Related
I'm trying to read data from MySQL and Oracle tables and load or index data in SOLR. How I can achieve this using Penatho kettle.
Please help. Thanks in advance.
Just ran across this, probably the OP has solved their issue already or given up, but for the benefit of others I'll share my (somewhat dated) experience with pentaho for this. Five or six years ago I had a client for which pentaho was the required ETL, and IIRC there was a Solr plugin, but it wasn't very good and we wound up writing our own solr plugin (including building the required UI components, etc.). Even with the custom plugin Pentaho was very database centric and didn't understand multi-value fields very well, having to encode/decode as comma separated lists (with all the usual fun regarding quoting/escaping). It also allowed users to do dangerous things like attempt to sort a data stream, which just doesn't work well for non-batch use cases, or for large data sets. As such, if at all possible I'd recommend not using Pentaho for this task. Some things you might consider instead include:
Small/Simple Data
If you're just exploring Solr's capabilities, won't be joining tables or transforming the data in the rows and are dealing with thousands of rows not millions, you may find the Data Import Handler to be a sufficient tool. Likely someone will comment that they used it for many millions or that they handled complex case X.. but it tends to become unwieldy and hard to manage if you push it out of it's comfort zone. One of the most common consulting scenarios I get is someone who started with DIH and has grown beyond it either in terms of scale or in terms of data complexity.
Medium Data
If you are dealing with a few million documents, want to transform (i.e. the data is in XML, dates need formatting, fields renamed, etc) or enrich the documents with custom code easily plugged in, or want to pre-analyze fields to take load off of Solr you may wish to check out a tool I built called JesterJ
At one point it looked like Hydra was going to become the go-to solution at this level but it has seen no commits in the last 7 years now.
Big Data
There's no single answer if you're handling hundreds of millions or billions of documents. At this scale you likely have other requirements as well, if auditing and provinence are important, Apache Nifi, may be a good tool to look at, if you have data that arrives in large batches and needs to be processed at maximum speed, or sufficient data flow to occupy multiple machines continuously transformations as Apache Spark jobs that can be scaled across AWS EMR instances might suit your needs. Everything at this level requires significant coding/configuration and time investment, and as such there are many other possible options.
I need to choose a Database for storing data remotely from a big number (thousands to tens of thousands) of sensors that would generate around one entry per minute each.
The said data needs to be queried in a variety of ways from counting data with certain characteristics for statistics to simple outputting for plotting.
I am looking around for the right tool, I started with MySQL but I feel like it lacks the scalability needed for this project, and this lead me to noSQL databases which I don't know much about.
Which Database, either relational or not would be a good choice?
Thanks.
There is usually no "best" database since they all involve trade-offs of one kind or another. Your question is also very vague because you don't say anything about your performance needs other than the number of inserts per minute (how much data per insert?) and that you need "scalability".
It also looks like a case of premature optimization because you say you "feel like [MySQL] lacks the scalability needed for this project", but it doesn't sound like you've run any tests to confirm whether this is a real problem. It's always better to get real data rather than base an important architectural decision on "feelings".
Here's a suggestion:
Write a simple test program that inserts 10,000 rows of sample data per minute
Run the program for a decent length of time (a few days or more) to generate a sizable chunk of test data
Run your queries to see if they meet your performance needs (which you haven't specified -- how fast do they need to be? how often will they run? how complex are they?)
You're testing at least two things here: whether your database can handle 10,000 inserts per minute and whether your queries will run quickly enough once you have a huge amount of data. With large datasets these will become competing priorities since you need indexes for fast queries, but indexes will start to slow down your inserts over time. At some point you'll need to think about data archival as well (or purging, if historical data isn't needed) both for performance and for practical reasons (finite storage space).
These will be concerns no matter what database you select. From what little you've told us about your retrieval needs ("counting data with certain characteristics" and "simple outputting for plotting") it sounds like any type of database will do. It may be that other concerns are more important, such as ease of development (what languages and tools are you using?), deployment, management, code maintainability, etc.
Since this is sensor data we're talking about, you may also want to look at a round robin database (RRD) such as RRDTool to see if that approach better serves your needs.
Found this question while googling for "database for sensor data"
One of very helpful search-results (along with this SO question) was this blog:
Actually I've started a similar project (http://reatha.de) but realized too late, that I'm using not the best technologies available. My approach was similar MySQL + PHP. Finally I realized that this is not scalable and stopped the project.
