I have created a webpage for doctors where there are doctors, patients, and diagnoses stored in the database. There is an option to delete either of these entries (e.g. delete a doctor instance), but in, order to avoid data loss, I want to archive the data instead of deleting it entirely. I have found 2 options to do these:
1 - Keep an archive collection (e.g. doctors-archive, patients-archive) to move the entry there from the original collection.
2 - Keep an attribute isDeleted inside the original collection, so when an entry is deleted, isDeleted will become true, and when fetching the entries with isDeleted=true will not be returned.
Both of these options have their drawbacks - 1st option makes it hard to keep relations, as the patient and doctor have relations and if one of them is deleted the relation will be lost. The second option makes the original collection too heavy as the data will never be removed from it.
Is there a better option than these 2 to store archived data? If not, which of these options are better?
It's a very good discussion. I had the same confusion in one of my projects, and after a long research I found a solution that fit well my needs.
First of all, I found that the suppression is not reputed, developers avoid this action to avoid data loss wrongly.
Furthermore, the suppression of data has another disadvantages:
It will lead to having more data into your system, because you will create new models & collections (e.g., doctors-archive model for doctors model).
This will have a significant impact on the performance of the system: the suppression will be done after 3 (and may be more) queries:
find(): to select the object to be deleted.
insert(): to create an archive instance for the object to be deleted.
delete(): to delete the object.
Note that we can not use the findOneAndDelete() method since we have to create an archive instance before !
Contrariwise, the second option can be done by 1 query: findAndModify().
But, the best solution is not the first one, nor the second one ! But a combination of both of them: it consists of cleaning your data after a specific period (every 4 months for example).
In other worlds, when deleting an instance, you apply the 2nd solution (i.e., isDeleted = true), but after 4 months, you can delete this instance from the collection and keep a copy in the archive (also called backup). This solution will prevent the original collection from being too heavy.
Note that you can also have a separately backup database to avoid use of the originale database.
Both of these options have their drawbacks - 1st option makes it hard to keep relations, as the patient and doctor have relations and if one of them is deleted the relation will be lost. The second option makes the original collection too heavy as the data will never be removed from it. => What kind of relationship are you talking about?
If you still need a document post it is archived there has to be a middle ground there and by the why in those scenarios the data isn't lost you still have the power to do $lookup.
Based on my experience the option 2 has way too many negatives, it leads often to range index scans and on top of it you are maintaining extra burden for the indexes too where isDeleted will become part of every index you create.
TLDR; Definitely option 1 and if you need to query on archived content then use $lookup.
There are some techniques for mongodb which you can use to manage data growth in MongoDB:
Using capped collection
Using TTLs
Using multiple collections for months( rename old one and keep data in new one only)
Related
I have followed through Bookshelf App tutorial (in node.js) by google and instead of books catalogue I would like to model a production part catalogue.
Where a part consists of "sub"-parts and tasks.
Every "sub"-part can have again "sub"-parts and tasks (manufacturing steps).
Current implementation: At the moment I have only two kinds Parts and Tasks.
A relations between the parts is managed via a property storing the unique key (parentId) of the parent part in its child part. A bigger headache I have at the moment (for example) is a price change of a highly nested sub-part would be recursively need to update all parent parts...
Question: What would be the recommended datastore design for such an application?
It should solve or be more efficient doing:
If i change a "sub-sub-sub"-parts price this need to change the price of all parent parts according the chosen calculation methodology.
Should not be limited in depth of sub-parts (I did read limits on datastore "nested entity values" to be 20 (but probably did not understand it correctly).
Should not be limited to 1 write per second per (part and all its sub-parts) "entity group". I've read about this limit but I am not sure whether this also applies to so called Transactions (which I think you can do on entity groups).
One potential solution is avoid storing aggregate prices in Datastore entirely. Instead, the "price" on each part or task should only include the cost of that thing itself, but not the sub-parts.
Instead calculate the price on the fly when needed, adding up the entire tree of parts/sub-parts/tasks. Store this in memcache if you want to speed up calculation (but make sure to delete the memcache key when updating prices).
I have two sets of data in the same collection in cosmos, one are 'posts' and the other are 'users', they are linked by the posts users create.
Currently my structure is as follows;
// user document
{
id: 123,
postIds: ['id1','id2']
}
// post document
{
id: 'id1',
ownerId: 123
}
{
id: 'id2',
ownerId: 123
}
My main issue with this setup is the fungible nature of it, code has to enforce the link and if there's a bug data will very easily be lost with no clear way to recover it.
