Instead of JDO , Hibernate , iBATIS why we can not simply use "Object DataBases" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object_database_management_systems
Even if these object databases would sometimes suffer to store and retrieve the data for an application, most of the time there are other edge conditions:
You already have an installed relational db and hired an admin for it.
You need programs like Crystal Reports to do some stuff with your data.
You don't want to rely on a database that isn't as widespread as a relational one.
The reason is clearly laid out here by Mark Harrison amongst others. In short, relational DBs have historical momentum, and are technically superior for a lot of stuff. Also relational DBs just work better, at least in 2009 (check out the other answers to the question I referenced).
At the same time, you do need JDO, ActiveRecord, or something to avoid writing standard object-DB translations yourself.
Because most developers do not know enough, most of customers already have an installed relational db and hired an admin for it and best of them are quite specific and commercial. Here you are one suitable database benchmark to test and see result of work on most famous DMS
Because objects are all about hiding data and databases are all about making data public.
From that point of view, one could even say that "an OO dbms" is a contradiction of terms.
Related
I am learning to design systems, specifically the database part in it and I know a lot of similar posts are available on SO but either they are a decade old (and a lot has changed since then) or they don't have helpful answers.
All the previous answers or blog posts compare relational and non-relational DBMS (or SQL and NoSQL) in some way. And I can't see a well defined line between the two. Because as soon as I read about a property of NoSQL DBMS, I find there's a latest version of a SQL DBMS that provides the same property and vice versa. For example, Document data-stores store data in JSON-like objects and you can even query into these objects but then I found that PostreSQL also provides this functionality.
Next common point of comparison is Scalability. Well, I can see a lot of giants like Amazon using SQL dbms and they don't seem to have any scalability issues.
Next point of comparison is that SQL dbms enforce schema. We can kind of do that with MongoDB schema validation.
And now newSQL databases claim to provide the scalability of NoSQL systems for online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads while maintaining the ACID guarantees of a traditional database system.
So it seems like Relational dbms and Non-relational dbms are moving towards each other.
Keeping all these things in mind, how to choose a dbms? I mean what points do you consider? What's the thought process?
Thank you!
Choosing as a platform for learning or choosing for a specific project? That really does have an impact. If it's for a specific project then the choice will depend on the needs of the project... where is the data coming from? What is the purpose of storing it? (Is it for record keeping, transactional, etc.) Who will access it and how? What needs to be accomplished?
There are a lot of options to consider, that's a fact, but it's helpful to consider the purpose of the project to realize which systems are a better fit.
Beyond that, another major factor in a decision is the skills of the people involved or what is already available in the company (if anything).
Do you have specific details at this point or is this more of learning exercise?
What exactly is non-relational database ??i have heard that web-sites like fb, google are using non relational database what is that
Under what condition we should use non-relational database
What are the advantage of non-relational data base over relational database ..??
Objectivity, db4o (open source), etc are called object databases which I think you're asking about? Rather than RDBMS they're called ODBMS. There's also the new "cloud databases" but I'm not too familiar with those and I'm not sure they'll be practical/useful for every type of application, even in the distant future. Between those two that's (probably) the two major non-RDBMS db types. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL )
Object dbs are pretty cool, think something like Hibernate, only faster since there isn't a conversion to SQL being done. Object dbs are supposed to be much faster when you have complex/deep data hierarchies. (They're probably also a little faster "in general", but there are some downsides to watch out for.)
One downside to an object database is that it puts more work on developers to sometimes to DBA-like tasks. (I guess this could be good or bad.) Your traditional Oracle DBAs will be standing around clueless and useless if you use an object db. Some issues include - (at least with db4o) no really powerful tools to help manage the db (RDBMS have a ton of these), a different "schema upgrade" process, and generally it's a less mature type of database. Scalability can be an issue if you're talking about a large system, there's no clustering in db4o or anything like that (yet).
Also, just for completeness, older legacy databases like Adabas or VSAM are considered non-relational.