Additionally, a good starting point is looking at the list of data-bases in Heroku:
If they use one, then it should be not the worst one.
I hope this helps.
you can try to use Redis noSQL database
I need to be able to store small bits of data (approximately 50-75 bytes) for billions of records (~3 billion/month for a year).
The only requirement is fast inserts and fast lookups for all records with the same GUID and the ability to access the data store from .net.
I'm a SQL server guy and I think SQL Server can do this, but with all the talk about BigTable, CouchDB, and other nosql solutions, it's sounding more and more like an alternative to a traditional RDBS may be best due to optimizations for distributed queries and scaling. I tried cassandra and the .net libraries don't currently compile or are all subject to change (along with cassandra itself).
I've looked into many nosql data stores available, but can't find one that meets my needs as a robust production-ready platform.
If you had to store 36 billion small, flat records so that they're accessible from .net, what would choose and why?
Storing ~3.5TB of data and inserting about 1K/sec 24x7, and also querying at a rate not specified, it is possible with SQL Server, but there are more questions:
what availability requirement you have for this? 99.999% uptime, or is 95% enough?
what reliability requirement you have? Does missing an insert cost you $1M?
what recoverability requirement you have? If you loose one day of data, does it matter?
what consistency requirement you have? Does a write need to be guaranteed to be visible on the next read?
If you need all these requirements I highlighted, the load you propose is going to cost millions in hardware and licensing on an relational system, any system, no matter what gimmicks you try (sharding, partitioning etc). A nosql system would, by their very definition, not meet all these requirements.
So obviously you have already relaxed some of these requirements. There is a nice visual guide comparing the nosql offerings based on the 'pick 2 out of 3' paradigm at Visual Guide to NoSQL Systems:
After OP comment update
With SQL Server this would e straight forward implementation:
one single table clustered (GUID, time) key. Yes, is going to get fragmented, but is fragmentation affect read-aheads and read-aheads are needed only for significant range scans. Since you only query for specific GUID and date range, fragmentation won't matter much. Yes, is a wide key, so non-leaf pages will have poor key density. Yes, it will lead to poor fill factor. And yes, page splits may occur. Despite these problems, given the requirements, is still the best clustered key choice.
partition the table by time so you can implement efficient deletion of the expired records, via an automatic sliding window. Augment this with an online index partition rebuild of the last month to eliminate the poor fill factor and fragmentation introduced by the GUID clustering.
enable page compression. Since the clustered key groups by GUID first, all records of a GUID will be next to each other, giving page compression a good chance to deploy dictionary compression.
you'll need a fast IO path for log file. You're interested in high throughput, not on low latency for a log to keep up with 1K inserts/sec, so stripping is a must.
Partitioning and page compression each require an Enterprise Edition SQL Server, they will not work on Standard Edition and both are quite important to meet the requirements.
As a side note, if the records come from a front-end Web servers farm, I would put Express on each web server and instead of INSERT on the back end, I would SEND the info to the back end, using a local connection/transaction on the Express co-located with the web server. This gives a much much better availability story to the solution.
So this is how I would do it in SQL Server. The good news is that the problems you'll face are well understood and solutions are known. that doesn't necessarily mean this is a better than what you could achieve with Cassandra, BigTable or Dynamo. I'll let someone more knowleageable in things no-sql-ish to argument their case.
Note that I never mentioned the programming model, .Net support and such. I honestly think they're irrelevant in large deployments. They make huge difference in the development process, but once deployed it doesn't matter how fast the development was, if the ORM overhead kills performance :)
Contrary to popular belief, NoSQL is not about performance, or even scalability. It's mainly about minimizing the so-called Object-Relational impedance mismatch, but is also about horizontal scalability vs. the more typical vertical scalability of an RDBMS.
For the simple requirement of fasts inserts and fast lookups, almost any database product will do. If you want to add relational data, or joins, or have any complex transactional logic or constraints you need to enforce, then you want a relational database. No NoSQL product can compare.
If you need schemaless data, you'd want to go with a document-oriented database such as MongoDB or CouchDB. The loose schema is the main draw of these; I personally like MongoDB and use it in a few custom reporting systems. I find it very useful when the data requirements are constantly changing.
