I'm trying to develop a system with records user actions on our site so later on we can make some patterns. I'm not sure what data storage should I use, but I consider something NoSQL like because it's easy scalable. It should be something schemaless, so we can easy change data format if necessary. Also, it should write data pretty fast and often, but reads are done very rare.
Data should be something like this:
userid=1,action=act1,timestamp=1234, additional_info1=something_here
userid=2,action=act1,timestamp=324, additional_info2=something_else_here
Upon storage, we want to make some statistics for one user, one action, one additional_info.
Can you give me some hints on what storage should I use?
PS: Out webapp is written in PHP
Based on your specifications - fast, often and secure write, not so fast read, scalability,and key that will be the "representative" of the collection and by which you will fetch the data,I recommend Cassandra DB. Its description is:
Best used: When you write more than you read (logging).
Resources you need:
http://cassandra.apache.org/
Developed by Facebook to take care of the messaging system, but used by other large players also, like Digg, Twitter, Reddit, Rackspace, Cloudkick, Cisco, SimpleGeo, Ooyala, OpenX.
As far as writing, fastest and the most reliable.
EDIT:
Also another key sentence describing Cassandra:
Writes are faster than reads, so one natural niche is real time data analysis.
And as i understood this niche is more or less the purpose you need it for.
Here you can inform yourself on the details and a good, objective comparison of the NoSQL db mechs -
http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis
If you would like an easier way out, but at the expense of a less safe writing, MongoDB is also a viable choice.
It has an easier querying system, so basicaly it would be easier for you to search the data.
Resource:
http://www.mongodb.org/
Cheers,
As far as i understand, you need ease of use and dynamic/schema-less. Although the information is not enough but I feel like you need something like Redis or MongoDB. Please note that MongoDB stores JSON documents and queries get complex at times and there maybe some learning-curve involve. On the other hand with Redis you can good to go in no-time.
However you should know that you need to think differently than RDBMS. There are no joins and relational stuff for the data analysis part, so you need to understand and design your solution accordingly.
I have explained some different types of NoSQL databases in my blog entry if you need an overview of NoSQL,
http://ttltheory.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/next-generation-data-storage/
Can you give me some hints on what storage should I use?
Not really, no. And you seem to have already decided on using a NoSQL DB.
The information you (we?) need to answer this is what information (explicitly) do you want to capture, how you want to analyse it and how you want to present the results.
By all means implement the full solution using a nosql system - but if you've not got your requirements well defined then I'd strongly recommend using a relational database to model the data and produce sample reports.
Related
I'm developing a php site where users select data resources from a variety of categories. The resources come from varied sources, some RSS, some XML, some JSON, some hosted internally, some hosted externally. The user has the ability to edit which resources they will see and that information will be stored both in the data base as well as cookies, sessions and caches to lower the load on the server when the user is not actively selecting resources. Some of the tables in the database will be largish(for me anyhow) ranging from 20,000-50,000,000 entries. Other tables will be quite small ranging from 51-200 entries. These smaller tables are mainly name tables things like state names, category names and other similar things.
Because this is a relatively large project for me I want to focus on optimizing server resources and I'm asking myself whether hosting some of these small tables as xml(json or includes work just as well) and integrating them via ajax might be a more efficient usage of resources. Additionally if anyone knows what the potential performance gain or penalty for using resources that way might be and what the best practices for mixing data like that are. I should note that on the front end the site will be pretty lean so I don't mind passing off work to the browser.
As an simple example
I'm going to need to store a table of US State names, Acronyms and IDs somewhere. Its a small but essential list and I really don't want to have to query for state name every time I need to use a State somewhere. Will I suffer a performance penalty if I just toss a State Table in XML and use a function to access it via ID as required, or would I be better served keeping it in my DB and running queries? Or should I just cache the results of the query somewhere and access it that way?
Your question as stated is really too broad for protocol here, but let me try to get you headed in the right direction...