I'm also concerned about performance, if a user has 10,000 posts that's 10,000 lookups I'll have to do to resolve all the posts..
Is this the correct method for modelling entity relationships?
As said by David, it's a long discussion but it is a very common one so, since I have on hour or so of "free" time, I'm more than glad to try to answer it, once for all, hopefully.
WHY NORMALIZE?
First thing I notice in your post: you are looking for some level of referential integrity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_integrity) which is something that is needed when you decompose a bigger object into its constituent pieces. Also called normalization.
While this is normally done in a relational database, it is now also becoming popular in non-relational database since it helps a lot to avoid data duplication which usually creates more problem than what it solves.
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/data-model-design/#normalized-data-models
But do you really need it? Since you have chosen to use JSON document database, you should leverage the fact that it's able to store the entire document and then just store the document ALONG WITH all the owner data: name, surname, or all the other data you have about the user who created the document. Yes, I’m saying that you may want to evaluate not to have post and user, but just posts, with user info inside it.This may be actually very correct, as you will be sure to get the EXACT data for the user existing at the moment of post creation. Say for example I create a post and I have biography "X". I then update my biography to "Y" and create a new post. The two post will have different author biographies and this is just right, as they have exactly captured reality.
Of course you may want to also display a biography in an author page. In this case you'll have a problem. Which one you'll use? Probably the last one.
If all authors, in order to exist in your system, MUST have blog post published, that may well be enough. But maybe you want to have an author write its biography and being listed in your system, even before he writes a blog post.
In such case you need to NORMALIZE the model and create a new document type, just for authors. If this is your case, then, you also need to figure out how to handler the situation described before. When the author will update its own biography, will you just update the author document, or create a new one? If you create a new one, so that you can keep track of all changes, will you also update all the previous post so that they will reference the new document, or not?
As you can see the answer is complex, and REALLY depends on what kind of information you want to capture from the real world.
So, first of all, figure out if you really need to keep posts and users separated.
CONSISTENCY
Let’s assume that you really want to have posts and users kept in separate documents, and thus you normalize your model. In this case, keep in mind that Cosmos DB (but NoSQL in general) databases DO NOT OFFER any kind of native support to enforce referential integrity, so you are pretty much on your own. Indexes can help, of course, so you may want to index the ownerId property, so that before deleting an author, for example, you can efficiently check if there are any blog post done by him/her that will remain orphans otherwise.
Another option is to manually create and keep updated ANOTHER document that, for each author, keeps track of the blog posts he/she has written. With this approach you can just look at this document to understand which blog posts belong to an author. You can try to keep this document automatically updated using triggers, or do it in your application. Just keep in mind, that when you normalize, in a NoSQL database, keep data consistent is YOUR responsibility. This is exactly the opposite of a relational database, where your responsibility is to keep data consistent when you de-normalize it.
PERFORMANCES
Performance COULD be an issue, but you don't usually model in order to support performances in first place. You model in order to make sure your model can represent and store the information you need from the real world and then you optimize it in order to have decent performance with the database you have chose to use. As different database will have different constraints, the model will then be adapted to deal with that constraints. This is nothing more and nothing less that the good old “logical” vs “physical” modeling discussion.
In Cosmos DB case, you should not have queries that go cross-partition as they are more expensive.
Unfortunately partitioning is something you chose once and for all, so you really need to have clear in your mind what are the most common use case you want to support at best. If the majority of your queries are done on per author basis, I would partition per author.
Now, while this may seems a clever choice, it will be only if you have A LOT of authors. If you have only one, for example, all data and queries will go into just one partition, limiting A LOT your performance. Remember, in fact, that Cosmos DB RU are split among all the available partitions: with 10.000 RU, for example, you usually get 5 partitions, which means that all your values will be spread across 5 partitions. Each partition will have a top limit of 2000 RU. If all your queries use just one partition, your real maximum performance is that 2000 and not 10000 RUs.
I really hope this help you to start to figure out the answer. And I really hope this help to foster and grow a discussion (how to model for a document database) that I think it is really due and mature now.
I'm planning to implement this schema in MongoDB, I have been doing some readings about schema design, and the notion was whenever you structure your data like a relational database you must be doing something wrong.
My questions:
what should I do when collection size gets larger than 16MB limit?
app_log in server_log collections gets might in some cases grow larger than 16MB depending how busy the server is.
I'm aware of the cap feature that I could use, but the requirement is store all logs for 90 days.
Do you see any potential issues with my design?
