While computer programming evangelists predicting the future of Cloud Computing to be very bright, is there a chance for relational databases to be on their way out?
What are the DBs that are more suitable for Cloud Computing?
Here's a good article that may answer some of your questions. It features a good comparison between RDBMS systems and the ones usually used for cloud storage infrastructure:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php
The relational database model has a firm mathematical basis in relational algebra. This makes it easy to reason about, to extend, and to use properly (in theory). Even if database access patterns change significantly as a result of these new APIs and uses, it's likely that a relational database will form the underlying implementation for this reason.
No, RDBMSs will always have a place because of their functionality. Not just on their own, but also as backbones to other systems (like OODBMSs).
Relational databases are still relevant, both for localized storage (such as application-specific storage) and for server storage.
The cloud computing platforms that I've seen each have a relational database offering. So, I don't see cloud computing really changing the picture in reference to database types being used.
However, something will eventually replace the databases that we're all used to. The question is whether that will be a higher-level version of RDBs or something different. Another aspect of that question is how long will it take for the current crop of RDBs to fade out? (I don't have an answer for either.)
Clouds go poof still these days, so I don't think so anytime soon.
I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. Something else might though.
First, what type of storage engine a given application uses does not (or should not) depend on where it is running (the cloud or a specific server), but rather on how it needs to store the data.
Second, as far as I can tell the only reason people think RDBMSs are on their way out is because they don't scale as well as non-relational DBMSs (such as document-oriented DBMSs like CouchDB) which can more easily be distributed into the cloud. However, there is no reason that RDBMSs cannot become more cloud-friendly in the future. As an early example, look at Drizzle:
The Drizzle project is building a database optimized for Cloud and Net applications. It is being designed for massive concurrency on modern multi-cpu/core architecture.
So no, I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. They will just be forced to adapt. What might kill them, however, is if an existing alternative, or a new one, becomes as robust and easy to use as RDBMSs. What I mean is a solution that has both completely solid software (betas not allowed) and is easy for programmers to switch to. They give out degrees to people who understand RDBMSs. Because of all the assisting software (such as ORMs like ActiveRecord, SQLAlchemy, and whatever the .NET folk use I'm assuming), using RDBMSs has become easy even for people who don't know what the first normal form is. So I think that until there is a way for people to use (for instance) a DODBMS just as easily, RDBMSs will continue to dominate. I'm also not saying that is necessarily bad. Again, which DBMS you use should depend on your data, not what people say is cool and better.
A quote from the article :
"The inherent constraints of a relational database ensure that data at the lowest level have integrity. Data that violate integrity constraints cannot physically be entered into the database. These constraints don't exist in a key/value database, so the responsibility for ensuring data integrity falls entirely to the application. But application code often carries bugs. Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues."
What this means to me is that RDBMS's are doomed, and hotshot new technologies are facing a great and brilliant future, to the same extent that users aren't anywhere near interested in the correctness of their data.
IMHO.
There's nothing wrong with relational databases for applications that need to query more structured data (e.g., "How many people bought product XYZ, on this date, paid more than $100, but less than $150?"). There are potentially significant architectural issues that will need to be addressed as these systems scale and grow. Once your DB outgrows the one machine you started on and/or traffic/requests begin to overload available resources, then (if you still want to keep your relational database) you have to start adding layers. Thankfully today, there are many more options available then in previous years... including caching, map and reduce, and other functionality - but these add-on layers do add complexity and maintenance overhead. In one sense I'd consider these engineered "band-aids" which will most likely solve the scalability and distribution problems with a relational DB today, but longer term? Who knows. I also see these popular layers today - all of which are basically trying to emulate functionality already available in object DBs, giving developers a "virtual object DB" layer that they can use with their object languages to do things faster and more efficiently, and get past the growth and performance obstacles. So I guess my overall opinion is, relational DBs became the defacto DB probably mostly due to how (relatively) easy it was to query a database, and get results back to the one client/app using it. As volumes have grown though, and application complexity is exponentially greater today, I think more developers will decide to bite the bullet, learn the syntax for object DBs (which is actually about as standardized today as relational DBs), and just skip all the middleware and layers that only emulate functionality that one could get natively in an OODBMS. I've seen OODBs that simply get installed on any number of servers, and automatically distributing data as needed, and giving the developer a single view of any size federation of databases... Seems to me the best solution as systems become more distributed, to get a DB that can has native distributed architecture. Anyway, just a thought.