I am in the early stages of developing a database-driven system and the largest part of the system revolves around an inheritance type of relationship. There is a parent entity with about 10 columns and there will be about 10 child entities inheriting from the parent. Each child entity will have about 10 columns. I thought it made sense to give the parent entity its own table and give each of the children their own tables - a table-per-subclass structure.
Today, my users requested to see the structure of the system I created. They balked at the idea of the table-per-subclass structure. They would prefer one big ~100 column table because it would be easier for them to perform their own custom queries.
Should I consider denormalizing the database for the sake of the users?
Absolutely not. You can always create a view later to show them what they want to see.
They are effectively asking for a report.
You could give them access to a view containing all the fields they require... that way you don't mess up your data model.
No. Structure the data properly and if the users need the a denormalized view of the data create it as a VIEW in the database.
Alternatively, consider that perhaps an RDBMS is not the appropriate storage tool for this project.
They are the users and not the programmers of the system for a reason. Provide a separate interface for their queries. Power users like this can both be helpful and a pain to deal with. Just explain you need the database designed a certain way so you can do your job, period. Once that is accomplished you and provide other means to make querying easier.
What do they know!? You could argue that users shouldn't even be having direct access to a database in the first place.
Doing that leaves you open to massive performance issues, just because a couple of users are running ridiculous queries.
How about if you created a VIEW in the format your users wanted while still maintaining a properly normalized table?
Aside from a lot of the technical reasons for or against your users' proposition, you need to be on same page in communicating the consequences of various scenarious and (more importantly) the costs of those consequences. If the users are your clients and they are paying you to do a job, explain that their awful "proposed" ideas may cost them more money in development time, additional hardware resources, etc.
Hopefully you can explain it in such a way that shows your expertise and why your idea is a much better value to your users in the long run.
As everyone more or less mentioned, that way lies madness, and you can always build a view.
If you just can't get them to come around on this point, consider showing them this thread and the number of pros who weighed in saying that the users are meddling with things that they don't fully understand, and the impact will be an undermined foundation.
A big part of the developer's craft is the feel for what won't work out long term, and the rules of normalization are almost canonical in that respect. There are situations where you need to denormalize (data warehouses, etc) but this doesn't sound like one of them!
It also sounds as though you may have a particularly troubling brand of user on your hand -- the amatuer developer who thinks they could do your job better themselves if only they had the time. This may or may not help, but I've found that those types respond well to presentation -- a few times now I've found that if I dress sharp and show a little bit of force in my personality, it helps them feel like I'm an expert and prevents a bunch of problems before they start.
I would strongly recommend coming up with an answer that doesn't involve someone running direct reports against your database. The moment that happens, your DB structure is set in stone and you can basically consider it legacy.
A view is a good start, but later on you'll probably want to structure this as an export, to decouple further. Of course, then you'll encounter someone who wants "real time" data. Proper business analysis usually reveals this to be unnecessary. Actual real time requirements are not best handled through reporting systems.
Just to be clear: I'd personally favour the table per subclass approach, but I don't think it's actually as big an issue as the direct reporting off transaction tables is going to be.
I would opt for a view (as others have suggested) or an inline table-valued function (the benefits of this is you require parameters - like an date range or a customer account - which can help to stop users from querying without any limits on the problem space) first. An inline TVF is really a parametrized view and is far closer to a view in terms of how the engine treats them than it is to a multi-statement table valued function or a scalar function, which can perform incredibly poorly.
However, in some cases, this can impact production performance if the view is complex or intensive. With poorly written ad hoc user queries, it can also cause locks to persist longer or be escalated further than they would on a better built query. It is also possible for users to misinterpret an E-R data model and produce multiplied numbers in cases where there are many-to-one or many-to-many relationships. The next option might be to materialize these views with indexes or make tables and keep them updated, which gets us closer to my next option...