Is it a good practice to have the application check collection size and create new collection by day / hour ..etc to accommodate log size growth?
Thanks
Your collection size is not restricted to 16MB, as one of the comments pointed out, you can check in the MongoDB manual that it is the largest document size. So there is no need to separate the same class of data between different collections, in fact it would be a major headache for you to do so :) One user collection, one for your servers and one for your server_logs. You can then create references from one collection to the next by using the id field.
Whether this is a good design or not will depend on your queries. In general, you want to avoid using joins in Mongo (they're still possible, but if you're doing a bunch of joins, you're using it wrong, and really should use a relational DB :-)
For example, if most of your queries are on the server_log collection and only use the fields in that collection, then you'll be fine. OTOH, if your server_log queries always need to pull in data from the server collection as well (say for example the name and userId fields), then it might be worth selectively denormalizing that data. That's a fancy way of saying, you may wish to copy the name and userId fields into your server_log documents, so that your queries can avoid having to join with the server collection. Of course, every time you denormalize, you add complexity to your application which must now ensure that the data is consistent across multiple collections (e.g., when you change the server name, you have to make sure you change it in the server_logs, too).
You may wish to make a list of the queries you expect to perform, and see if they can be done with a minimum of joins with your current schema. If not, see if a little denormalization will help. If you're getting to the point where either you need to do a bunch of joins or a lot of manual management of denormalized data in order to satisfy your queries, then you may need to rethink your schema or even your choice of DB.
what should I do when collection size gets larger than 16MB limit
In Mongodb there is no limit for collection size. Limit is exist for each document. Each document should not exceed the size of 16 MB.
Do you see any potential issues with my design?
No issue with above design
I'm not yet ready to let this go, which is why I re-thought the problem and edited the Q (original below).
I am using mongoDB for a weekend project and it requires some relations in the DB, which is what the misery is all about:
I have three collections:
Users
Lists
Texts
A user can have texts and lists - lists 'contain' texts. Texts can be in multiple lists.
I decided to go with separate collections (not embeds) because child documents don't always appear in context of their parent (eg. all texts, without being in a list).
So what needs to be done is reference the texts that belong into certain lists with exactly those lists. There can be unlimited lists and texts, though lists will be less in comparison.
In contrast to what I first thought of, I could also put the reference in every single text-document and not all text-ids in the list-documents. It would actually make a difference, because I could get away with one query to find every snippet in a list. Could even index that reference.
var TextSchema = new Schema({
_id: Number,
name: String,
inListID: { type : Array , "default" : [] },
[...]
It is also rather seldom the case that texts will be in MANY lists, so the array would not really explode. The question kind of remains though, is there a chance this scales or actually a better way of implementing it with mongoDB? Would it help to limit the amount of lists a text can be in (probably)? Is there a recipe for few:many relations?
It would even be awesome to get references to projects where this has been done and how it was implemented (few:many relations). I can't believe everybody shies away from mongo DB as soon as some relations are needed.
Original Question
I'll break it down in two problems I see so far:
1) Let's assume a list consists of 5 texts. How do I reference the texts contained in a list? Just open an array and store the text's _ids in there? Seems like those arrays might grow to the moon and back, slowing the app down? On the other hand texts need to be available without a list, so embedding is not really an option. What if I want to get all texts of a list that contains 100 texts.. sounds like two queries and an array with 100 fields :-/. So is this way of referencing the proper way to do it?
var ListSchema = new Schema({
_id: Number,
name: String,
textids: { type : Array , "default" : [] },
[...]
Problem 2) I see with this approach is cleaning the references if a text is deleted. Its reference will still be in every list that contained the text and I wouldn't want to iterate through all the lists to clean out those dead references. Or would I? Is there a smart way to solve this? Just making the texts hold the reference (in which list they are) just moves the problem around, so that's not an option.
I guess I'm not the first with this sort of problem but I was also unable to find a definitive answer on how to do it 'right'.
I'm also interested in general thoughts on best-practice for this sort of referencing (many-to-many?) and especially scalability/performance.
Relations are usually not a big problem, though certain operations involving relations might be. That depends largely on the problem you're trying to solve, and very strongly on the cardinality of the result set and the selectivity of the keys.
I have written a simple testbed that generates data following a typical long-tail distribution to play with. It turns out that MongoDB is usually better at relations than people believe.