Related
I'm intrigued in the database service Datomic, but I'm not sure if it fits the needs of the projects I work on. When is Datomic a good choice, and when should it be avoided?
With the proviso that I haven't used Datomic in production, thought I'd give you an answer.
Advantages
Datalog queries are powerful (more so than non-recursive SQL) and very expressive.
Queries can be written with Clojure data structures, and it's NOT a weak DSL like many SQL libraries that allow you to query with data structures.
It's immutable, so you get the advantages that immutability gives you in Clojure/other languages as well
a. This also allows you to store, while saving structures, all past facts in your database—this is VERY useful for auditing & more
Disadvantages
It can be slow, as Datalog is just going to be slower than equivalent SQL (assuming an equivalent SQL statement can be written).
If you are writing a LOT, you could maybe need to worry about the single transactor getting overwhelmed. This seems unlikely for most cases, but it's something to think about (you could do a sort of shard, though, and probably save yourself; but this isn't a DB for e.g. storing stock tick data).
It's a bit tricky to get up and running with, and it's expensive, and the licensing and price makes it difficult to use a hosted instance with it: you'll need to be dealing with sysadminning this yourself instead of using something like Postgres on Heroku or Mongo at MongoHQ
I'm sure I'm missing some on each side, and though I have 3 listed under disadvantages, I think that the advantages outweigh them in more circumstances where disadvantages don't preclude its use. Price is probably the one that will prevent its being used in most small projects (that you expect to outlast the 1 year free trial).
Cf. this short post describing Datomic simply for some more information.
Expressivity (c.f. Datalog) and immutability are awesome. It's SO much fun to work with Dataomic in that regard, and you can tell it's powerful just by using it a bit.
One important thing when considering if Datomic is the right fit for your application is to think about shape of the data you are going to store and query - as Datomic facts are actually very similar to RDF triples (+ first class time notion) it lends itself very good to modeling complex relationships (linked graph data) - something which is often cumbersome with traditional SQL databases.
I found this aspect to be one of the most appealing and important for me, it worked really well, even if this is of course not something exclusive to Datomic, as there are many other high-quality offerings for graph databases, one must mention Neo4J when we are talking about JVM based solutions.
Regarding Datomic schema, i think it's just the right balance between flexibility and stability.
To complete the above answers, I'd like to emphasize that immutability and the ability to remember the past are not 'wizardry features' suited to a few special case like auditing. It is an approach which has several deep benefits compared to 'mutable cells' databases (which are 99% of databases today). Stuart Halloway demonstrates this nicely in this video: the Impedance Mismatch is our fault.
In my personal opinion, this approach is fundamentally more sane conceptually. Having used it for several months, I don't see Datomic has having crazy magical sophisticated powers, rather a more natural paradigm without some of the big problems the others have.
Here are some features of Datomic I find valuable, most of which are enabled by immutability:
because reading is not remote, you don't have to design your queries like an expedition over the wire. In particular, you can separate concerns into several queries (e.g find the entities which are the input to my query - answer some business question about these entities - fetch associated data for presenting the result)
the schema is very flexible, without sacrificing query power
it's comfortable to have your queries integrated in your application programming language
the Entity API brings you the good parts of ORMs
the query language is programmable and has primitives for abstraction and reuse (rules, predicates, database functions)
performance: writers impede only other writers, and no one impedes readers. Plus, lots of caching.
... and yes, a few superpowers like travelling to the past, speculative writes or branching reality.
Regarding when not to use Datomic, here are the current constraints and limitations I see:
you have to be on the JVM (there is also a REST API, but you lose most of the benefits IMO)
not suited for write scale, nor huge data volumes
won't be especially integrated into frameworks, e.g you won't currently find a library which generates CRUD REST endpoints from a Datomic schema
it's a commercial database
since reading happens in the application process (the 'Peer'), you have to make sure that the Peer has enough memory to hold all the data it needs to traverse in a query.
So my very vague and informal answer would be that Datomic is a good fit for most non-trivial applications which write load is reasonable and you don't have a problem with the license and being on the JVM.
As an analogy, you can ask yourself the same question for Git as compared to other version control systems which are not based on immutability.
