I came across a crazy thought and I wanted to share it with you and ask about its feasibility, especially performance wise:
The idea is to manage object database operations by:
creating a folder for each class named after class name
creating a sub-folder for each sub-class named after sub-class name
creating a file for each object named after its unique ID
creating a sub-folder for each index named after names of indexed fields
creating a shortcut file for each index entry referring to the original object file
reading/writing binary objects by very fast serializer/deserializer
inserting/updating/deleting objects and index entries by renaming object and shortcut files
caching/paging by using memory-mapped files
querying would utilize binary search on sorted file names
UPDATE: Thank you all for your replies. I was thinking this can be even improved by using some compression/encryption library such as 7z, instead of dealing with the OS file system. Otherwise, all of your stated concerns so far are valid. I'm wondering what kind of underlying file system does, for example, Oracle uses
Cons:
On most filesystems, even a 1 byte file takes a full block of 4kb. Can be a huge problem depending of the kind of object you wanna store in your database.
Most filesystems are not designed to scale with directories containing millions of files.
Complex queries will require the opening/reading/deserializing/closing of million of files, and thus will be very slow.
Its an interesting concept, a few thoughts on immediate issues you will have to resolve.
Windows file performance takes a hit after a few hundred thousands files, you need to alter certain aspects (turn off 8.3 and last update timestamps) to get it to not cause delays when reading the file system.
Locking - the locking mechanism will be an interesting challenge, you need to be able to lock things for update, but permit reads simultaneously.
ACID - whilst performing operations against this 'database' how would you enforce the ACID principles - each of them is a non-trivial problem.
As a practice to learn more about databases sure, but for a real world projekt that should do anyting, no.
There is so much under the hood of databases that unless you actually know exactly what you are doing, and in that case you would not be asking here ;), you will most probable never match existing solutions.
Go fo an existing object database instead and concentrate on the specifics of you application/site/...
Related
Database ultimately stores the data in files, whereas File system also stores the data in files. In this case what is the difference between DB and File System. Is it in the way it is retrieved or anything else?
A database is generally used for storing related, structured data, with well defined data formats, in an efficient manner for insert, update and/or retrieval (depending on application).
On the other hand, a file system is a more unstructured data store for storing arbitrary, probably unrelated data. The file system is more general, and databases are built on top of the general data storage services provided by file systems. [Quora]
The file system is useful if you are looking for a particular file, as operating systems maintain a sort of index. However, the contents of a txt file won't be indexed, which is one of the main advantages of a database.
For very complex operations, the filesystem is likely to be very slow.
Main RDBMS advantages:
Tables are related to each other
SQL query/data processing language
Transaction processing addition to SQL (Transact-SQL)
Server-client implementation with server-side objects like stored procedures, functions, triggers, views, etc.
Advantage of the File System over Data base Management System is:
When handling small data sets with arbitrary, probably unrelated data, file is more efficient than database.
For simple operations, read, write, file operations are faster and simple.
You can find n number of difference over internet.
"They're the same"
Yes, storing data is just storing data. At the end of the day, you have files. You can store lots of stuff in lots of files & folders, there are situations where this will be the way. There is a well-known versioning solution (svn) that finally ended up using a filesystem-based model to store data, ditching their BerkeleyDB. Rare but happens. More info.
"They're quite different"
In a database, you have options you don't have with files. Imagine a textfile (something like tsv/csv) with 99999 rows. Now try to:
Insert a column. It's painful, you have to alter each row and read+write the whole file.
Find a row. You either scan the whole file or build an index yourself.
Delete a row. Find row, then read+write everything after it.
Reorder columns. Again, full read+write.
Sort rows. Full read, some kind of sort - then do it next time all over.
There are lots of other good points but these are the first mountains you're trying to climb when you think of a file based db alternative. Those guys programmed all this for you, it's yours to use; think of the likely (most frequent) scenarios, enumerate all possible actions you want to perform on your data, and decide which one works better for you. Think in benefits, not fashion.
Again, if you're storing JPG pictures and only ever look for them by one key (their id maybe?), a well-thought filesystem storage is better. Filesystems, btw, are close to databases today, as many of them use a balanced tree approach, so on a BTRFS you can just put all your pictures in one folder - and the OS will silently implement something like an early SQL query each time you access your files.
So, database or files?...
Let's see a few typical examples when one is better than the other. (These are no complete lists, surely you can stuff in a lot more on both sides.)