After all, there are only three differences to relational databases:
Foreign key constraints: You have to manage these yourself, so there's some risk for dead links
Transaction isolation: Since there are no multi-document transactions, there's some likelihood for creating invalid foreign key constraints even if the code is correct (in the sense that it never tries to create a dead link), but merely interrupted at runtime. Also, it is hard to check for dead links because you could be observing a race condition
Joins: MongoDB doesn't support joins, though a manual subquery with $in does scale well up to several thousand items in the $in-clause, provided the reference values are indexed, of course
Iff you need to perform large joins, i.e. if your queries are truly relational and you need large amount of the data joined accordingly, MongoDB is probably not a good fit. However, many joins required in relational databases aren't truly relational, they are required because you had to split up your object to multiple tables, for instance because it contains a list.
An example of a 'truly' relational query could be "Find me all customers who bought products that got >4 star reviews by customers that ranked high in turnover in June". Unless you have a very specialized schema that essentially was built to support this query, you'll most likely need to find all the orders, group them by customer ids, take the top n results, use these to query ratings using $in and use another $in to find the actual customers. Still, if you can limit yourself to the top, say 10k customers of June, this is three round-trips and some fast $in queries.
That will probably be in the range of 10-30ms on typical cloud hardware as long as your queries are supported by indexes in RAM and the network isn't completely congested. In this example, things get messy if the data is too sparse, i.e. the top 10k users hardly wrote >4 star reviews, which would force you to write program logic that is smart enough to keep iterating the first step which is both complicated and slow, but if that is such an important scenario, there is probably a better suited data structure anyway.
Using MongoDB with references is a gateway to performance issues. Perfect example of what not to use. This is a m:n kind of relation where m and n can scale to millions. MongoDB works well where we have 1:n(few), 1:n(many), m(few):n(many). But not in situations where you have m(many):n(many). It will obviously result in 2 queries and lot of housekeeping.
I am not sure that is this question still actual, but i have similar experience.
First of all i want to say what tells official mongo documentation:
Use embedded data models when: you have one-to-one or one-to-many model.
For model many-to-many use relationships with document references.
I think is the answer) but this answer provide a lot of problems because:
As were mentioned, mongo don't provide transactions at all.
And you don't have foreign key constraints.
Even if you have references (DBRefs) between documents, you will be faced with amazing problem how to dereference this documents.
Each this item - is huge piece of responsibility, even if you work at weekend project. And it might mean that you should be write many code to provide simple behaviour of your system (for example you can see how realize transaction in mongo here).
I have no idea how done foreign key constraints, and i don't saw something in this direction in mongo documentation, that's why i think that it amazing challenge (and risk for project).
And the last, mongo references - it isn't mysql join, and you dont receive all data from parent collection with data from child collection (like all fields from table and all fields from joined table in mysql), you will receive just REFERENCE to another document in another collection, and you will need to do something with this reference (dereference).
It can be easily reached in node by callback, but only in case when you need just one text from one list, but if you need all texts in one list - it's terrible, but if you need all texts in more than one list - it's become nightmare...
Perhaps it's my not the best experience... but i think you should think about it...
Using array in MongoDB is generally not preferable, and generally not advised by experts.
Here is a solution that came to my mind :
Each document of Users is always unique. There can be Lists and Texts for individual document in Users. So therefore, Lists and Texts have a Field for USER ID, which will be the _id of Users.
Lists always have an owner in Users so they are stored as they are.
Owner of Texts can be either Users or List, so you should keep a Field of LIST ID also in it, which will be _id of Lists.
Now mind that Texts cannot have both USER ID and LIST ID, so you will have to keep a condition that there should be only ONE out of both, the other should be null so that we can easily know who is the primary owner of the Texts.
Writing an answer as I want to explain how I will proceed from here.
Taking into consideration the answers here and my own research on the topic, it might actually be fine storing those references (not really relations) in an array, trying to keep it relativley small: less than 1000 fields is very likely in my case.
Especially because I can get away with one query (which I first though I couldn't) that doen't even require using $in so far, I'm confident that the approach will scale. After all it's 'just a weekend-project', so if it doesn't and I end up re-writing - that's fine.
With a text-schema like this:
var textSchema = new Schema({
_id: {type: Number, required: true, index: { unique: true }},
...
inList: { type : [Number] , "default" : [], index: true }
});
I can simply get all texts in a list with this query, where inList is an indexed array containing the _ids of the texts in the list.
Text.find({inList: listID}, function(err, text) {
...
});
I will still have to deal with foreign key constraints and write my own "clean-up" functions that take care of removing references if a list is removed - remove reference in every text that was in the list.
Luckily this will happen very rarely, so I'm okay with going through every text once in a while.