Just to tentatively add over the other answers:
It is probably fair to say datomic presents the better conceptual framework for a queryable data store of all other current options out there, while being partially scalable and not exceptionally performant.
I say only partially scalable, because queries need to fit in the peer RAM or fail. And not exceptionally performant, as top-notch SQL engines can optimize queries to fit in memory through sophisticated execution plans, something I've not yet seen mentioned as a feature in datomic; Datomic's decoupling of transacting and querying might in the overall offset this feature.
Unlike many NoSQL engines though, transactions are a first-class citizen, which puts it at par with RDBMS systems in that key regard.
For applications where data is read more than being written, transactions are needed, queries always fit in memory or memory is very cheap, and the overall size of accumulated data isn't too large, it might be a win where a commercial-only product can be afforded ― for those who are willing to embrace its novel conceptual framework implied in the API.
In past year I've made numerous projects with NoSQL json based databases - the rich kinds (not the key/value stores) - such as CouchDB, MongoDB, RavenDB. I talk to fellow programmers often about my adoption, I notice though I'm always quick to add "of course SQL RDBMS system still have a place, its always whats best for particular project/task" - as a little disclaimer so not be seen as kool aid drinker, however its pretty shallow statement. Outside of legacy projects that already have an investment in RDBMS, or corporate mandates insisting on Oracle, I struggling to think of any future green field project I'd opt for a SQL database. Its CouchDB all the way for me as far as I can see with rich map/reduce, changes feed, replication support, RESTFUL api (sorry thats starting to sound like a plug)
I'd like to hear those that do "get" (beyond screencasts) NoSQL Json M/R databases such as CouchDb, what type of projects do you think you'll use MS-SQL, Oracle, Postgresql etc.. in the future ?
Thanks
One of the biggest strengths of SQL is that there is a standard way of modelling just about anything - for any given project it may not provide an optimal solution, but it does provide a reasonable one. This means that in a corporate environment you can decide that everything will be stored in Oracle to get the maintenance benefits of having a single system without the risk that it will be completely inappropriate for future projects.
This ability to handle different requirements without needing a lot of planning is also relevant at the start of projects where the design doesn't get signed off until six months into development - again, something that applies mostly in corporate development.
Using NoSQL properly generally requires better developers than you need for SQL development. One of the many SQL code samples available can be edited into a working system by someone who barely knows what they are doing. NoSQL does things like eliminating integrity checks for performance - a good developer produces well tested code that doesn't insert invalid records or understands why a few invalid records don't matter for a particular app. A bad developer thinks anything without error messages is good code. The average developer at a successful web startup can probably handle it. The average developer maintaining internal corporate apps probably can't.
On my own projects where I have complete control of the platform choice and know both the requirements and who will do the development, NoSQL is as good a complete solution as you suggest. Nothing really matters except the technical advantages - easier to code, easier to maintain, better performance, horizontal scaling.
In the corporate environment it's the other realities that dominate - incompetent developers, unknown/changing requirements, long application life cycles, the need to minimize the number of systems - NoSQL wasn't designed for that problem set.
Off-hand, I'd simply say that if the data is inherently relational, an RDBMS is the optimal choice. For instance, an order management system is a good fit for an RDBMS. If the data is not inherently relational (like Google's search index, for example), than NoSQL is a better choice. They both have their place.
My latest application is massively hierarchical/relational with objects containing sub-objects containing sub-objects, all related by natural keys. It's a perfect fit for an RDBMS, and would have been much trickier in a NoSQL DB.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Whether we like it or not, many if not most of us developers either regularly work with databases or may have to work with one someday. And considering the amount of misuse and abuse in the wild, and the volume of database-related questions that come up every day, it's fair to say that there are certain concepts that developers should know - even if they don't design or work with databases today.
What is one important concept that developers and other software professionals ought to know about databases?
The very first thing developers should know about databases is this: what are databases for? Not how do they work, nor how do you build one, nor even how do you write code to retrieve or update the data in a database. But what are they for?
Unfortunately, the answer to this one is a moving target. In the heydey of databases, the 1970s through the early 1990s, databases were for the sharing of data. If you were using a database, and you weren't sharing data you were either involved in an academic project or you were wasting resources, including yourself. Setting up a database and taming a DBMS were such monumental tasks that the payback, in terms of data exploited multiple times, had to be huge to match the investment.
