Trying to decide between DynamoDB and CouchDB for my website. It's a static site (built with a static site generator) and I'm planning on using a JavaScript module to build a comment system.
I'm toying with using PouchDB and CouchDB so that synchronizing is easy. I'm also considering DynamoDB.
I have a performance question. From these databases, do any of them push data out to edge locations so that latency is reduced? Or is my Database essentially sitting on one virtual server somewhere?
From what I know, neither of these solutions utilise edge locations ootb.
Since you're mentioning PouchDB, I assume you want to use a client-side database in your app?
If that's the case you should keep in mind that, in order to sync, a client-side DB needs to have access to your cloud db. So it's not really suitable for a comment system since all client could just drop comments of others, edit them, etc.
Related
I am kind of confused about when an API is needed. I have recently created a mobile app with flutter and cloud firestore as the database where i simply queried and wrote to the database when needed. Now i am learning full stack web development and I recently watched a tutorial where he built like an Express API with GET, POST, and DELETE functionality for a simple item in the database.
Coming from a background where i just directly accessed the database i am not sure why an API in this case is necessary, is it so I wouldnt have to rewrite the queries every time? This is a very simple project so he's definitely not making a 3rd party api for other developers to use. Am i misunderstanding what an API does exactly?
It was really simple, there was one collection in a MongoDB database and he was using postman to read and write to and from the database to check if it works.
API is a standard way with which your front-end (web/mobile) stores/gets information for your application. Your front-end can/should not directly access database ever. Understand the purpose of front-end which is to just display the interface and should do minimal processing. All the application logic should be at your backend (API server) which is exposed to your frontend via API (GET, POST etc) calls. So to store an item in your database, you will write data storing logic in your backend, and expose an API end-point which when triggered will perform the storing operation. That API call should be used by your front-end to trigger the storing process. In this way your logic of storing/database or any other thing is not exposed, only the API URL is. The purpose of front-end is to be exposed whereas backend/database should never be exposed and used from front-end
May be for you, an API is not necessary. But, the use-cases of an API is a lot.
For example:
You don't have to write business logic for every platform. (iOS, Android, Web, Whatever)
Your app will be lightweight since some computation would be offloaded to server.
Your app can be reverse engineered to get secret informations. (or, Your secret algorithm may be?)
What if you need to store something in filesystem that you want share with others?
Also a good read: Why we should use REST?
In your case, you are using a pre-written SDK which knows how to connect to Firestore, does caching and updates application data when needed, and provides a standard method of reading, writing and deleting data in Firestore (with associated documentation and example data from google).
Therefore, using an API (as described for the mongoDB) is not required and is undesirable.
There are some cases where you might want to have no read or write access to a firestore collection or document, and in this case, you could write a cloud function which your app calls with parameters, that receives the data that you want to write and does some sort of checking or manipulation beyond the capabilities of cloud firestore rules (although these can get pretty sophisticated). See https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/security/get-started
Todd (in the video contained in this link) does a few good videos on this subject.
However, this is not really working in the same was as the API you mentioned in your question.
So in the case of using Firestore, you should use the SDK and not re-invent the wheel by creating your own API.
If you want to share photos for example, you can also store them in firebase storage and then provide a URL for other devices to access them without your app being installed.
If you want to write something to firestore which is then sent to all other users then you can use listeners on each app, and the data will be sent to the apps after it arrives at Firestore.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/listen gives an overview of this.
One thing to always look at with firebase is the cost of doing anything. Cloud functions cost more than doing a read of a firestore document.
This gives an overview of pricing for different capabilities within the firebase set of capabilities.
https://firebase.google.com/pricing
Another most important factor is coupling. To add to #Dijkstra API provides a way to decouple the logic from each other, thus allowing for more application reliability, maintainability, fault-tolerance and if required scalability.
Thus there is no right or wrong here, or the comparison of API vs DB call is in itself not justified for the fact that fetching the data from Database is the ultimate aim. Even if you use a REST API or Query a database.
The means to achieve the same can differ based on specific requirements. For example, fetching water from the well.
You can always climb down the well and fetch a bucket of water if you need 1 bucket per day and you are the only user.
But if there are many users you would want to install a pull and wheel where people use it to pour fetched water into their bucket, yet again this will depend if there are 100 users per day using or more than that. As this will not work in the case of more than 100 users.
IF the case is that an entire community of say 1000 user are going to need the water you would go with a more complex solution of installing a motorized water pump to pump out the water and supply it to the user's home via a pipeline. This solution has many benefits like fast supply, easy to use, filtered water, scheduled, etc. But the cost and effort to achieve the solution is higher as well.
All in all, It comes down to the cost-vs-benefit ratio which you and only you can chart out, for different solutions vs the particular problem, as you are the best judge of scale and future user flow.
While doing that you can ask the following question about the solution to help decide :
Is the solution satisfying the primary requirement of the problem?
How much time is it going to take to build it?
For the time we spend to build a solution, is it going to working at more than 75% or more of its capacity?
