create the different collection for different things. Like for post management, people create 'post' collection and save the posts in post collection and same for users and all.
Using different collection for different purpose is a good pratices.
MongoDB is great at scaling horizontally. It can shard a collection across a dynamic cluster to produce a fast, querable collection of your data.
So having a smaller collection size is not really a pro and I am not sure where this theory comes that it is, it isn't in SQL and it isn't in MongoDB. The performance of sharding, if done well, should be relative to the performance of querying a single small collection of data (with a small overhead). If it isn't then you have setup your sharding wrong.
MongoDB is not great at scaling vertically, as #Sushant quoted, the ns size of MongoDB would be a serious limitation here. One thing that quote does not mention is that index size and count also effect the ns size hence why it describes that:
By default MongoDB has a limit of approximately 24,000 namespaces per
database. Each namespace is 628 bytes, the .ns file is 16MB by
default.
Each collection counts as a namespace, as does each index. Thus if
every collection had one index, we can create up to 12,000
collections. The --nssize parameter allows you to increase this limit
(see below).
Be aware that there is a certain minimum overhead per collection -- a
few KB. Further, any index will require at least 8KB of data space as
the b-tree page size is 8KB. Certain operations can get slow if there
are a lot of collections and the meta data gets paged out.
So you won't be able to gracefully handle it if your users exceed the namespace limit. Also it won't be high on performance with the growth of your userbase.
UPDATE
For Mongodb 3.0 or above using WiredTiger storage engine, it will no longer be the limit.
Yes personally I think having multiple collections in a DB keeps it nice and clean. The only thing I would worry about is the size of the collections. Collections are used by a lot of developers to cut up their db into, for example, posts, comments, users.
Sorry about my grammar and lack of explanation I'm on my phone
I am taking a look at Cassandra's CQL collections (list, set, map) and I can't find a reliable source stating on their concurrency.
I want to know if having multiple writers adding different elements to the same set is supported.
From what I read of the implementation (http://www.opensourceconnections.com/blog/2013/07/24/understanding-how-cql3-maps-to-cassandras-internal-data-structure-sets-lists-and-maps/) it seems that sets are implemented using columns, so I should be safe.
But on the other hand, I've read here and there that the operations on the collections always triggered a full read (even writes). This suggests that I could get in trouble if multiple writers were using the same collection.
So can I (and should I) use collection from multiple writers? (And also, the documentation mentions that collections should be used for "small amount of data", how much would that be? Tens, hundreds, thousands?
Updates are atomic which should include any collections in the row. So it should be fine to have multiple writers.
"In an UPDATE statement, all updates within the same partition key are applied atomically and in isolation."
http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/cql3/CQL.html#updateStmt
"Values of items in collections are limited to 64K"
http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.0/cql/ddl/ddlWhenCollections.html
Cheers,
So I've been trying to wrap my head around this one for weeks, but I just can't seem to figure it out. So MongoDB isn't equipped to deal with rollbacks as we typically understand them (i.e. when a client adds information to the database, like a username for example, but quits in the middle of the registration process. Now the DB is left with some "hanging" information that isn't assocaited with anything. How can MongoDb handle that? Or if no one can answer that question, maybe they can point me to a source/example that can? Thanks.
MongoDB does not support transactions, you can't perform atomic multistatement transactions to ensure consistency. You can only perform an atomic operation on a single collection at a time. When dealing with NoSQL databases you need to validate your data as much as you can, they seldom complain about something. There are some workarounds or patterns to achieve SQL like transactions. For example, in your case, you can store user's information in a temporary collection, check data validity, and store it to user's collection afterwards.
This should be straight forwards, but things get more complicated when we deal with multiple documents. In this case, you need create a designated collection for transactions. For instance,
transaction collection
{
id: ..,
state : "new_transaction",
value1 : values From document_1 before updating document_1,
value2 : values From document_2 before updating document_2
}
// update document 1
// update document 2
Ooohh!! something went wrong while updating document 1 or 2? No worries, we can still restore the old values from the transaction collection.
This pattern is known as compensation to mimic the transactional behavior of SQL.
I'm currently writing a Node app and I'm thinking ahead in scaling. As I understand, horizontal scaling is one of the easier ways to scale up an application to handle more concurrent requests. My working copy currently uses MongoDb on the backend.
My question is thus this: I have a data structure that resembles a linked list that requires the order to be strictly maintained. My (imaginary) concern is that when there is a race condition to the database via multiple node instances, it is possible that the resolution of the linked list will be incorrect.
To give an example: Imagine the server having this list a->b. Instance 1 comes in with object c and instance 2 comes in with object d. It is possible that there is a race condition in which both instances read a->b and decides to append their own objects to the list. Instance 1 will then imagine it's insertion to be a->b->c while instance 2 think it's a->b->d when the database actually holds a->b->c->d.
In general, this sounds like a job for optimistic locking, however, as I understand, neither MongoDB or Redis (the other database that I am considering) does transactions in the SQL manner.
I therefore imagine the solution to be one of the below:
Implement my own transaction in MongoDB using flags. The client does a findAndModify on the lock variable and if successful, performs the operations. If unsuccessful, the client retries after a certain timeout.
Use Redis transactions and pubsub to achieve the same effect. I'm not exactly sure how to do this yet, but it sounds like it might be plausible.
Implement some sort of smart load balancing. If multiple clients is operating on the same item, route them to the same instance. Since JS is single threaded, the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, I didn't find a straightforward solution to that.
I sure there exists a better, more elegant way to achieve the above, and I would love to hear any solutions or suggestions. Thank you!
If I understood correctly, and the list is being stored as one single document, you might be looking at row versioning. So add a property to the document that will handle the version, when you update, you increase (or change) the version and you make that a conditional update:
//update(condition, value)
update({version: whateverYouReceivedWhenYouDidFind}, newValue)
Hope it helps.
Gus
You want the findAndModify command on mongodb that will guarantee an atomic modification while returning the newly modified doc. As the changes are serial and atomic instance 1 will have a->b->c and instance 2 will have a->b->c->d
Cheers
If all you are doing is adding new elements to the list, you could use a Redis list and include the time in every value you add. The list may be unsorted on redis but should be quickly sortable when retrieved.