So, given those drawbacks of the view option and already thinking of mitigating it by starting to make copies of data, the next option I would consider is to have a separate read-only (for these users) version of the data which is structured differently. Typically, I would first look at a Kimball-style star schema. You do not need to have a full-fledged time-consistent data warehouse. Of course, that's an option, but you could simply keep a reporting model up to date with data. Star-schemas are a special form of denormalization and are particularly good for numerical reporting, and a given star should not be able to be abused by users accidentally. You can keep the star up to date in a number of ways, including triggers, scheduled jobs, etc. They can be very fast for reporting needs and run on the same production installation - perhaps on a separate instance if not just a separate database.
Although such a solution may require you to effectively more than double your storage requirements, when compared with other practices it might be a really good option if you understand your data well and don't mind having two models - one for transactions and one for analysis (note that you will already start to have this logical separation anyway with the use of a the simplest first option of view).
Some architects will often double their servers and use the SAME model with some kind of replication in order to provide a reporting server which is indexed more heavily or differently. Such a second server doesn't impact production transactions with reporting requirements and can be kept up to date fairly easily. There will only be one model, but of course, this has the same usability problems with allowing users ad hoc access to the underlying model only, without the performance affects, since they get their own playground.
There are a lot of ways to skin these cats. Good luck.
The customer is always right. However, the customer is likely to back down when you convert their requirement into dollars and cents. A 100 column table will require extra dev time to write the code that does what the database would do automatically with the proper implementation. Further, their support costs will be higher since more code means more problems and lower ease of debugging.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that both solutions sound like poor approximations of the actual data. There's a reason that object-oriented programming languages don't tend to be implemented with either of these data models, and it's not because Codd's 1970 ideas about relations were the ideal system for storing and querying object-oriented data structures. :-)
Remember that SQL was originally designed as a user interface language (that's why it looks vaguely like English and not at all like other languages of that era: Algol, C, APL, Prolog). The only reasons I've heard for not exposing a SQL database to users today are security (they could take down the server!) and usability (who wants to write SQL when you can clicky clicky?), but if it's their server and they want to, then why not let them?
Given that "the largest part of the system revolves around an inheritance type of relationship", then I'd seriously consider a database that lets me represent that natively, either Postgres (if SQL is important) or a native object database (which are awesome to work with, if you don't need SQL compatibility).
Finally, remember that every engineering decision is a tradeoff. By "sticking to your guns" (as somebody else proposed), you're implicitly saying the value of your users' desires are zero. Don't ask SO for a correct answer to this, because we don't know what your users want to do with your data (or even what your data is, or who your users are). Go tell them why you want a many-tables solution, and then work out a solution with them that's acceptable to both of you.
You've implemented Class Table Inheritance and they're asking for Single Table Inheritance. Both designs are valid in certain situations.
You might want to get a copy of Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture to read more about the advantages and disadvantages of each design. That book is a classic reference to have on your bookshelf, in any case.
If you have to create an application like - let's say a blog application, creating the database schema is relatively simple. You have to create some tables, tblPosts, tblAttachments, tblCommets, tblBlaBla… and that's it (ok, i know, that's a bit simplified but you understand what i mean).
What if you have an application where you want to allow users to define parts of the schema at runtime. Let's say you want to build an application where users can log any kind of data. One user wants to log his working hours (startTime, endTime, project Id, description), the next wants to collect cooking recipes, others maybe stock quotes, the weekly weight of their babies, monthly expenses they spent for food, the results of their favorite football teams or whatever stuff you can think about.
How would you design a database to hold all that very very different kind of data? Would you create a generic schema that can hold all kind of data, would you create new tables reflecting the user data schema or do you have another great idea to do that?
If it's important: I have to use SQL Server / Entity Framework
Let's try again.
If you want them to be able to create their own schema, then why not build the schema using, oh, I dunno, the CREATE TABLE statment. You have a full boat, full functional, powerful database that can do amazing things like define schemas and store data. Why not use it?
If you were just going to do some ad-hoc properties, then sure.
But if it's "carte blanche, they can do whatever they want", then let them.
Do they have to know SQL? Umm, no. That's your UIs task. Your job as a tool and application designer is to hide the implementation from the user. So present lists of fields, lines and arrows if you want relationships, etc. Whatever.