The other main NoSQL option is distributed Key-Value Stores such as BigTable or Cassandra. These are especially useful if you want to scale your database across many machines running commodity hardware. They work fine on servers too, obviously, but don't take advantage of high-end hardware as well as SQL Server or Oracle or other database designed for vertical scaling, and obviously, they aren't relational and are no good for enforcing normalization or constraints. Also, as you've noticed, .NET support tends to be spotty at best.
All relational database products support partitioning of a limited sort. They are not as flexible as BigTable or other DKVS systems, they don't partition easily across hundreds of servers, but it really doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for. They are quite good at handling record counts in the billions, as long as you index and normalize the data properly, run the database on powerful hardware (especially SSDs if you can afford them), and partition across 2 or 3 or 5 physical disks if necessary.
If you meet the above criteria, if you're working in a corporate environment and have money to spend on decent hardware and database optimization, I'd stick with SQL Server for now. If you're pinching pennies and need to run this on low-end Amazon EC2 cloud computing hardware, you'd probably want to opt for Cassandra or Voldemort instead (assuming you can get either to work with .NET).
Very few people work at the multi-billion row set size, and most times that I see a request like this on stack overflow, the data is no where near the size it is being reported as.
36 billion, 3 billion per month, thats roughly 100 million per day, 4.16 million an hour, ~70k rows per minute, 1.1k rows a second coming into the system, in a sustained manner for 12 months, assuming no down time.
Those figures are not impossible by a long margin, i've done larger systems, but you want to double check that is really the quantities you mean - very few apps really have this quantity.
In terms of storing / retrieving and quite a critical aspect you have not mentioned is aging the older data - deletion is not free.
The normal technology is look at is partitioning, however, the lookup / retrieval being GUID based would result in a poor performance, assuming you have to get every matching value across the whole 12 month period. You could place a clustered indexes on the GUID column will get your associated data clusterd for read / write, but at those quantities and insertion speed, the fragmentation will be far too high to support, and it will fall on the floor.
I would also suggest that you are going to need a very decent hardware budget if this is a serious application with OLTP type response speeds, that is by some approximate guesses, assuming very few overheads indexing wise, about 2.7TB of data.
In the SQL Server camp, the only thing that you might want to look at is the new parrallel data warehouse edition (madison) which is designed more for sharding out data and running parallel queries against it to provide high speed against large datamarts.
"I need to be able to store small bits of data (approximately 50-75 bytes) for billions of records (~3 billion/month for a year).
The only requirement is fast inserts and fast lookups for all records with the same GUID and the ability to access the data store from .net."
I can tell you from experience that this is possible in SQL Server, because I have done it in early 2009 ... and it's still operation to this day and quite fast.
The table was partitioned in 256 partitions, keep in mind this was 2005 SQL version ... and we did exactly what you're saying, and that is to store bits of info by GUID and retrieve by GUID quickly.
When i left we had around 2-3 billion records, and data retrieval was still quite good (1-2 seconds if get through UI, or less if on RDBMS) even though the data retention policy was just about to be instantiated.
So, long story short, I took the 8th char (i.e. somewhere in the middle-ish) from the GUID string and SHA1 hashed it and cast as tiny int (0-255) and stored in appropriate partition and used same function call when getting the data back.
ping me if you need more info...
The following article discusses the import and use of a 16 billion row table in Microsoft SQL.
https://www.itprotoday.com/big-data/adventures-big-data-how-import-16-billion-rows-single-table.
From the article:
Here are some distilled tips from my experience:
The more data you have in a table with a defined clustered index, the slower it becomes to import unsorted records into it. At some
point, it becomes too slow to be practical.
If you want to export your table to the smallest possible file, make it native format. This works best with tables containing
mostly numeric columns because they’re more compactly represented
in binary fields than character data. If all your data is
alphanumeric, you won’t gain much by exporting it in native format.
Not allowing nulls in the numeric fields can further compact the
data. If you allow a field to be nullable, the field’s binary
representation will contain a 1-byte prefix indicating how many
bytes of data will follow.
You can’t use BCP for more than 2,147,483,647 records because the BCP counter variable is a 4-byte integer. I wasn’t able to find any
reference to this on MSDN or the Internet. If your table consists of
more than 2,147,483,647 records, you’ll have to export it in chunks
or write your own export routine.