On the other hand I don't have to care about deleting references in a list-document if a text is removed, because I only store the reference on one side of the relation (in the text-document). Quite an important point in my opinion!
#mnemosyn: thanks for the link and pointing out that this is indeed not a large join or in other words: just a very simple relation. Also some numbers on how long those complex operations take (ofc. hardware dependet) is a big help.
PS: Grüße aus Bielefeld.
What I found most helpful during my own research was this vid, where Alvin Richards also talks about many-to-many relations at around min. 17. This is where I got the idea of making the relation one-sided to save myself some work cleaning up the dead references.
Thanks for the help guys
👍
We have a decent sized object-oriented application. Whenever an object in the app is changed, the object changes are saved back to the DB. However, this has become less than ideal.
Currently, transactions are stored as a transaction and a set of transactionLI's.
The transaction table has fields for who, what, when, why, foreignKey, and foreignTable. The first four are self-explanatory. ForeignKey and foreignTable are used to determine which object changed.
TransactionLI has timestamp, key, val, oldVal, and a transactionID. This is basically a key/value/oldValue storage system.
The problem is that these two tables are used for every object in the application, so they're pretty big tables now. Using them for anything is slow. Indexes only help so much.
So we're thinking about other ways to do something like this. Things we've considered so far:
- Sharding these tables by something like the timestamp.
- Denormalizing the two tables and merge them into one.
- A combination of the two above.
- Doing something along the lines of serializing each object after a change and storing it in subversion.
- Probably something else, but I can't think of it right now.
The whole problem is that we'd like to have some mechanism for properly storing and searching through transactional data. Yeah you can force feed that into a relational database, but really, it's transactional data and should be stored accordingly.
What is everyone else doing?
We have taken the following approach:-
All objects are serialised (using the standard XMLSeriliser) but we have decorated our classes with serialisation attributes so that the resultant XML is much smaller (storing elements as attributes and dropping vowels on field names for example). This could be taken a stage further by compressing the XML if necessary.
The object repository is accessed via a SQL view. The view fronts a number of tables that are identical in structure but the table name appended with a GUID. A new table is generated when the previous table has reached critical mass (a pre-determined number of rows)
We run a nightly archiving routine that generates the new tables and modifies the views accordingly so that calling applications do not see any differences.
Finally, as part of the overnight routine we archive any old object instances that are no longer required to disk (and then tape).
I've never found a great end all solution for this type of problem. Some things you can try is if your DB supports partioning (or even if it doesn't you can implement the same concept your self), but partion this log table by object type and then you can further partion by date/time or by your object ID (if your ID is a numeric this works nicely not sure how a guid would partion).
This will help maintain the size of the table and keep all related transactions to a single instance of an object to itself.
One idea you could explore is instead of storing each field in a name value pair table, you could store the data as a blob (either text or binary). For example serialize the object to Xml and store it in a field.
The downside of this is that as your object changes you have to consider how this affects all historical data if your using Xml then there are easy ways to update the historical xml structures, if your using binary there are ways but you have to be more concious of the effort.
I've had awsome success storing a rather complex object model that has tons of interelations as a blob (the xml serializer in .net didn't handle the relationships btw the objects). I could very easily see myself storing the binary data. A huge downside of storing it as binary data is that to access it you have to take it out of the database with Xml if your using a modern database like MSSQL you can access the data.
One last approach is to split the two patterns, you could define a Difference Schema (and I assume more then one property changes at a time) so for example imagine storing this xml:
<objectDiff>
<field name="firstName" newValue="Josh" oldValue="joshua"/>
<field name="lastName" newValue="Box" oldValue="boxer"/>
</objectDiff>
This will help alleviate the number of rows, and if your using MSSQL you can define an XML Schema and get some of the rich querying ability around the object. You can still partition the table.
Josh
Depending on the characteristics of your specific application an alternative approach is to keep revisions of the entities themselves in their respective tables, together with the who, what, why and when per revision. The who, what and when can still be foreign keys.
Although I would be very careful to use this approach, since this is only viable for applications with a relatively small amount of changes per entity/entity type.
If querying the data is important I would use true Partitioning in SQL Server 2005 and above if you have enterprise edition of SQL Server. We have millions of rows partitioned by year down to day for the current month - you can be as granular as your application demands with a maximum number of 1000 partitions.
Alternatively , if you are using SQL 2008 you could look into filtered indexes.
These are solutions that will enable you to retain the simplified structure you have whilst providing the performance you need to query that data.
Splitting/Archiving older changes obviously should be considered.