If not is there a simpler solution that I can use to satisfy the problem and scale it as the requirement increases?
HTH.
I am learning how to use socket.io and nodejs. In this answer they explain how to store users who are online in an array in nodejs. This is done without storing them in the database. How reliable is this?
Is data stored in the server reliable does the data always stay the way it is intended?
Is it advisable to even store data in the server? I am thinking of a scenario where there are millions of users.
Is it that there is always one instance of the server running even when the app is served from different locations? If not, will storing data in the server bring up inconsistencies between the different server instances?
Congrats on your learning so far! I hope you're having fun with it.
Is data stored in the server reliable does the data always stay the way it is intended?
No, storing data on the server is generally not reliable enough, unless you manage your server in its entirety. With managed services, storing data on the server should never be done because it could easily be wiped by the party managing your server.
Is it advisable to even store data in the server? I am thinking of a scenario where there are millions of users.
It is not advisable at all, you need a DB of some sort.
Is it that there is always one instance of the server running even when the app is served from different locations? If not, will storing data in the server bring up inconsistencies between the different server instances?
The way this works typically is that the server is always running, and has some basics information regarding its configuration stored locally - when scaling, hosted services are able to increase the processing capacity automatically, and handle load balancing in the background. Whenever the server is retrieving data for you, it requests it from the database, and then it's loaded into RAM (memory). In the example of the user, you would store the user data in a table or document (relational databases vs document oriented database) and then load them into memory to manipulate the data using 'functions'.
Additionally, to learn more about your 'data inconsistency' concern, look up concurrency as it pertains to databases, and data race conditions.
Hope that helps!
I have a nodejs project that using couchbase as database.
Just wonder if I store the temporary data in
1.redis
or in
2.couchbase directly.
As I know there is socket delay for couchbase, I think store temporary data in redis while store the permanent data in couchbase is better.
Is there any person has the experience on this?
Your comment welcome
I'm a big Redis fan, but in this situation I would use Couchbase only.
Couchbase is rather efficient, and comparable to the performance of memcached when the working set of your data fits in memory. Most of the time, an extra caching layer on top of Couchbase is not useful.
That said, if you really need a caching layer, or simply some storage for temporary data, you can simply create a memcached bucket hosted in the Couchbase cluster. So you would have an "eventually persistent" bucket for your persistent data, and a memcached bucket for the temporary data.
The bucket types are described here:
http://docs.couchbase.com/couchbase-manual-2.5/cb-admin/#data-storage
In that context, adding Redis as a extra storage layer does not really make sense.
Couchbase has a managed cache built into it, even for Couchbase buckets. So it already has a caching layer and adding another one on top just sounds superfluous.
I am not sure what you mean by a socket delay in Couchbase. Can you perhaps explain more about that? That is not something I have ever seen before and sticks out as suspect to me. I would try and troubleshoot this and figure out what that is before looking to add redis to the mix and have yet another layer to manage and code against. Without know more about the socket delay, it is difficult to make more recommendations.
It's an old question, but I'll have my take at it as well, if nothing else then for the people coming across it via google, just as I did.
I agree with he accepted answer, in that CouchBase has the most recently used Documents in RAM. In that aspect, it does the same as Redis. The advantage of CouchBase is of course that the data can reliably spill over the RAM limit, and the server disk limit, automatically, by adding more nodes.
However, I have a project where I am considering using Redis along side CouchBase. It's basically thought as a caching server, but for the "calculated" items. Such as html-snippets or other things. CouchBase is a fantastic document store, but making lists and other structures, doesn't come that easy, especially not without a lot of views. So I'm thinking to use Redis as a temporary datastore for the ad-hoc data manipulation needed, and CouchBase as the main datastore.
I have an app that I would like to create. But I am not sure how to go about it. I am using node.js and would like to use couchdb, but if something like mongodb or riak would be a better choice them im willing to hear ideas. But, i have a site, say
cool.com
and on there is a couchdb instance, as well as a site to manage a store. say a shopping cart. the db houses all the store's items and data. The app itself has an admin backend to manage that data and can change items. What i would like to be able to do, is have the ability to have the user be disconnected from the internet, and still have the admin backend work. I realize for this to work I need to use a client side framework with my models/routes/controllers/whatever. But what I am not sure of, is how to let the site function while offline. couchdb if installed locally can sync the data from local to remote when back online, and if the admin user is on the computer, i could have them install couch. but that could be messy.
Also, what if the admin user is on a tablet or a phone? Would I need to have an actual mobile app and a desktop app to do this? is there some way I can set this up so it is seamless the the end user. I would also like this to be offline for end users too, but the bigger audience is the admin.
Another use case, instore POS system. and the power goes out. But the POS system can be loaded from the web onto a tablet and they can still make card based sales if the wifi is out, because the app is available offline.
Im just not sure how to do this. lets assume i need a client framrwork that can handle the data as well as the backend. something like ember, or angular. theres also all in one stacks like meteor and derby js, but those arent fully offline,but are for the appearance of real time. though meteor does have mini mongo so it might be worth looking into.