Defining a clustered index on a prepopulated table takes a lot of disk space. In my test, my log exploded to 10 times the original
table size before completion.
When importing a large number of records using the BULK INSERT statement, include the BATCHSIZE parameter and specify how many
records to commit at a time. If you don’t include this parameter,
your entire file is imported as a single transaction, which
requires a lot of log space.
The fastest way of getting data into a table with a clustered index is to presort the data first. You can then import it using the BULK
INSERT statement with the ORDER parameter.
There is an unusual fact that seems to overlooked.
"Basically after inserting 30Mil rows in a day, I need to fetch all the rows with the same GUID (maybe 20 rows) and be reasonably sure I'd get them all back"
Needing only 20 columns, a non-clustered index on the GUID will work just fine. You could cluster on another column for data dispersion across partitions.
I have a question regarding the data insertion: How is it being inserted?
Is this a bulk insert on a certain schedule (per min, per hour, etc)?
What source is this data being pulled from (flat files, OLTP, etc)?
I think these need to be answered to help understand one side of the equation.
Amazon Redshift is a great service. It was not available when the question was originally posted in 2010, but it is now a major player in 2017. It is a column based database, forked from Postgres, so standard SQL and Postgres connector libraries will work with it.
It is best used for reporting purposes, especially aggregation. The data from a single table is stored on different servers in Amazon's cloud, distributed by on the defined table distkeys, so you rely on distributed CPU power.
So SELECTs and especially aggregated SELECTs are lightning fast. Loading large data should be preferably done with the COPY command from Amazon S3 csv files. The drawbacks are that DELETEs and UPDATEs are slower than usual, but that is why Redshift in not primarily a transnational database, but more of a data warehouse platform.
You can try using Cassandra or HBase, though you would need to read up on how to design the column families as per your use case.
Cassandra provides its own query language but you need to use Java APIs of HBase to access the data directly.
If you need to use Hbase then I recommend querying the data with Apache Drill from Map-R which is an Open Source project. Drill's query language is SQL-Compliant(keywords in drill have the same meaning they would have in SQL).
With that many records per year you're eventually going to run out of space.
Why not filesystem storage like xfs which supports 2^64 files and using smaller boxes.
Regardless of how fancy people want to get or the amount of money one would end up spend getting a system with whatever database SQL NoSQL ..whichever these many records are usually made by electric companies and weather stations/providers like ministry of environment who control smaller stations throughout the country.
If you're doing something like storing pressure.. temperature..wind speed.. humidity etc...and guid is the location..you can still divide the data by year/month/day/hour.
Assuming you store 4 years of data per hard-drive.
You can then have it run on a smaller Nas with mirror where it would
also provide better read speeds and have multiple mount points..based on the year when it was created.
You can simply make a web-interface for searches
So dumping location1/2001/06/01//temperature and location1/2002/06/01//temperature would only dump the contents of hourly temperature for the 1st day of summer in those 2 years (24h*2) 48 small files vs searching a database with billions of records and possibly millions spent.
Simple way of looking at things.. 1.5 billion websites in the world with God knows how many pages each
If a company like Google had to spend millions per 3 billion searches to pay for super-computers for this they'd be broke.
Instead they have the power-bill...couple million crap computers.
And caffeine indexing...future-proof..keep adding more.
And yeah where indexing running off SQL makes sense then great
Building super-computers for crappy tasks with fixed things like weather...statistics and so on so techs can brag their systems crunches xtb in x seconds...waste of money that can be spent somewhere else..maybe that power-bill that won't run into the millions anytime soon by running something like 10 Nas servers.
Store records in plain binary files, one file per GUID, wouldn't get any faster than that.
You can use MongoDB and use the guid as the sharding key, this means that you can distribute your data over multiple machines but the data you want to select is only on one machine because you select by the sharding key.
Sharding in MongoDb is not yet production ready.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
There has been a lot of talk related to Cassandra lately.
Twitter, Digg, Facebook, etc all use it.
When does it make sense to:
use Cassandra,
not use Cassandra, and
use a RDMS instead of Cassandra.
There is nothing like a silver bullet, everything is built to solve specific problems and has its own pros and cons. It is up to you, what problem statement you have and what is the best fitting solution for that problem.