Over the last 15 years, databases have come to be used for storing the persistent data associated with just one application. Building a database for MySQL, or Access, or SQL Server has become so routine that databases have become almost a routine part of an ordinary application. Sometimes, that initial limited mission gets pushed upward by mission creep, as the real value of the data becomes apparent. Unfortunately, databases that were designed with a single purpose in mind often fail dramatically when they begin to be pushed into a role that's enterprise wide and mission critical.
The second thing developers need to learn about databases is the whole data centric view of the world. The data centric world view is more different from the process centric world view than anything most developers have ever learned. Compared to this gap, the gap between structured programming and object oriented programming is relatively small.
The third thing developers need to learn, at least in an overview, is data modeling, including conceptual data modeling, logical data modeling, and physical data modeling.
Conceptual data modeling is really requirements analysis from a data centric point of view.
Logical data modeling is generally the application of a specific data model to the requirements discovered in conceptual data modeling. The relational model is used far more than any other specific model, and developers need to learn the relational model for sure. Designing a powerful and relevant relational model for a nontrivial requirement is not a trivial task. You can't build good SQL tables if you misunderstand the relational model.
Physical data modeling is generally DBMS specific, and doesn't need to be learned in much detail, unless the developer is also the database builder or the DBA. What developers do need to understand is the extent to which physical database design can be separated from logical database design, and the extent to which producing a high speed database can be accomplished just by tweaking the physical design.
The next thing developers need to learn is that while speed (performance) is important, other measures of design goodness are even more important, such as the ability to revise and extend the scope of the database down the road, or simplicity of programming.
Finally, anybody who messes with databases needs to understand that the value of data often outlasts the system that captured it.
Whew!
Good question. The following are some thoughts in no particular order:
Normalization, to at least the second normal form, is essential.
Referential integrity is also essential, with proper cascading delete and update considerations.
Good and proper use of check constraints. Let the database do as much work as possible.
Don't scatter business logic in both the database and middle tier code. Pick one or the other, preferably in middle tier code.
Decide on a consistent approach for primary keys and clustered keys.
Don't over index. Choose your indexes wisely.
Consistent table and column naming. Pick a standard and stick to it.
Limit the number of columns in the database that will accept null values.
Don't get carried away with triggers. They have their use but can complicate things in a hurry.
Be careful with UDFs. They are great but can cause performance problems when you're not aware how often they might get called in a query.
Get Celko's book on database design. The man is arrogant but knows his stuff.
First, developers need to understand that there is something to know about databases. They're not just magic devices where you put in the SQL and get out result sets, but rather very complicated pieces of software with their own logic and quirks.
Second, that there are different database setups for different purposes. You do not want a developer making historical reports off an on-line transactional database if there's a data warehouse available.
Third, developers need to understand basic SQL, including joins.
Past this, it depends on how closely the developers are involved. I've worked in jobs where I was developer and de facto DBA, where the DBAs were just down the aisle, and where the DBAs are off in their own area. (I dislike the third.) Assuming the developers are involved in database design:
They need to understand basic normalization, at least the first three normal forms. Anything beyond that, get a DBA. For those with any experience with US courtrooms (and random television shows count here), there's the mnemonic "Depend on the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key, so help you Codd."
They need to have a clue about indexes, by which I mean they should have some idea what indexes they need and how they're likely to affect performance. This means not having useless indices, but not being afraid to add them to assist queries. Anything further (like the balance) should be left for the DBA.
They need to understand the need for data integrity, and be able to point to where they're verifying the data and what they're doing if they find problems. This doesn't have to be in the database (where it will be difficult to issue a meaningful error message for the user), but has to be somewhere.
They should have the basic knowledge of how to get a plan, and how to read it in general (at least enough to tell whether the algorithms are efficient or not).
They should know vaguely what a trigger is, what a view is, and that it's possible to partition pieces of databases. They don't need any sort of details, but they need to know to ask the DBA about these things.
They should of course know not to meddle with production data, or production code, or anything like that, and they should know that all source code goes into a VCS.
I've doubtless forgotten something, but the average developer need not be a DBA, provided there is a real DBA at hand.