Use XML for exchange where:
Industry standard schemas already exist, or you must coordinate
format agreement among partners and can benefit from the definitional
maturity of XSD or the transformational flexibility of XSLT.
Your data is naturally document-based, especially where mixed content
is required.
Use JSON for exchange where:
The above reasons for XML do not apply.
Easy programmatic access to simple, light-weight data structures is helpful.
Use a database for storage where:
ACID properties are important.
Use code-based static data for performance where:
The data never changes and access speed is paramount.
So, your given example of a very small static look-up table, where you're concerned about performance, probably fits best in code. Do avoid premature optimization, though.
I'm working with a Postgres database that I have no control over the administration of. I'm building a calendar that deals with seeing if resources (physical items) were online or offline on a specific day. Unfortunately, if they're offline I can only confirm this by finding the resource name in a text field.
I've been using
select * from log WHERE log_text LIKE 'Resource Kit 06%'
The problem is that when we're building a calendar using LIKE 180+ times (at least 6 resources per day) is slow as can be. Does anybody know of a way to speed this up (keep in mind I can't modify the database). Also, if there's nothing I can do on the database end, is there anything I can do on the php end?
I think, that some form of cache will be required for this. As you cannot change anything in database, your only chance is to pull data from it and store it in some more accessible and faster form. This is highly dependent on frequency of data inserted into table. If there are more inserts than selects, it will not probably help much. Other way there is slight chance of improved performance.
Maybe you can consider using Lucene search engine, which is capable of fulltext indexing. There is implementation from Zend and even Apache has some http service. I haven't opportunity to test it however.
If you don't use something that robust, you can write your own caching mechanism in php. It will not be as fast as postgres, but probably faster than not indexed LIKE queries. If your queries need to be more sofisticated (conditions, grouping, ordering...), you can use SQLite database, which is file based and doesn't need extra service running on server.
Another way could be using triggers in database, which could on insert data store required information to some other table in more indexed manner. But without rights to administer database, it is probably dead end.
Please be more specific with your question, if you want more specific information.
I'm creating and app that will rely on a database, and I have all intention on using a flat file db, is there any serious reasons to stay away from this?
I'm using mimesis (http://mimesis.110mb.com)
it's simpler than using mySQL, which I have to admit I have little experience with.
I'm wondering about the security of the db. but the files are stored as php and it seems to be a solid database solution.
I really like the ease of backing up and transporting the databases, which I have found harder with mySQL. I see that everyone seems to prefer the mySQL way - and it likely is faster when it comes to queries but other than that is there any reason to stay away from flat-file dbs and (finally) properly learn mysql ?
edit
Just to let people know,
I ended up going with mySQL, and am using the CodeIgniter framework. Still like the flat file db, but have now realized that it's way more complex for this project than necessary.
Use SQLite, you get a database with many SQL features and yet it's only a single file.
Greetings, I'm the creator of Mimesis. Relational databases and SQL are important in situations where you have massive amounts of data that needs to be handled. Are flat files superior to relation databases? Well, you could ask Google, as their entire archiving system works with flat files, and its the most popular search engine on Earth. Does Mimesis compare to their system? Likely not.
Mimesis was created to solve a particular niche problem. I only use free websites for my online endeavors. Plenty of free sites offer the ability to use PHP. However, they don't provide free SQL database access. Therefore, I needed to create a database that would store data, implement locking, and work around file permissions. These were the primary design parameters of Mimesis, and it succeeds on all of those.
If you need an idea of Mimesis's speed, if you navigate to the first page it will tell you what country you're viewing the site from. This free database is taken from the site ip2nation.com and ported into a Mimesis ffdb. It has hundreds if not thousands of entries.
Furthermore, the hit counter on the main page has already tracked over 7000 visitors. These are UNIQUE visits, which means that the script has to search the database to see if the IP address that's visiting already exists, and also performs a count of the total IPs.