Folks have been making "end user", "simple" database tools for years.
"What if they want to add a column?" Then add a column, databases do that, most good ones at least. If not, create the new table, copy the old data, drop the old one.
"What if they want to delete a column?" See above. If yours can't remove columns, then remove it from the logical view of the user so it looks like it's deleted.
"What if they have eleventy zillion rows of data?" Then they have a eleventy zillion rows of data and operations take eleventy zillion times longer than if they had 1 row of data. If they have eleventy zillion rows of data, they probably shouldn't be using your system for this anyway.
The fascination of "Implementing databases on databases" eludes me.
"I have Oracle here, how can I offer less features and make is slower for the user??"
Gee, I wonder.
There's no way you can predict how complex their data requirements will be. Entity-Attribute-Value is one typical solution many programmers use, but it might be be sufficient, for instance if the user's data would conventionally be modeled with multiple tables.
I'd serialize the user's custom data as XML or YAML or JSON or similar semi-structured format, and save it in a text BLOB.
You can even create inverted indexes so you can look up specific values among the attributes in your BLOB. See http://bret.appspot.com/entry/how-friendfeed-uses-mysql (the technique works in any RDBMS, not just MySQL).
Also consider using a document store such as Solr or MongoDB. These technologies do not need to conform to relational database conventions. You can add new attributes to any document at runtime, without needing to redefine the schema. But it's a tradeoff -- having no schema means your app can't depend on documents/rows being similar throughout the collection.
I'm a critic of the Entity-Attribute-Value anti-pattern.
I've written about EAV problems in my book, SQL Antipatterns Volume 1: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.
Here's an SO answer where I list some problems with Entity-Attribute-Value: "Product table, many kinds of products, each product has many parameters."
Here's a blog I posted the other day with some more discussion of EAV problems: "EAV FAIL."
And be sure to read this blog "Bad CaRMa" about how attempting to make a fully flexible database nearly destroyed a company.
I would go for a Hybrid Entity-Attribute-Value model, so like Antony's reply, you have EAV tables, but you also have default columns (and class properties) which will always exist.
Here's a great article on what you're in for :)
As an additional comment, I knocked up a prototype for this approach using Linq2Sql in a few days, and it was a workable solution. Given that you've mentioned Entity Framework, I'd take a look at version 4 and their POCO support, since this would be a good way to inject a hybrid EAV model without polluting your EF schema.
On the surface, a schema-less or document-oriented database such as CouchDB or SimpleDB for the custom user data sounds ideal. But I guess that doesn't help much if you can't use anything but SQL and EF.
I'm not familiar with the Entity Framework, but I would lean towards the Entity-Attribute-Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-Attribute-Value_model) database model.
So, rather than creating tables and columns on the fly, your app would create attributes (or collections of attributes) and then your end users would complete the values.
But, as I said, I don't know what the Entity Framework is supposed to do for you, and it may not let you take this approach.
Not as a critical comment, but it may help save some of your time to point out that this is one of those Don Quixote Holy Grail type issues. There's an eternal quest for probably over 50 years to make a user-friendly database design interface.
The only quasi-successful ones that have gained any significant traction that I can think of are 1. Excel (and its predecessors), 2. Filemaker (the original, not its current flavor), and 3. (possibly, but doubtfully) Access. Note that the first two are limited to basically one table.
I'd be surprised if our collective conventional wisdom is going to help you break the barrier. But it would be wonderful.
Rather than re-implement sqlservers "CREATE TABLE" statement, which was done many years ago by a team of programmers who were probably better than you or I, why not work on exposing SQLSERVER in a limited way to the users -- let them create thier own schema in a limited way and leverage the power of SQLServer to do it properly.
I would just give them a copy of SQL Server Management Studio, and say, "go nuts!" Why reinvent a wheel within a wheel?
Check out this post you can do it but it's a lot of hard work :) If performance is not a concern an xml solution could work too though that is also alot of work.
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...