Basic Indexing
I'm always shocked to see a table or an entire database with no indexes, or arbitrary/useless indexes. Even if you're not designing the database and just have to write some queries, it's still vital to understand, at a minimum:
What's indexed in your database and what's not:
The difference between types of scans, how they're chosen, and how the way you write a query can influence that choice;
The concept of coverage (why you shouldn't just write SELECT *);
The difference between a clustered and non-clustered index;
Why more/bigger indexes are not necessarily better;
Why you should try to avoid wrapping filter columns in functions.
Designers should also be aware of common index anti-patterns, for example:
The Access anti-pattern (indexing every column, one by one)
The Catch-All anti-pattern (one massive index on all or most columns, apparently created under the mistaken impression that it would speed up every conceivable query involving any of those columns).
The quality of a database's indexing - and whether or not you take advantage of it with the queries you write - accounts for by far the most significant chunk of performance. 9 out of 10 questions posted on SO and other forums complaining about poor performance invariably turn out to be due to poor indexing or a non-sargable expression.
Normalization
It always depresses me to see somebody struggling to write an excessively complicated query that would have been completely straightforward with a normalized design ("Show me total sales per region.").
If you understand this at the outset and design accordingly, you'll save yourself a lot of pain later. It's easy to denormalize for performance after you've normalized; it's not so easy to normalize a database that wasn't designed that way from the start.
At the very least, you should know what 3NF is and how to get there. With most transactional databases, this is a very good balance between making queries easy to write and maintaining good performance.
How Indexes Work
It's probably not the most important, but for sure the most underestimated topic.
The problem with indexing is that SQL tutorials usually don't mention them at all and that all the toy examples work without any index.
Even more experienced developers can write fairly good (and complex) SQL without knowing more about indexes than "An index makes the query fast".
That's because SQL databases do a very good job working as black-box:
Tell me what you need (gimme SQL), I'll take care of it.
And that works perfectly to retrieve the correct results. The author of the SQL doesn't need to know what the system is doing behind the scenes--until everything becomes sooo slooooow.....
That's when indexing becomes a topic. But that's usually very late and somebody (some company?) is already suffering from a real problem.
That's why I believe indexing is the No. 1 topic not to forget when working with databases. Unfortunately, it is very easy to forget it.
Disclaimer
The arguments are borrowed from the preface of my free eBook "Use The Index, Luke". I am spending quite a lot of my time explaining how indexes work and how to use them properly.
I just want to point out an observation - that is that it seems that the majority of responses assume database is interchangeable with relational databases. There are also object databases, flat file databases. It is important to asses the needs of the of the software project at hand. From a programmer perspective the database decision can be delayed until later. Data modeling on the other hand can be achieved early on and lead to much success.
I think data modeling is a key component and is a relatively old concept yet it is one that has been forgotten by many in the software industry. Data modeling, especially conceptual modeling, can reveal the functional behavior of a system and can be relied on as a road map for development.
On the other hand, the type of database required can be determined based on many different factors to include environment, user volume, and available local hardware such as harddrive space.
Avoiding SQL injection and how to secure your database
Every developer should know that this is false: "Profiling a database operation is completely different from profiling code."
There is a clear Big-O in the traditional sense. When you do an EXPLAIN PLAN (or the equivalent) you're seeing the algorithm. Some algorithms involve nested loops and are O( n ^ 2 ). Other algorithms involve B-tree lookups and are O( n log n ).
This is very, very serious. It's central to understanding why indexes matter. It's central to understanding the speed-normalization-denormalization tradeoffs. It's central to understanding why a data warehouse uses a star-schema which is not normalized for transactional updates.
If you're unclear on the algorithm being used do the following. Stop. Explain the Query Execution plan. Adjust indexes accordingly.
Also, the corollary: More Indexes are Not Better.
Sometimes an index focused on one operation will slow other operations down. Depending on the ratio of the two operations, adding an index may have good effects, no overall impact, or be detrimental to overall performance.
I think every developer should understand that databases require a different paradigm.
When writing a query to get at your data, a set-based approach is needed. Many people with an interative background struggle with this. And yet, when they embrace it, they can achieve far better results, even though the solution may not be the one that first presented itself in their iterative-focussed minds.
Excellent question. Let's see, first no one should consider querying a datbase who does not thoroughly understand joins. That's like driving a car without knowing where the steering wheel and brakes are. You also need to know datatypes and how to choose the best one.