If you've noticed the main page loads up pretty quickly and it has two fairly intensive Mimesis database scripts running on the backend. The way Mimesis stores data is done to speed up read and write procedures and also translation procedures. Most ffdb example scripts or other ffdb scripts out there use a simple CVS file or other some such structure for storing data. Mimesis actually interprets binary data at some levels to augment its functionality. Mimesis is somewhat of a hybrid between a flat file database and a relational database.
Most other ffdb scripts involve rewriting the COMPLETE file every time an update is made. Mimesis does not do this, it rewrites only the structural file and updates the actual row contents. So that even if an error does occur you only lose new data that's added, not any of the older data. Mimesis also maintains its history. Unless the table is refreshed the data that rows had previously is still contained within.
I could keep going on about all the features, but this isn't intended as a "Mimesis is the greatest database ever" rant. Moreso, its intended to open people's eyes to the fact that SQL isn't the ONLY technology available, and that flat files, when given proper development paradigms are superior to a relational database, taking into account they are more specialized.
Long live flat files and the coders who brave the headaches that follow.
The answer is "Fine" if you only NEED a flat-file structure. One test: Would a single simple spreadsheet handle all needs? If not, you need a relational structure, not a flat file.
If you're not sure, perhaps you can start flat-file. SQLite is a great app for getting started.
It's not good to learn you made the wrong choice, if you figure it out too far along in the process. But if you understand the importance of a relational structure, and upsize early on if needed, then you are fine.
I really like the ease of backing up
and transporting the databases, which
I have found harder with mySQL.
Use SQLite as mentioned in another answer. There is only one file to backup, or set up periodic dumps of the MySQL databases to SQL files. This is a relatively simple thing to do.
I see that everyone seems to prefer
the mySQL way - and it likely is
faster when it comes to queries
Speed is definitely a consideration. Databases tend to be a lot faster, because the data is organized better.
other than that is there any reason to
stay away from flat-file dbs and
(finally) properly learn mysql ?
There sure are plenty of reasons to use a database solution, but there are arguments to be made for flat files. It is always good to learn things other than what you "usually" use.
Most decisions depend on the application. How many concurrent users are you going to have? Do you need transaction support?
Wanted to inform that Mimesis has moved from the original URL to http://mimesis.site11.com/
Furthermore, I am shifting the focus of Mimesis from an ffdb to a key-value store. It's more sensible Given the types of information I'm storing and the methods I use to retrieve it. There was also a grave error present in the coding of Mimesis (which I've since fixed). However, I'm still in the testing phase of the new key-value store type. I've also been side-tracked by other things. Locking has also been changed from the use of file creation to directory creation as the mutex mechanism.
Interoperability. MySQL can be interfaced by basically any language that counts. Mimesis is unlikely to be usable outside PHP.
This becomes significant the moment you try to use profilers, or modify data from the outside.
You might also look at http://lukeplant.me.uk/resources/flatfile/ for the PHP Flatfile Package.
The issue with going flatfile is that in order to adjust the situation for further development you have to alter a significant amount of code in order to improve the foundation of the system. Whereas if it was a pure SQL system it would require little to no modification to proceed in the future.
An SQL database is overkill if your storage needs are small. When I was young and dumb, I used a text file and flock()ed it when I needed to access it. This doesn't scale, but I still feel that non-database solutions have been completely ignored in Web 2.0.
Does anyone not use an SQL database for storage? What are the alternatives?
There are a lot of alternatives. But having SQLite which gives you SQL power combined with no fuss of file based storage, there is no need to look for these alternatives. SQLite is light enough to be used in cell phones and MP3 players, so I don't see how it could be considered an overkill.
So unless your application needs something very specific, don't bother. Most alternatives are a lot harder to use and have less performance.
SQLite is invented for this.
It's just a flat-file that contains a complete SQL database. You can query, update, insert, delete, there's little to no overhead in installation and all you need is the driver (which comes standard in PHP )
SQLite is a software library that implements a self-contained, serverless, zero-configuration, transactional SQL database engine.