DB tables are much better when:
You want to store many rows with the exact same structure (no block waste)
You need lightning-fast lookup / sorting by more than one value (indexed tables)
You need atomic transactions (data safety)
Your users will read/write the same data all the time (better locking)
Filesystem is way better if:
You like to use version control on your data (a nightmare with dbs)
You have big chunks of data that grow frequently (typically, logfiles)
You want other apps to access your data without API (like text editors)
You want to store lots of binary content (pictures or mp3s)
TL;DR
Programming rarely says "never" or "always". Those who say "database always wins" or "files always win" probably just don't know enough. Think of the possible actions (now + future), consider both ways, and choose the fastest / most efficient for the case. That's it.
Something one should be aware of is that Unix has what is called an inode limit. If you are storing millions of records then this can be a serious problem. You should run df -i to view the % used as effectively this is a filesystem file limit - EVEN IF you have plenty of disk space.
The difference between file processing system and database management system is as follow:
A file processing system is a collection of programs that store and manage files in computer hard-disk. On the other hand, A database management system is collection of programs that enables to create and maintain a database.
File processing system has more data redundancy, less data redundancy in dbms.
File processing system provides less flexibility in accessing data, whereas dbms has more flexibility in accessing data.
File processing system does not provide data consistency, whereas dbms provides data consistency through normalization.
File processing system is less complex, whereas dbms is more complex.
Context: I've written a filesystem that has been running in production for 7 years now. [1]
The key difference between a filesystem and a database is that the filesystem API is part of the OS, thus filesystem implementations have to implement that API and thus follow certain rules, whereas databases are built by 3rd parties having complete freedom.
Historically, databases where created when the filesystem provided by the OS were not good enough for the problem at hand. Just think about it: if you had special requirements, you couldn't just call Microsoft or Apple to redesign their filesystem API. You would either go ahead and write your own storage software or you would look around for existing alternatives. So the need created a market for 3rd party data storage software which ended up being called databases. That's about it.
While it may seem that filesystems have certain rules like having files and directories, this is not true. The biggest operating systems work like that but there are many mall small OSs that work differently. It's certainly not a hard requirement. (Just remember, to build a new filesystem, you also need to write a new OS, which will make adoption quite a bit harder. Why not focus on just the storage engine and call it a database instead?)
In the end, both databases and filesystems come in all shapes and sizes. Transactional, relational, hierarchical, graph, tabled; whatever you can think of.
[1] I've worked on the Boomla Filesystem which is the storage system behind the Boomla OS & Web Application Platform.
The main differences between the Database and File System storage is:
The database is a software application used to insert, update and delete
data while the file system is a software used to add, update and delete
files.
Saving the files and retrieving is simpler in file system
while SQL needs to be learn to perform any query on the database to
get (SELECT), add (INSERT) and update the data.
Database provides a proper data recovery process while file system did not.
In terms of security the database is more secure then the file system (usually).
The migration process is very easy in File system just copy and paste into the target
while for database this task is not as simple.
I'm working on a system that will need to store a lot of documents (PDFs, Word files etc.) I'm using Solr/Lucene to search for revelant information extracted from those documents but I also need a place to store the original files so that they can be opened/downloaded by the users.
I was thinking about several possibilities:
file system - probably not that good idea to store 1m documents
sql database - but I won't need most of it's relational features as I need to store only the binary document and its id so this might not be the fastest solution
no-sql database - don't have any expierience with them so I'm not sure if they are any good either, there are also many of them so I don't know which one to pick
The storage I'm looking for should be:
fast
scallable
open-source (not crucial but nice to have)
Can you recommend what's the best way of storing those files will be in your opinion?
A filesystem -- as the name suggests -- is designed and optimised to store large numbers of files in an efficient and scalable way.
You can follow Facebook as it stores a lot of files (15 billion photos):
They Initially started with NFS share served by commercial storage appliances.
Then they moved to their onw implementation http file server called Haystack
Here is a facebook note if you want to learn more http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=76191543919
Regarding the NFS share. Keep in mind that NFS shares usually limits amount of files in one folder for performance reasons. (This could be a bit counter intuitive if you assume that all recent file systems use b-trees to store their structure.) So if you are using comercial NFS shares like (NetApp) you will likely need to keep files in multiple folders.
You can do that if you have any kind of id for your files. Just divide it Ascii representation in to groups of few characters and make folder for each group.
For example we use integers for ids so file with id 1234567891 is stored as storage/0012/3456/7891.
Hope that helps.
In my opinion...
I would store files compressed onto disk (file system) and use a database to keep track of them.
and posibly use Sqlite if this is its only job.
File System : While thinking about the big picture, The DBMS use the file system again. And the File system is dedicated for keeping the files, so you can see the optimizations (as LukeH mentioned)
Consider I modify the way files are stored in a system, where every file name would actually be the table name in a database and each line in the file would actually be the rows of that table. Would that increase overall system speed? would it be worthwhile? what are the tradeoffs?