Another thing that developers should understand is that there are three things you should have in mind when designing a database:
Data integrity - if the data can't be relied on you essentially have no data - this means do not put required logic in the application as many other sources may touch the database. Constraints, foreign keys and sometimes triggers are necessary to data integrity. Don't fail to use them because you don't like them or don't want to be bothered to understand them.
Performance - it is very hard to refactor a poorly performing database and performance should be considered from the start. There are many ways to do the same query and some are known to be faster almost always, it is short-sighted not to learn and use these ways. Read some books on performance tuning before designing queries or database structures.
Security - this data is the life-blood of your company, it also frequently contains personal information that can be stolen. Learn to protect your data from SQL injection attacks and fraud and identity theft.
When querying a database, it is easy to get the wrong answer. Make sure you understand your data model thoroughly. Remember often actual decisions are made based on the data your query returns. When it is wrong, the wrong business decisions are made. You can kill a company from bad queries or loose a big customer. Data has meaning, developers often seem to forget that.
Data almost never goes away, think in terms of storing data over time instead of just how to get it in today. That database that worked fine when it had a hundred thousand records, may not be so nice in ten years. Applications rarely last as long as data. This is one reason why designing for performance is critical.
Your database will probaly need fields that the application doesn't need to see. Things like GUIDs for replication, date inserted fields. etc. You also may need to store history of changes and who made them when and be able to restore bad changes from this storehouse. Think about how you intend to do this before you come ask a web site how to fix the problem where you forgot to put a where clause on an update and updated the whole table.
Never develop in a newer version of a database than the production version. Never, never, never develop directly against a production database.
If you don't have a database administrator, make sure someone is making backups and knows how to restore them and has tested restoring them.
Database code is code, there is no excuse for not keeping it in source control just like the rest of your code.
Evolutionary Database Design. http://martinfowler.com/articles/evodb.html
These agile methodologies make database change process manageable, predictable and testable.
Developers should know, what it takes to refactor a production database in terms of version control, continious integration and automated testing.
Evolutionary Database Design process has administrative aspects, for example a column is to be dropped after some life time period in all databases of this codebase.
At least know, that Database Refactoring concept and methodologies exist.
http://www.agiledata.org/essays/databaseRefactoringCatalog.html
Classification and process description makes it possible to implement tooling for these refactorings too.
About the following comment to Walter M.'s answer:
"Very well written! And the historical perspective is great for people who weren't doing database work at that time (i.e. me)".
The historical perspective is in a certain sense absolutely crucial. "Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it.". Cfr XML repeating the hierarchical mistakes of the past, graph databases repeating the network mistakes of the past, OO systems forcing the hierarchical model upon users while everybody with even just a tenth of a brain should know that the hierarchical model is not suitable for general-purpose representation of the real world, etcetera, etcetera.
As for the question itself:
Every database developer should know that "Relational" is not equal to "SQL". Then they would understand why they are being let down so abysmally by the DBMS vendors, and why they should be telling those same vendors to come up with better stuff (e.g. DBMS's that are truly relational) if they want to go on sucking hilarious amounts of money out of their customers for such crappy software).
And every database developer should know everything about the relational algebra. Then there would no longer be a single developer left who had to post these stupid "I don't know how to do my job and want someone else to do it for me" questions on Stack Overflow anymore.
From my experience with relational databases, every developer should know:
- The different data types:
Using the correct type for the correct job will make your DB design more robust, your queries faster and your life easier.
- Learn about 1xM and MxM:
This is the bread and butter for relational databases. You need to understand one-to-many and many-to-many relations and apply then when appropriate.
- "K.I.S.S." principle applies to the DB as well:
Simplicity always works best. Provided you have studied how DB work, you will avoid unnecessary complexity which will lead to maintenance and speed problems.
- Indices:
It's not enough if you know what they are. You need to understand when to used them and when not to.
also:
Boolean algebra is your friend
Images: Don't store them on the DB. Don't ask why.
Test DELETE with SELECT
I would like everyone, both DBAs and developer/designer/architects, to better understand how to properly model a business domain, and how to map/translate that business domain model into both a normalized database logical model, an optimized physical model, and an appropriate object oriented class model, each one of which is (can be) different, for various reasons, and understand when, why, and how they are (or should be) different from one another.