Kind of weird that nobody mentioned this already?
CouchDB (http://couchdb.apache.org/index.html) is a non-sql database, and seems to be a popular project these days, as well as Google's bigtable, or GT.M (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm) which has been around forever.
Object databases abound as well; dbforobjects (http://www.db4o.com/), ZODB (http://www.zope.org/Products/StandaloneZODB), just to name a few.
All of these are supposedly faster and simpler than traditional SQL databases for certain use cases, but none approach the simplicity of a flat file.
A distributed hash table like google bigtable or hadoop is a simple and scalable non SQL database and often suits the websites far better than a SQL database. SQL is great for complex relational data, but most websites don't have this requirement. Most websites store and retrieve data in a few forms and don't need to run complex operations on the data.
Take a look at one of these solutions as they will provide all of the concurrent access that you need but don't subscribe to the traditional ideas of data normalisation. They can be thought of as pretty analogous to a bunch of named text files.
It probably depends how dynamic your web site is. I used wiki software once that used RCS to check in and out text files. I wouldn't recommend that solution for something that gets as many updates as StackOverflow or Wikipedia. The thing about database is that they scale well, and the database engine writers have figured out all the fiddly little details of simultaneous access, load balancing, replication, etc.
I would say that it doesn't depend on whether you store less or more information, it depends on how often you are requesting the stored data. Databasemanagers are superb on caching queries, so they are often the better choice performance wise. How ever, if you don't need a dynamic web page and are just loading static data - maybe a text file is the better option. Which format the data is stored in (i.e. XML, JSON, key=pair) doesn't matter - it's I/O operations that are performance heavy.
When I'm developing web applications, I always use a RDBMS as the primary data holder. If the web application don't need to serve dynamic data at every request, I simply apply a cache functionality storing the data in a cache file that gets requested when no new data have been added to the primary data source (the RDBMS).
I wouldn't choose whether to use an SQL database based on how much data I wanted to store - I would choose based on what kind of data I wanted to store and how it is to be used.
Wikipeadia defines a database as: A database is a structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system. And I think your answer lies there: If you want to store records such as customer accounts, access rights and so on then a DB such as mySQL or SQLite or whatever is not overkill. They give you a tried and trusted mechanism for managing those records.
If, on the other hand, your website stores and delivers unchanging file-based content such as PDFs, reports, mp3s and so on then simply storing them in a well-defined directory layout on a disk is more than enough. I would also include XML documents here: if you had for example a production department that created articles for a website in XML format there is no need to put them in a DB - store them on disk and use XSLT to deliver them.
Your choice of SQL or not will also depend on how the content you wish to store is to be retrieved. SQL is obviously good for retrieving many records based on search criteria whereas a directory tree, XML database, RDF database, etc are more likely to be used to retrieve single records.
Choice of storage mechanism is very important when trying to scale high-traffic site and stuffing everything into a SQL DB will quickly become a bottleneck.
It depends what you are storing. My blog uses Blosxom (written in Perl but a similar thing could be done for PHP) where each individual entry is a separate text file. The first line is plain text (the title) and the rest is unrestricted HTML. Following a few simple rules, these are rendered to form a simple but effective blogging framework.
It does have drawbacks but it also means that each post is a discrete file, which works well for updating on a local machine and then publishing to a remote web server. This is limited when it comes to efficient querying though, so certainly not a good choice if you want fine-grained control and web-based interaction with your data.
Check CouchDB.
I have used LINQ to XML as a data source in a .NET project. It was a small solution, and used caching to mitigate performance concerns. I would do it again for the quick site that just needs to keep data in a common place without increasing server requirements.
Depends on what you're storing and how you need to access it. Generally sql provides great reporting and manual management ability. Almost everything needs some way to manage what's stored and report on it.
