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).
Related
In one article of msdn,
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/documentation/articles/documentdb-partition-data/,
there is a line which specifies that "sub-partitioning" or "complex partitioning" can be done. Does this mean :
There can be sub-partitioning inside a collection?
In a single DocumentDb, there can be more than one partitioning logic? For example, I will have four collections inside a single Document Db. Can two of them can be based on hash and the other two on range?
If either of those answers is YES, then can someone provide me a link that might lead me to an example of the same?
Answers:
There is no explicit method to sub-partition data within a collection. It's common to use a field to represent the type of document or to have isTypeA: true key value pairs on each document, but that's a convention that your application adopts. However, you can create multiple databases (default limit 5 but may be extended upon request) per account and each can have their own set of collections. I'm using that two-level hierarchy in (temporalize-api). TenantID determines my top-level partitioning (database) using a lookup table plus defaults. This allows me to pull critical or high value tenants into a less loaded database and leave everyone else in the default. I use a consistent hash on the EntityID for second-level partitioning (collection).
Sure, there is nothing preventing you from doing that. Pay particular attention to the excellent discussion in the last section (Developing a partitioned application) in the Aravind article you linked to. It includes a checklist of things you'll need to decide upon and implement. The partition resolvers provided for the .NET SDK do not take care of these issues for you.
I haven't yet seen open source examples of what I would consider a complete system including balancing when capacity is added, where to store the partition maps/meta-data, and query fan-out/aggregate optimization. I have a node.js one under way (temporalize-api) and actually in production. I've made decisions about how I'm going to do balancing and query fan-out and those are documented in the comments in that linked file, but I have not implemented all of them. I store the partition meta-data in the "first" collection of the "first" database.
There is a requirement to keep a list of top-10 localities in a city from where demand for our food service is emanating at any given instant. The city could have tens of thousands of localities.
If one has to make a near real time (lag no more than 5 minutes) datastore in memory that would
- keep count of incoming demand by locality (geo hash)
- reads by hundreds of our suppliers every minute (the ajax refresh is every minute)
I was thinking of a multi threaded synchronized max-heap. This would be a complex solution as tree locking is by itself a complex implementation.
Any recommendations for the best in-memory (replicatable master slave) data structure that can be read and updated in multi threaded environment?
We expect 10K QPS and 100K updates per second. When we scale to other cities and regions, we will need per city implementation of top-10.
Are there any off the shelf solutions available?
Persistence is not a need so no mySQL based solutions. If you recommend redis or mongo DB solution, please realize that the queries are not pointed-queries by key but a top-N query instead.
Thanks in advance.
If you're looking for exactly what you're describing, there are a few approaches that might work nicely. There are several papers describing concurrent data structures that could work as priority queues; here is one option that I'm not super familiar with but which looks promising. You might also want to check out concurrent skip lists, which should also match your requirements.
If I'm interpreting your problem statement correctly, you're hoping to maintain a top-10 list of locations based on the number of hits you receive. If that's the case, I would suspect that while the number of updates would be huge, the number of times that two locations would switch positions would not actually be all that large. In other words, most updates wouldn't actually require the data structure to change shape. Consequently, you could consider using a standard binary heap where each element uses an atomic-compare-and-set integer key and where you have some kind of locking system that's used only in the case where you need to add, move, or delete an element from the heap.
Given the scale that you're working at, you may also want to consider approximate solutions to your problem. The count-min sketch data structure, for example, was specifically designed to estimate frequent elements in a data stream and does so extremely quickly. It can easily be distributed and linked up with a priority queue in a manner similar to what I described above. There are lots of good implementations out there, and if I remember correctly this data structure is actually deployed in situations like the one you're describing.
Hope this helps!
I am developing an Azure based website and I want to provide search capabilities using Lucene. (structured json objects would be indexed and stored in Lucene and other content such as Word documents, etc. would be indexed in lucene but stored in blob storage) I want the search to be secure, such that one user would never see a document belonging to another user. I want to allow ad-hoc searches as typed by the user. Lastly, I want to query programmatically to return predefined sets of data, such as "all notes for user X". I think I understand how to add properties to each document to achieve these 3 objectives. (I am listing them here so if anyone is kind enough to answer, they will have better idea of what I am trying to do)
My questions revolve around performance and security.
Can I improve document security by having a separate index for each user, or is including the user's ID as a parameter in each search sufficient?
Can I improve indexing speed and total throughput of the system by having a separate index for each user? My thinking is that having separate indexes would allow me to scale the system by having multiple index writers (perhaps even on different server instances) working at the same time, each on their own index.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Nate
Of course, one index.