I would say strong basic SQL skills. I've seen a lot of developers so far who know a little about databases but are always asking for tips about how to formulate a quite simple query. Queries are not always that easy and simple. You do have to use multiple joins (inner, left, etc.) when querying a well normalized database.
I think a lot of the technical details have been covered here and I don't want to add to them. The one thing I want to say is more social than technical, don't fall for the "DBA knowing the best" trap as an application developer.
If you are having performance issues with query take ownership of the problem too. Do your own research and push for the DBAs to explain what's happening and how their solutions are addressing the problem.
Come up with your own suggestions too after you have done the research. That is, I try to find a cooperative solution to the problem rather than leaving database issues to the DBAs.
Simple respect.
It's not just a repository
You probably don't know better than the vendor or the DBAs
You won't support it at 3 a.m. with senior managers shouting at you
Consider Denormalization as a possible angel, not the devil, and also consider NoSQL databases as an alternative to relational databases.
Also, I think the Entity-Relation model is a must-know for every developper even if you don't design databases. It'll let you understand thoroughly what's your database all about.
Never insert data with the wrong text encoding.
Once your database becomes polluted with multiple encodings, the best you can do is apply some kind combination of heuristics and manual labor.
Aside from syntax and conceptual options they employ (such as joins, triggers, and stored procedures), one thing that will be critical for every developer employing a database is this:
Know how your engine is going to perform the query you are writing with specificity.
The reason I think this is so important is simply production stability. You should know how your code performs so you're not stopping all execution in your thread while you wait for a long function to complete, so why would you not want to know how your query will affect the database, your program, and perhaps even the server?
This is actually something that has hit my R&D team more times than missing semicolons or the like. The presumtion is the query will execute quickly because it does on their development system with only a few thousand rows in the tables. Even if the production database is the same size, it is more than likely going to be used a lot more, and thus suffer from other constraints like multiple users accessing it at the same time, or something going wrong with another query elsewhere, thus delaying the result of this query.
Even simple things like how joins affect performance of a query are invaluable in production. There are many features of many database engines that make things easier conceptually, but may introduce gotchas in performance if not thought of clearly.
Know your database engine execution process and plan for it.
For a middle-of-the-road professional developer who uses databases a lot (writing/maintaining queries daily or almost daily), I think the expectation should be the same as any other field: You wrote one in college.
Every C++ geek wrote a string class in college. Every graphics geek wrote a raytracer in college. Every web geek wrote interactive websites (usually before we had "web frameworks") in college. Every hardware nerd (and even software nerds) built a CPU in college. Every physician dissected an entire cadaver in college, even if she's only going to take my blood pressure and tell me my cholesterol is too high today. Why would databases be any different?
Unfortunately, they do seem different, today, for some reason. People want .NET programmers to know how strings work in C, but the internals of your RDBMS shouldn't concern you too much.
It's virtually impossible to get the same level of understanding from just reading about them, or even working your way down from the top. But if you start at the bottom and understand each piece, then it's relatively easy to figure out the specifics for your database. Even things that lots of database geeks can't seem to grok, like when to use a non-relational database.
Maybe that's a bit strict, especially if you didn't study computer science in college. I'll tone it down some: You could write one today, completely, from scratch. I don't care if you know the specifics of how the PostgreSQL query optimizer works, but if you know enough to write one yourself, it probably won't be too different from what they did. And you know, it's really not that hard to write a basic one.
The order of columns in a non-unique index is important.
The first column should be the column that has the most variability in its content (i.e. cardinality).
This is to aid SQL Server ability to create useful statistics in how to use the index at runtime.
Understand the tools that you use to program the database!!!
I wasted so much time trying to understand why my code was mysteriously failing.
If you're using .NET, for example, you need to know how to properly use the objects in the System.Data.SqlClient namespace. You need to know how to manage your SqlConnection objects to make sure they are opened, closed, and when necessary, disposed properly.
You need to know that when you use a SqlDataReader, it is necessary to close it separately from your SqlConnection. You need to understand how to keep connections open when appropriate to how to minimize the number of hits to the database (because they are relatively expensive in terms of computing time).
Basic SQL skills.
Indexing.