I will try to answer your questions one by one in the same order you asked them. Since Cassandra is based on the NoSQL family of databases, it's important you understand why use a NoSQL database before I answer your questions.
Why use NoSQL
In the case of RDBMS, making a choice is quite easy because all the databases like MySQL, Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL in this category offer almost the same kind of solutions oriented toward ACID properties. When it comes to NoSQL, the decision becomes difficult because every NoSQL database offers different solutions and you have to understand which one is best suited for your app/system requirements. For example, MongoDB is fit for use cases where your system demands a schema-less document store. HBase might be fit for search engines, analyzing log data, or any place where scanning huge, two-dimensional join-less tables is a requirement. Redis is built to provide In-Memory search for varieties of data structures like trees, queues, linked lists, etc and can be a good fit for making real-time leaderboards, pub-sub kind of system. Similarly there are other databases in this category (Including Cassandra) which are fit for different problem statements. Now lets move to the original questions, and answer them one by one.
When to use Cassandra
Being a part of the NoSQL family, Cassandra offers a solution for problems where one of your requirements is to have a very heavy write system and you want to have a quite responsive reporting system on top of that stored data. Consider the use case of Web analytics where log data is stored for each request and you want to built an analytical platform around it to count hits per hour, by browser, by IP, etc in a real time manner. You can refer to this blog post to understand more about the use cases where Cassandra fits in.
When to Use a RDMS instead of Cassandra
Cassandra is based on a NoSQL database and does not provide ACID and relational data properties. If you have a strong requirement for ACID properties (for example Financial data), Cassandra would not be a fit in that case. Obviously, you can make a workaround for that, however you will end up writing lots of application code to simulate ACID properties and will lose on time to market badly. Also managing that kind of system with Cassandra would be complex and tedious for you.
When not to use Cassandra
I don't think it needs to be answered if the above explanation makes sense.
When evaluating distributed data systems, you have to consider the CAP theorem - you can pick two of the following: consistency, availability, and partition tolerance.
Cassandra is an available, partition-tolerant system that supports eventual consistency. For more information see this blog post I wrote: Visual Guide to NoSQL Systems.
Cassandra is the answer to a particular problem: What do you do when you have so much data that it does not fit on one server ? How do you store all your data on many servers and do not break your bank account and not make your developers insane ? Facebook gets 4 Terabyte of new compressed data EVERY DAY. And this number most likely will grow more than twice within a year.
If you do not have this much data or if you have millions to pay for Enterprise Oracle/DB2 cluster installation and specialists required to set it up and maintain it, then you are fine with SQL database.
However Facebook no longer uses cassandra and now uses MySQL almost exclusively moving the partitioning up in the application stack for faster performance and better control.
The general idea of NoSQL is that you should use whichever data store is the best fit for your application. If you have a table of financial data, use SQL. If you have objects that would require complex/slow queries to map to a relational schema, use an object or key/value store.
Of course just about any real world problem you run into is somewhere in between those two extremes and neither solution will be perfect. You need to consider the capabilities of each store and the consequences of using one over the other, which will be very much specific to the problem you are trying to solve.
Besides the answers given above about when to use and when not to use Cassandra, if you do decide to use Cassandra you may want to consider not using Cassandra itself, but one of the its many cousins out there.
Some answers above already pointed to various "NoSQL" systems which share many properties with Cassandra, with some small or large differences, and may be better than Cassandra itself for your specific needs.
Additionally, recently (several years after this question was originally asked), a Cassandra clone called Scylla (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla_(database)) was released. Scylla is an open-source re-implementation of Cassandra in C++, which claims to have significantly higher throughput and lower latencies than the original Java Cassandra, while being mostly compatible with it (in features, APIs, and file formats). So if you're already considering Cassandra, you may want to consider Scylla as well.
I will focus here on some of the important aspects which can help you to decide if you really need Cassandra. The list is not exhaustive, just some of the points which I have at top of my mind-
Don't consider Cassandra as the first choice when you have a strict requirement on the relationship (across your dataset).
Cassandra by default is AP system (of CAP). But, it supports tunable consistency which means it can be configured to support as CP as well. So don't ignore it just because you read somewhere that it's AP and you are looking for CP systems. Cassandra is more accurately termed “tuneably consistent,” which means it allows you to easily decide the level of consistency you require, in balance with the level of availability.