To further clarify the distinction between this and the normal use of a database, consider the files not to simply be text files, but also audio, video, binary, etc. where they are stored in the manner mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Immediate benefits that I can see from this is that i can read/write any line from/to a file without having to repeatedly read/write the previous lines until reaching the desired line. Another benefit would be simultaneous reading/writing of files.
Please do not confuse this with a database file system, this is a file implementation
To add to your benefit of reading writing by location, the additional benefit are.
Pros
Indexing
Indexing the text with full text indexing that can give searching benefits. Ofcourse the size of database will probably be more then the conventional file sizes. But you have benefit in terms of performance because database system will have only one file handle open, and it will do caching and will improve performance and cause less fragmentation.
Lock/Performance
Opening/closing multiple files will put little more overhead in terms of performance because each open/close requires access control check and locking.
Replication
Replication benefits, if you put them in mysql, mysql replication is easy to setup and you can keep multiple backups easily.
Maintanence
Transfering, maintaining and querying database will be much easier then in terms of files.
Cons
File Browser Access
You can not access files through explorer or normal file system api, you will need some sort of access api probably REST based api or some viewer that can read the database.
You can check my blog about more detailed analysis.
Maybe some benefits on speed are present, but there's a lot of issue which make the cons overwhelm the pros.
No easy way to support Transactions
No easy way to support typification of fields (think about a file with BLOB objects in it)
Relationship constraint
No trivial support for cache, accessing RAM is faster than accessing disk
No easy way to support something like "ALTER TABLE"
I guess that if you write something which support all this kind of issues you've written a sql engine...
I've been thinking on this for a while now (you know, that dangerous thing programmers tend to do) and I've been wondering, is the method of storing data that we're so accustomed to really all that efficient? The trouble with answering this question is that I really don't have anything to compare it to, since it's the only thing I've ever used.
I don't mean FAT or NTFS or a particular type of file system, I mean the filesystem structure as a whole. We are simply used to thinking of "files" inside "folders" like our hard drive was one giant filing cabinet. This is a great analogy and indeed, it makes it a lot easier to learn when we think of it this way, but is it really the best way to go about describing programs and their respective parts?
I'd like to know if anyone can think of (or knows about) a data storage technique that might be used to store data for an Operating System to use that would organize the parts of data in a different manner. Does anything... different even exist?
Emails are often stored in folders. But ever since I have migrated to Gmail, I have become accustomed to classifying my emails with tags.
I often wondered if we could manage a whole file-system that way: instead of storing files in folders, you could tag files with the tags you like. A file identifier would not look like this:
/home/john/personal/contacts.txt
but more like this:
contacts[john,personal]
Well... just food for thought (maybe this already exists!)
You can for example have dedicated solutions, like Oracle Raw Partitions. Other databases support similar thing. In these cases the filesystem provides unnecessary overhead and can be ommited - DB software will take care of organising the structure.
The problem seems very application dependent and files/folders seem to be a reasonable compromise for many applications (and is easy for human beings to comprehend).
Mainframes used to just give programmers a number of 'devices' to use. The device corresponsed to a drive or a partition thereof and the programmer was responsible for the organisation of all data on it. Of course they quickly built up libraries to help with that.
The only OS I think think of that does use the common hierachical arrangement of flat files (like UNIX) is PICK. That used a sort of relational database as the filesystem.
Microsoft had originally planned to introduce a new file-system for windows vista (WinFS - windows future storage). The idea was to store everything in a relational database (SQL Server). As far as I know, this project was never (or not yet?) finished.
There's more information about it on wikipedia.
I knew a guy who wrote his doctorate about a hard disk that comes with its own file system. It was based on an extension of SCSI commands that allowed the usual open, read, write and close commands to be sent to the disk directly, bypassing the file system drivers of the OS. I think the conclusion was that it is inflexible, and does not add much efficiency.
Anyway, this disk based file system still had a folder like structure I believe, so I don't think it really counts for you ;-)
Well, there's always Pick, where the OS and file system were an integrated database.
Traditional file systems are optimized for fast file access if you know the name of the file you want (including its path). Directories are a way of grouping files together so that they're easier to find if you know properties of the file but not its actual name.
Traditional file systems are not good at finding files if you know very little about them, however they are robust enough that one can add a layer on top of them to aid in retrieving files based on content or meta-information such as tags. That's what indexers are for.
The bottom line is we need a way to store persistently the bytes that the CPU needs to execute. So we have traditional file systems which are very good at organizing sequential sets of bytes. We also need to store persistently the bytes of files that aren't executed directly, but are used by things that do execute. Why create a new system for the same fundamental thing?