Deal with different incarnations of DATE/ TIME/ TIMESTAMP.
JDBC driver documentation for the platform you are using.
Deal with binary data types (CLOB, BLOB, etc.)
For some projects, and Object-Oriented model is better.
For other projects, a Relational model is better.
The impedance mismatch problem, and know the common deficiencies or ORMs.
RDBMS Compatibility
Look if it is needed to run the application in more than one RDBMS. If yes, it might be necessary to:
avoid RDBMS SQL extensions
eliminate triggers and store procedures
follow strict SQL standards
convert field data types
change transaction isolation levels
Otherwise, these questions should be treated separately and different versions (or configurations) of the application would be developed.
Don't depend on the order of rows returned by an SQL query.
Three (things) is the magic number:
Your database needs version control too.
Cursors are slow and you probably don't need them.
Triggers are evil*
*almost always
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.
What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).
Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.
If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.
In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.
It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.
NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.
NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.
Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.
There is a lot of information out there on object-relational mappers and how to best avoid impedance mismatch, all of which seem to be moot points if one were to use an object database. My question is why isn't this used more frequently? Is it because of performance reasons or because object databases cause your data to become proprietary to your application or is it due to something else?
Familiarity. The administrators of databases know relational concepts; object ones, not so much.
Performance. Relational databases have been proven to scale far better.
Maturity. SQL is a powerful, long-developed language.
Vendor support. You can pick between many more first-party (SQL servers) and third-party (administrative interfaces, mappings and other kinds of integration) tools than is the case with OODBMSs.
Naturally, the object-oriented model is more familiar to the developer, and, as you point out, would spare one of ORM. But thus far, the relational model has proven to be the more workable option.
See also the recent question, Object Orientated vs Relational Databases.
I've been using db4o which is an OODB and it solves most of the cons listed:
Familiarity - Programmers know their language better then SQL (see Native queries)
Performance - this one is highly subjective but you can take a look at PolePosition
Vendor support and maturity - can change over time
Cannot be used by programs that don't also use the same framework - There are OODB standards and you can use different frameworks
Versioning is probably a bit of a bitch - Versioning is actually easier!
The pros I'm interested in are:
Native queries - Db4o lets you write queries in your static typed language so you don't have to worry about mistyping a string and finding data missing at runtime,
Ease of use - Defining buissiness logic in the domain layer, persistence layer (mapping) and finally the SQL database is certainly violation of DRY. With OODB you define your domain where it belongs.
I agree - OODB have a long way to go but they are going. And there are domain problems out there that are better solved by OODB,
One objection to object databases is that it creates a tight coupling between the data and your code. For certain apps this may be OK, but not for others. One nice thing that a relational database gives you is the possibility to put many views on your data.
Ted Neward explains this and a lot more about OODBMSs a lot better than this.
It has nothing to do with performance. That is to say, basically all applications would perform better with an OODB. But that would also put lots of DBA's out of work/having to learn a new technology. Even more people would be out of work correcting errors in the data. That's unlikely to make OODBs popular with established companies. Gavin seems to be totally clueless, a better link would be Kirk
Cons:
Cannot be used by programs that
don't also use the same framework
for accessing the data store, making
it more difficult to use across the
enterprise.
Less resources available online for
non SQL-based database
No compatibility across database
types (can't swap to a different db
provider without changing all the
code)
Versioning is probably a bit of a
bitch. I'd guess adding a new
property to an object isn't quite as
easy as adding a new column to a
table.
Sören
All of the reasons you stated are valid, but I see the problem with OODBMS is the logical data model. The object-model (or rather the network model of the 70s) is not as simple as the relational one, and is therefore inferior.
jodonnel, i dont' see how use of object databases couples application code to the data. You can still abstract your application from the OODB through using a Repository pattern and replace with an ORM backed SQL database if you design things properly.
For an OO application, an OO database will provide a more natural fit for persisting objects.
What's probably true is that you tie your data to your domain model, but then that's the crux!
Wouldn't it be good to have a single way of looking at both data, business rules and processes using a domain centric view?
So, a big pro is that an OODB matches how most modern, enterprise level object orientated software applications are designed, there is no extra effort to design a data layer using a different (relational) design. Cheaper to build and maintain, and in many cases general higher performance.
Cons, just general lack of maturity and adoption i reckon...