I was hoping someone could help me figure out how I would get this setup to work, preferrably with couch, but other nosql's would work too if I can have a way to sync the data.
I'm not sure if it would work for you, but I have been thinking of such an application for quite a long time now and been doing some research on what's possible. The best solution I could come up with is using a server with a couchdb and writing the application clientside based. Then for the data storage use pouchdb and synchronize the pouchdb regularly with your serverside couchdb if the app is online. I know pouch is in an early stage and not production ready but if you are willing to put some work into it I'd say it's doable.
If you want clients that work seemless as they go offline and come online (like a POS with the power out) then I would recommend making the app primarily work off local storage with a background publishing or synchronization to the cloud.
Local storage options could be everything from something light like sqlite, sqlexpress, firebird to no sql options like mongo, couchdb etc...
But for the client or device, consider the ease of configuration and weight of the option. You also need to consider the type of clients - do you have many platforms varying from devices to PCs? You don't want something that has a heavy config and runtime footprint. That's fine on the service side.
On the service side, consider the nature of your data and whether it's fitted better for transactional/relational systems (banking etc...) or eventually consistent/non transactional (no-sql) documents. Don't forget hybrid as an option. Also consider the service platform - for example, node goes well with mongodb (json objects front to back) ...
The device and service storage options can be different (and likely should be) separate by service interfaces (soap, rest/http, sockets etc...).
It's hard to have a one size fits all solution but often something light weight like sqlite on the device or client makes for ease of installation/config while scalability on the service side with something like sqlserver/mysql or couchdb/mongodb makes sense.
Some links to read:
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Comparing+Mongo+DB+and+Couch+DB
http://www.sqlite.org/
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlexpress/archive/2011/07/12/introducing-localdb-a-better-sql-express.aspx
You're question is pretty wide open and there's no one size fits all solution. Hopefully I provided some options to think about.
There's an interesting project out there called AppJs (http://appjs.com/), which packages Node.JS and Chrominium as a desktop environment. It's currently very fresh (very little documentation), but it appears to be straight forward enough (you'll be using the same tools as you would for your online application).
As for synchronising the offline and online environments. I doubt you can rely on CouchDB in the way that you envisage. CouchDB mobile support is not as comprehensive as some of the documentation suggests. So in this sense, it would be no different to using SQL/Mongo/Punchcards.
You might have more luck with designing a suitable serialisation scheme based on XML or JSON (or just plain text), and passing files between the online and offline installations.
Edit - Since writing this, Node Webkit - http://nwjs.io/ - is clearly the most obvious replacement for App.js. It has a very simple API, and some great features.
Is there an easy way to manage offline data with a web app, and synchronize with a server when there is a connection? I have been looking at Meteor, CouchDB and the likes, but still not sure what would be the least painfull way.
I could of course implement it myself with sockets or something similar, but if something is already made for the purpose, I don't see a reason to do it again.
I'm planning to work with Node as the server.
Thanks
You're talking about two things; 1) How to store/persist data if/when offline (storage mechanism), and 2) How to synchronize with a server when online (communication mechanism). The answer to 1 is some kind of local storage, and there any several ways of doing that (localstorage, websql, filesystem APIs etc) depending on your platform. The answer to 2 really depend on how urgent your synchronization needs are, but in general you can use HTTP itself with periodic (long-) polling, websockets and similar.
On top of both storage and communication mechanisms there are numerous libraries that make the job simpler, like Meteor (communication) and CouchDB (storage), but also many many more. There are even libraries that take care of the actual synchronization mechanism (with possible conflict resolution as well), but this very much depends on your actual application.
Updated: This framework looks promising, but I haven't tested it myself:
http://blog.nateps.com/announcing-racer-experimental-realtime-model
You might want to look at cloud services as well. These are best if you are developing a new application as they push you more to a serverless model, and of course you have to be happy using a service.
Simperium (simperium) is an interesting cloud service - the only one I can find today that does syncing (unlike Firebase and Spire.io who are similar in other respects), and for iOS it includes offline storage, while for JavaScript clients you'd need to cover the local storage yourself using HTML5 features. Backbone.js seems to have some support for this, and Simperium can integrate with Backbone, using a similar API style.
For non-cloud services, Derbyjs (derbyjs) is an open source project that includes Racer, a data synchronization library (mentioned by the earlier answer) - both are under rapid development and not yet complete, but look interesting if your timescales allow, and don't require a cloud service. There is a comparison of Derbyjs to Meteor that is useful - although it's written by the Derbyjs developers it's not too biased.
I also looked at CouchDB, which has some interesting built-in replication features, but I didn't like its use of indexes that are updated lazily when a query needs them (or by a batch process), and I wasn't happy with exposing the server DB directly to clients to enable replication/sync. Generally I think it's best to decouple the client side local storage from the server side DB, and of course for a web app it would be hard to use CouchDB on the client.