What more should a file system do other than store and retrieve bytes?
I'll echo the other responses. If I could pick a filesystem type, I personally would rather see a hybrid approach: a flat database of subtrees, where each subtree is considered as a cohesive unit, but if you consider the subtrees themselves as discrete units they would have no hierarchy, but instead could have metadata + be queryable on that metadata.
The reason for files is that humans like to attach names to "things" they have to use. Otherwise, it becomes hard to talk or think about or even distinguish them.
When we have too many things on a heap, we like to separate the heap. We sort it by some means and we like to build hierarchies where you can navigate arbitrarily sized amounts of things.
Hence directories and files just map our natural way of working with real objects. Since you can put anything in a file. On Unix, even hardware is mapped as "device nodes" into the file system which are special files which you can read/write to send commands to the hardware.
I think the metaphor is so powerful, it will stay.
I spent a while trying to come up with an automagically versioning file system that would maintain versions (and version history) of any specific file and/or directory structure.
The idea was that all of the standard access command (e.g. dir, read, etc.) would have an optional date/time parameter that could be passed to access the file system as it looked at that point in time.
I got pretty far with it, but had to abandon it when I had to actually go out and earn some money. It's been on the back-burner since then.
If you take a look at the start-up times for operating systems, it should be clear that improvements in accessing disks can be made. I'm not sure if the changes should be in the file system or rather in the OS start-up code.
Personally, I'm really sorry WinFS didn't fly. I loved the concept..
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS) :
WinFS includes a relational database
for storage of information, and allows
any type of information to be stored
in it, provided there is a well
defined schema for the type.
Individual data items could then be
related together by relationships,
which are either inferred by the
system based on certain attributes or
explicitly stated by the user. As the
data has a well defined schema, any
application can reuse the data; and
using the relationships, related data
can be effectively organized as well
as retrieved. Because the system knows
the structure and intent of the
information, it can be used to make
complex queries that enable advanced
searching through the data and
aggregating various data items by
exploiting the relationships between
them.
I have an idea for a simple application which will monitor a group of folders, index any files it finds. A gui will allow me quickly tag new files and move them into a single database for storage and also provide an easy mechanism for querying the db by tag, name, file type and date. At the moment I have about 100+ GB of files on a couple removable hard drives, the database will be at least that big. If possible I would like to support full text search of the embedded binary and text documents. This will be a single user application.
Not trying to start a DB war, but what open source DB is going to work best for me? I am pretty sure SQLLite is off the table but I could be wrong.
I'm still researching this option for one of my own projects, but CouchDB may be worth a look.
Why store the files in the database at all? Simply store your meta-data and a filename. If you need to copy them to a new location for some reason, just do that as a file system copy.
Once you remove the file contents then any competent database will be able to handle the meta-data for a few hundred thousand files.
My preference would be to store the document with the metadata. One reason, is relational integrity. You can't easily move the files or modify the files without the action being brokered by the db. I am sure I can handle these problems but it isn't as clean as I would like and my experience has been that most vendors can handle huge amounts of binary data in the database these days. I guess I was wondering if PostgreSQL or MySQL have any obvious advantages in these areas, I am primarily familiar with Oracle. Anyway, thanks for the response, if the DB knows where the external file is it will also be easy to bring the file in at a later date if I want. Another aspect of the question was if either database is easier to work with when using Python. I'm assuming that is a wash.
I always hate to answer "don't", but you'd be better off indexing with something like Lucene (PyLucene). That and storing the paths in the database rather than the file contents is almost always recommended.
To add to that, none of those database engines will store LOBs in a separate dataspace (they'll be embedded in the table's data space) so any of those engines should perfom nearly equally as well (well except sqllite). You need to move to Informix, DB2, SQLServer or others to get that kind of binary object handling.
Pretty much any of them would work (even though SQLLite wasn't meant to be used in a concurrent multi-user environment, which could be a problem...) since you don't want to index the actual contents of the files.
The only limiting factor is the maximum "packet" size of the given DB (by packet I'm referring to a query/response). Usually these limit are around 2MB, meaning that your files must be smaller than 2MB. Of course you could increase this limit, but the whole process is rather inefficient, since for example to insert a file you would have to:
Read the entire file into memory
Transform the file in a query (which usually means hex encoding it - thus doubling the size from the start)
Executing the generated query (which itself means - for the database - that it has to parse it)
I would go with a simple DB and the associated files stored using a naming convention which makes them easy to find (for example based on the primary key). Of course this design is not "pure", but it will perform much better and is also easier to use.
why are you wasting time emulating something that the filesystem should be able to handle? more storage + grep is your answer.