Don't use Cassandra if your scale is not much or if you can deal with a non-distributed DB.
Think harder if your team thinks that all your problems will be solved if you use distributed DBs like Cassandra. To start with these DBs is very simple as it comes with many defaults but optimizing and mastering it for solving a specific problem would require a good (if not a lot) amount of engineering effort.
Cassandra is column-oriented but at the same time each row also has a unique key. So, it might be helpful to think of it as an indexed, row-oriented store. You can even use it as a document store.
Cassandra doesn't force you to define the fields beforehand. So, if you are in a startup mode or your features are evolving (as in agile) - Cassandra embraces it. So better, first think about queries and then think about data to answer them.
Cassandra is optimized for really high throughput on writes. If your use case is read-heavy (like cache) then Cassandra might not be an ideal choice.
Right. It makes sense to use Cassandra when you have a huge amount of data, a huge number of queries but very little variety of queries. Cassandra basically works by partitioning and replicating. If all your queries will be based on the same partition key, Cassandra is your best bet. If you get a query on an attribute that is not the partition key, Cassandra allows you to replicate the whole data with a new partition key. So now you have 2 replicas of the same data with 2 different partition keys.
Which brings me to your next question. When not to use Cassandra. As I mentioned, Cassandra scales by replicating the complete database for every new partitioning key. But you can't keep making new copies again and again. So when you have a high variety in queries i.e. each query has a different column in the where clause, Cassandra is not a good option.
Now for the third question. The whole point of using RDBMS is when you want the ACID properties. If you are building something like a payment service and want each transaction to be isolated, each transaction to either complete or not happen at all, changes to be persistent despite system failure, and the money to be consistent across bank accounts before and after the transaction completes, an RDBMS is the only option that will help you achieve this.
This article actually explains the whole thing, especially when to use Cassandra or not (as opposed to some other NoSQL option) part of the question -> Choosing the best Database. Do check it out.
EDIT: To answer the question in the comments by proximab, when we think of banking systems we immidiately think "ACID is the best solution". But even banking systems are made up of several subsystems that might not even be dealing with any transaction related data like account holder's personal information, account statements, credit card details, credit histories, etc.
All of this information needs to be stored in some database or the another. Now if you store the account related information like account balance, that is something that needs to be consistent at all times. For example, if you try to send money from account A to account B, then the money that disappears from account A should instantaneousy show up in account B, and it cannot be present in both accounts at the same time. This system cannot be inconsistant at any point. This is where ACID is of utmost importance.
On the other hand if you are saving credit card details or credit histories, that should not get into the wrong hands, then you need something that allows access only to authorised users. That I believe is supported by Cassandra. That said, data like credit history and credit card transactions, I think that is an ever increasing data. Also there is only so much yo can query on this data i.e. it has a very finite number of queries. These two conditions make Cassandra a perfect solution.
Talking with someone in the midst of deploying Cassandra, it doesn't handle the many-to-many well. They are doing a hack job to do their initial testing. I spoke with a Cassandra consultant about this and he said he wouldn't recommend it if you had this problem set.
You should ask your self the following questions:
(Volume, Velocity) Will you be writing and reading TONS of information , so much information that no one computer could handle the writes.
(Global) Will you need this writing and reading capability around the world so that the writes in one part of the world are accessible in another part of the world?
(Reliability) Do you need this database to be up and running all the time and never go down regardless of which Cloud, which country, whether it's VM , Container, or Bare metal?
(Scale-ability) Do you need this database to be able to continue to grow easily and scale linearly
(Consistency) Do you need TUNABLE consistency where some writes can happen asynchronously where as others need to be certified?
(Skill) Are you willing to do what it takes to learn this technology and the data modeling that goes with creating a globally distributed database that can be fast for everyone, everywhere?
If for any of these questions you thought "maybe" or "no," you should use something else. If you had "hell yes" as an answer to all of them, then you should use Cassandra.
Use RDBMS when you can do everything on one box. It's probably easier than most and anyone can work with it.
Heavy single query vs. gazillion light query load is another point to consider, in addition to other answers here. It's inherently harder to automatically optimize a single query in a NoSql-style DB. I've used MongoDB and ran into performance issues when trying to calculate a complex query. I haven't used Cassandra but I expect it to have the same issue.
