NoSQL part 1

Viet-Trung Tran
Eras of Databases

2
Eras of Databases
Before NoSQL

Star schema

OLTP
OLAP cube
4
RDBMS: one size fits all needs

5
 ICDE 2005 conference

The last 25 years of commercial DBMS development can be summed up in a single phrase:
"one size fits all". This phrase refers to the fact that the traditional DBMS architecture
(originally designed and optimized for business data processing) has been used to support
many data-centric applications with widely varying characteristics and requirements. In this
paper, we argue that this concept is no longer applicable to the database market, and that the
commercial world will fracture into a collection of independent database engines ...
6
After NoSQL

7
NoSQL landscape

8
How to write a CV

9
Why NoSQL
• Web applications have different needs
• Horizontal scalability – lowers cost
• Geographically distributed
• Elasticity
• Schema less, flexible schema for semi-structured data
• Easier for developers
• Heterogeneous data storage
• High Availability/Disaster Recovery
• Web applications do not always need
• Transaction
• Strong consistency
• Complex queries

10
 SQL vs NoSQL

SQL NoSQL
Gigabytes to Terabytes Petabytes(1kTB) to Exabytes(1kPB) to
Zetabytes(1kEB)
Centralized Distributed
Structured Semi structured and Unstructured
Structured Query Language No declarative query language
Stable Data Model Schema less
Complex Relationships Less complex relationships
ACID Property Eventual Consistency
Transaction is priority High Availability, High Scalability
Joins Tables Embedded structures
NoSQL use cases
• Massive data volume at scale (Big volume)
• Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook – 10-100K servers
• Extreme query workload (Big velocity)
• High availability
• Flexible, schema evolution

12
DB engines ranking according to their
popularity (2019)
 Relational data model revisited

• Data is usually stored in row by row

manner (row store)
• Standardized query language (SQL)
• Data model defined before you add data
• Joins merge data from multiple tables
• Results are tables
• Pros: Mature ACID transactions with fine-grain
security controls, widely used
Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL,
• Cons: Requires up front data modeling, does not Microsoft SQL Server, IBM
scale well DB/2

14
Key/value data model
• Simple key/value interface
• GET, PUT, DELETE
• Value can contain any kind of data
• Super fast and easy to scale (no joins)
• Examples
• Berkley DB, Memcache, DynamoDB, Redis, Riak

15
 Key/value vs. table

• A table with two columns and a simple interface

• Add a key-value
• For this key, give me the value
• Delete a key

16
Key/value vs. Relational data model

17
Memcached

• Open source in-memory key-value caching system

• Make effective use of RAM on many distributed web servers
• Designed to speed up dynamic web applications by alleviating
database load
• Simple interface for highly distributed RAM caches
• 30ms read times typical
• Designed for quick deployment, ease of development
• APIs in many languages

18
Redis
• Open source in-memory key-value store with optional durability
• Focus on high speed reads and writes of common data structures to
RAM
• Allows simple lists, sets and hashes to be stored within the value and
manipulated
• Many features that developers like expiration, transactions, pub/sub,
partitioning

19
Amazon DynamoDB
• Scalable key-value store
• Fastest growing product in Amazon's history
• Focus on throughput on storage and predictable read and write times
• Strong integration with S3 and Elastic MapReduce

20
Riak
• Open source distributed key-value store with support and commercial
versions by Basho
• A "Dynamo-inspired" database
• Focus on availability, fault-tolerance, operational simplicity and
scalability
• Support for replication and auto-sharding and rebalancing on failures
• Support for MapReduce, fulltext search and secondary indexes of
value tags
• Written in ERLANG

21
Column family store
• Dynamic schema, column-oriented data model
• Sparse, distributed persistent multi-dimensional sorted map
• (row, column (family), timestamp) -> cell contents

22
Column families
• Group columns into "Column families"
• Group column families into "Super-Columns"
• Be able to query all columns with a family or super family
• Similar data grouped together to improve speed

23
Column family data model vs. relational
• Sparse matrix, preserve table structure
• One row could have millions of columns but can be very sparse
• Hybrid row/column stores
• Number of columns is extendible
• New columns to be inserted without doing an "alter table"

24
Bigtable
• ACM TOCS 2008
• Fault-tolerant, persistent
• Scalable
• Thousands of servers
• Terabytes of in-memory data
• Petabyte of disk-based data
• Millions of reads/writes per second,
efficient scans
• Self-managing
• Servers can be added/removed
dynamically
• Servers adjust to load imbalance

25
Apache Hbase
• Open-source Bigtable, written in JAVA
• Part of Apache Hadoop project

26
Apache Cassandra
• Apache open source column family database
• Supported by DataStax
• Peer-to-peer distribution model
• Strong reputation for linear scale out (millions of writes/second)
• Written in Java and works well with HDFS and MapReduce

27
Graph data model
• Core abstractions: Nodes, Relationships, Properties on both

28
Graph database store
• A database stored data in an explicitly graph structure
• Each node knows its adjacent nodes
• Queries are really graph traversals

29
Compared to Relational Databases

Optimized for aggregation Optimized for connections

Compared to Key Value Stores

Optimized for simple look-ups Optimized for traversing connected data

Compared to Document Stores

Optimized for “trees” of data Optimized for seeing the forest and the
trees, and the branches, and the trunks
Linking open data

33
Neo4j
• Graph database designed to be easy to use by Java developers
• Disk-based (not just RAM)
• Full ACID
• High Availability (with Enterprise Edition)
• 32 Billion Nodes, 32 Billion Relationships,
64 Billion Properties
• Embedded java library
• REST API

34
Document store
• Documents, not value, not tables
• JSON or XML formats
• Document is identified by ID
• Allow indexing on properties

35
Relational data mapping
• T1–HTML into Objects
• T2–Objects into SQL Tables
• T3–Tables into Objects
• T4–Objects into HTML

36
Web Service in the middle
• T1 – HTML into Java Objects
• T2 – Java Objects into SQL Tables
• T3 – Tables into Objects
• T4 – Objects into HTML
• T5 – Objects to XML Web Service
• T6 – XML to Objects

T5 T6

T1 T2

T4 T3
Relational
Web Browser Object Middle
Database
Tier
37
Discussion
• Object-relational mapping has become one of the most complex
components of building applications today
• Java Hibernate Framework
• JPA
• To avoid complexity is to keep your architecture very simple

38
Document mapping
• Documents in the database
• Documents in the application
• No object middle tier
• No "shredding"
• No reassembly
• Simple!

Document Document

Application Layer Database

39
MongoDB
• Open Source JSON data store created by 10gen
• Master-slave scale out model
• Strong developer community
• Sharding built-in, automatic
• Implemented in C++ with many APIs (C++, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
Python etc.)

40
MongoDB architecture

• Replica set
• Copies of the data on each node
• Data safety
• High availability
• Disaster recovery
• Maintenance
• Read scaling
• Sharding
• “Partitions” of the data
• Horizontal scale
Apache CouchDB
• Apache project
• Open source JSON data store
• Written in ERLANG
• RESTful JSON API
• B-Tree based indexing, shadowing b-tree versioning
• ACID fully supported
• View model
• Data compaction
• Security

42
Thank you for your attention!
Q&A