You can do even better than what you suggested by using ManifoldCF (Apache product that knows how to handle Solr) to manage security.
And one off topic, uninformed suggestion: I'd rather use CloudBees or Heroku (or Amazon) instead of Azure.
Until you will use several machines for indexing I guess it's more convenient to use single index. Lucene community done a lot of work to make indexing process as efficient as it can. So unless you intentionally want to implement distributed indexing I doesn't recommend you to split indexes.
However there are several reasons why you would want to split indexes:
if your machine have several IO devices which could be utilized in parallel. In this case, if you are IO bound, splitting indexes is good idea.
splitting document fields between indexes (this is what ParallelReader is supposed for). This is more exotic form of splitting, but it may be a good idea if search is performed using different groups of fields. Suppose, we have two search query types: the first is using field name and type, and the second is using fields price and discount. If those fields are updated at different rate (I guess, name updates are far more rarely than price updates), updating only part of index would require less IO resources. This will give more overall throughput to the system.
I'm new to DDD so please executes me if some term/understanding are bit off. But please correct me and any advice are appreciated.
Let's say I'm doing a social job board site, and I've identified my aggregate roots: Candidates, Jobs, and Companies. Very different things/contexts so each has own database table, repository, and service. But now I have to build a Pinterest style homepage where data blocks show data for either a Candidate, a Job, or a Company.
Now the tricky part is the data blocks have to be ordered by the last time something happened to the aggregate it represents (a company is liked/commented, or a job was update, etc), and paging occurs in form of infinite scrolling, again just like Pinterest. Since things occur to these aggregates independently I do not have a way to know how many of what aggregate is on any particular page. (but if I did btw, say a table that tracks aggregates' last update time, have I no choice but to promote this to be another aggregate root, with it's own repository?)
Where would I implement the paging logic? I read somewhere that there should be one service per repository per aggregate root, so should I sort and page in controller (I'm using MVC by the way)? Or should there be a independent Application Service that does cross boundary stuff like this? Either case I have to fetch ALL entities for ALL aggregates from db?
That's too many questions already but I'm basically asking:
Is paging presentation, business, or persistence logic? Which horizontal layer?
Where should cross boundary code reside in DDD? Which vertical stack?
Several things come to mind.
How fresh does this aggregated data need to be? I doubt realtime is going to add much value. Talk to a business person and bargain for some latency. This will allow you to build a simpler solution to the problem.
Why not have some process do the scanning, aggregation, sorting and store the result of that asynchronously? Doesn't even need to be in a database (Redis). The bargained latency could be the interval at which to run your process.
Paging is hardly a business decision concern in your example. You just need to provide infinite scrolling and some ajax calls that fetch the cached, aggregated, sorted information. This has little to do with DDD.
Your UI artifacts and the aggregation, sorting process seem to be very much a thing on their own, working together with the data or - better yet - a datacomponent of each context that provides the data in the desired format.
Should I be generating the id of the documents in a CouchDB or should I depend on CouchDB to generate it? What are the advantages or disadvantages in these approaches? Is there any performance implications on any of these options?
There is no difference as far as CouchDB is concerned. Frederick is right that sequential ids are slightly faster. If you query /_uuids?count=10 you will notice that the UUIDs are sequential (by default).
However, even with random IDs, once you run compaction, they will all be in the "right" order internally in the .couch file and at that point there is no difference. So in the long run, I don't usually worry about it.
The main thing is that you should use mostly sequential ids. As this article and this bit of the couchdb book explain, using random ids results in a much less efficient structure internally, both speed wise and in terms of space used on disc.
Self generated ids are almost impossible to deal with if you have two or more separated instances of your app. Because the synchronisation between the different instances is not instantaneous. A solution for this can be to have one server dedicated to generate (or check the availability of) the ids, for example using a SQL database, and acting as a gate for document creation.
On the other hand, if you have only one server and will never need more, there is one advantage I find interesting to self generated uids: since they have to be unique, you can use them in urls. For instance take the slug of the title of a blog post as the _id.
Performance-wise, the CouchDB's generated ids are pretty long so if your own ids are shorter, you will save significant disk space (assuming you have a looot of documents).
Both answers above tell about PROS of sequential IDs.
Here is a major problem arose by sequential IDs.
Predictability of other IDs in documents using a single ID.
Due to this we can't use sequential IDs in application URLs as identifiers due to other IDs being predictable using one ID, and using as url authentication is also not possible.( As done by file sharing services).