On the other hand, if your load is expected to be that of very many small queries, and you want to be able to easily scale out, you could take advantage of eventual consistency that is offered by most NoSql DBs. Note that eventual consistency is not really a feature of a non-relational data model, but it is much easier to implement and to set up in a NoSql-based system.
For a single, very heavy query, any modern RDBMS engine can do a decent job parallelizing parts of the query and take advantage of as much CPU and memory you throw at it (on a single machine). NoSql databases don't have enough information about the structure of the data to be able to make assumptions that will allow truly intelligent parallelization of a big query. They do allow you to easily scale out more servers (or cores) but once the query hits a complexity level you are basically forced to split it apart manually to parts that the NoSql engine knows how to deal with intelligently.
In my experience with MongoDB, in the end because of the complexity of the query there wasn't much Mongo could do to optimize it and run parts of it on multiple data. Mongo parallelizes multiple queries but isn't so good at optimizing a single one.
Let's read some real world cases:
http://planetcassandra.org/apache-cassandra-use-cases/
In this article: http://planetcassandra.org/blog/post/agentis-energy-stores-over-15-billion-records-of-time-series-usage-data-in-apache-cassandra
They elaborated the reason why they didn't choose MySql is because db synchronization is too slow.
(Also due to 2-phrase commit, FK, PK)
Cassandra is based on Amazon Dynamo paper
Features:
Stability
High availability
Backup performs well
Read and Write is better than HBase, (BigTable clone in java).
wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra
Their Conclusion is:
We looked at HBase, Dynamo, Mongo and Cassandra.
Cassandra was simply the best storage solution for the majority of our data.
As of 2018,
I would recommend using ScyllaDB to replace classic cassandra, if you need back support.
Postgres kv plugin is also quick than cassandra. How ever won't have multi-instance scalability.
another situation that makes the choice easier is when you want to use aggregate function like sum, min, max, etcetera and complex queries (like in the financial system mentioned above) then a relational database is probably more convenient then a nosql database since both are not possible on a nosql databse unless you use really a lot of Inverted indexes. When you do use nosql you would have to do the aggregate functions in code or store them seperatly in its own columnfamily but this makes it all quite complex and reduces the performance that you gained by using nosql.
Cassandra is a good choice if:
You don't require the ACID properties from your DB.
There would be massive and huge number of writes on the DB.
There is a requirement to integrate with Big Data, Hadoop, Hive and Spark.
There is a need of real time data analytics and report generations.
There is a requirement of impressive fault tolerant mechanism.
There is a requirement of homogenous system.
There is a requirement of lots of customisation for tuning.
If you need a fully consistent database with SQL semantics, Cassandra is NOT the solution for you. Cassandra supports key-value lookups. It does not support SQL queries. Data in Cassandra is "eventually consistent". Concurrent lookups of data may be inconsistent, but eventually lookups are consistent.
If you need strict semantics and need support for SQL queries, choose another solution such as MySQL, PostGres, or combine use of Cassandra with Solr.
Apache cassandra is a distributed database for managing large amounts of structured data across many commodity servers, while providing highly available service and no single point of failure.
The archichecture is purely based on the cap theorem, which is availability , and partition tolerance, and interestingly eventual consistently.
Dont Use it, if your not storing volumes of data across racks of clusters,
Dont use if you are not storing Time series data,
Dont Use if you not patitioning your servers,
Dont use if you require strong Consistency.
Mongodb has very powerful aggregate functions and an expressive aggregate framework. It has many of the features developers are accustomed to using from the relational database world. It's document data/storage structure allows for more complex data models than Cassandra, for example.
All this comes with trade-offs of course. So when you select your database (NoSQL, NewSQL, or RDBMS) look at what problem you are trying to solve and at your scalability needs. No one database does it all.
According to DataStax, Cassandra is not the best use case when there is a need for
1- High end hardware devices.
2- ACID compliant with no roll back (bank transaction)
It does not support complete transaction management across the
tables.
Secondary Index not supported.
Have to rely on Elastic search /Solr for Secondary index and the custom sync component has to be written.
Not ACID compliant system.
Query support is limited.
New school datastore paradigms like Google BigTable and Amazon SimpleDB are specifically designed for scalability, among other things. Basically, disallowing joins and denormalization are the ways this is being accomplished.
In this topic, however, the consensus seems to be that joins on large tables don't necessarilly have to be too expensive and denormalization is "overrated" to some extent
Why, then, do these aforementioned systems disallow joins and force everything together in a single table to achieve scalability? Is it the sheer volumes of data that needs to be stored in these systems (many terabytes)?
Do the general rules for databases simply not apply to these scales?
Is it because these database types are tailored specifically towards storing many similar objects?
Or am I missing some bigger picture?
Distributed databases aren't quite as naive as Orion implies; there has been quite a bit of work done on optimizing fully relational queries over distributed datasets. You may want to look at what companies like Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum, Vertica, AsterData, etc are doing. (Oracle got in the game, finally, as well, with their recent announcement; Microsoft bought their solition in the name of the company that used to be called DataAllegro).
That being said, when the data scales up into terabytes, these issues become very non-trivial. If you don't need the strict transactionality and consistency guarantees you can get from RDBMs, it is often far easier to denormalize and not do joins. Especially if you don't need to cross-reference much. Especially if you are not doing ad-hoc analysis, but require programmatic access with arbitrary transformations.
Denormalization is overrated. Just because that's what happens when you are dealing with a 100 Tera, doesn't mean this fact should be used by every developer who never bothered to learn about databases and has trouble querying a million or two rows due to poor schema planning and query optimization.
But if you are in the 100 Tera range, by all means...
Oh, the other reason these technologies are getting the buzz -- folks are discovering that some things never belonged in the database in the first place, and are realizing that they aren't dealing with relations in their particular fields, but with basic key-value pairs. For things that shouldn't have been in a DB, it's entirely possible that the Map-Reduce framework, or some persistent, eventually-consistent storage system, is just the thing.
On a less global scale, I highly recommend BerkeleyDB for those sorts of problems.
I'm not too familiar with them (I've only read the same blog/news/examples as everyone else) but my take on it is that they chose to sacrifice a lot of the normal relational DB features in the name of scalability - I'll try explain.
Imagine you have 200 rows in your data-table.
In google's datacenter, 50 of these rows are stored on server A, 50 on B, and 100 on server C. Additionally server D contains redundant copies of data from server A and B, and server E contains redundant copies of data on server C.
(In real life I have no idea how many servers would be used, but it's set up to deal with many millions of rows, so I imagine quite a few).
To "select * where name = 'orion'", the infrastructure can fire that query to all the servers, and aggregate the results that come back. This allows them to scale pretty much linearly across as many servers as they like (FYI this is pretty much what mapreduce is)
This however means you need some tradeoffs.
If you needed to do a relational join on some data, where it was spread across say 5 servers, each of those servers would need to pull data from eachother for each row. Try do that when you have 2 million rows spread across 10 servers.
This leads to tradeoff #1 - No joins.
Also, depending on network latency, server load, etc, some of your data may get saved instantly, but some may take a second or 2. Again, when you have dozens of servers, this gets longer and longer, and the normal approach of 'everyone just waits until the slowest guy has finished' no longer becomes acceptable.
This leads to tradeoff #2 - Your data may not always be immediately visible after it's written.
I'm not sure what other tradeoffs there are, but off the top of my head those are the main 2.
So what I'm getting is that the whole "denormalize, no joins" philosophy exists, not because joins themselves don't scale in large systems, but because they're practically impossible to implement in distributed databases.
This seems pretty reasonable when you're storing largely invariant data of a single type (Like Google does). Am I on the right track here?
If you are talking about data that is virtually read-only, the rules change. Denormalisation is hardest in situations where data changes because the work required is increased and there are more problems with locking. If the data barely changes then denormalisation is not so much of a problem.
Novaday You need to find more interoperational environment for databases. More frequently You don't need only an relational DBs, like MySQL or MS SQL but also Big Data farms as Hadoop or non-relational DBs like MongoDB. In some cases all those DBs will be used in one solution so their performance must be as equal as possible in macro scale. It means, that You will not be able to use let say Azure SQL as relational DB and one VM with 2 cores and 3GB of RAM for MongoDB. You must scale-up Your solution and use DB as a Service when it is possible (if it is not possible, then build Your own cluster in a cloud).