In Perl I use DBM or Storable for such tasks. DBM will update automatically when variable is updated.
One level down from SQL databases is an ISAM (Indexed Sequential Access Method) - basically tables and indexes but no SQL and no explicit relationships among tables. As long as the conceptual basis fits your design, it will scale nicely. I've used Codebase effectively for a long time.
If you want to work with SQL-database-type data, then consider FileMaker.
A Simple answer is that you can use any data storage format, from standard defined, to database (which generally involved a protocol), even a bespoke file-format.
There are trade-offs for every choice you make in IT, and certainly websites are no different. In the early 2000's file-based forum systems were popular as it allows anyone with limited technical ability to edit pages and posts. Completely static sites swiftly become unmanageable and content does not benefit from upgrades to the site user-interface; however the site if coded correctly can simply be moved to a sub-directory, or ripped into the new design. CMS's and dynamic systems bring with them their own set of problems, namely that there does not yet exist a widely adopted standard for data storage amongst them; that they often rely on third-party plugins to provide features between design styles (despite their documentation advocating for separation of function & form).
In 2016, it's pretty uncommon not to use a standard storage mechanism, such as a *SQL RDBMS; although static site generators such as Jekyll (powers a lot of GitHub pages); and independent players such as October CMS still provision for static file-based storage.
My personal preference is to use an *SQL enabled RDBMS, it provides me syntax that is standardised at least at the vendor level, familiar and powerful syntax, but unlike a lot of people I don't think this is the only way, and in most cases would advocate for using a site-generator to save parts that don't have to be dynamic to a static store as this is the cheapest way to live on the web.
TLDR; it's up to you, SQL & RDBMS backed are popular.
Well, this is a bit of an open-ended question from the OP and there are two questions ... around SQL alternatives and non-SQL.
In general, in the "Why is SQL good" category ... it's a mature and robust standard that provides referential-integrity. Java JDBC supports it fully as do tools like TOAD and there a many SQL implementations such as SQL-Lite referenced earlier.
Now specific to a "for a web-site" is not particularly indicative of anything. Does a web-site need referential integrity? Maybe. If the business nature of the web-site is largely unstructured content, then one can consider any kind of persistent storage really from so called "no-SQL" databases like AWS DynamoDB to Mongo (not a fan though).
For managing the complexities of SQL stores - one suggestion versus a list of every persistence store ever created ... is AWS Aurora (part of RDS service). It is multi-region active-active and fully MySQL-compliant. JDBC/ODBC based driver frameworks would work out-of-the-box and it effectively offers "zero administration".
I would check out XML if I were you. See w3schools XML tutorial section on the left side. Tons of possibilities without using SQL database.
So I'm going to be working on a home made blog system in PHP and I was wondering which way of storing data is the fastest. I could go in the MySQL direction, or I could go with my own little way of doing it which is storing all of the information (encoded in JSON) in files.
Which way would be the fastest, MySQL or JSON files?
For a small, single user 'database', a file system would likely be quicker - as the size and complexity grows, a database server like MySQL or SQL Server is hard to beat.
I would definately choose a DB option (as you need to be able to search and index stuff). But that does not mean you need a fully realized separate DB service.
MySQL is definitely the more scalable solution.
But the downside is you need to set up and maintain a separate service.
On the other hand there are DBs that are file based and still give you access with standard SQL (SQLite SQLite.org) jumps to mind. You get the advantages of SQL but you do not need to maintain a separate service. The disadvantage is that they are not as scalable.
I would choose a MySQL database - simply because it's easier to manage.
JSON is not really a format for storage, it's for sending data to JavaScripts. If you want to store data in files look into XML or Serialized PHP (which I suspect is what you are after, rather than JSON).
Forgive me if this doesn't answer your question very directly, but since it is a homecooked blog system is it really worth spending time thinking about what storage backend right now is faster?
You're not going to be looking at 10,000 concurrent users from day 1, it doesn't sound like it will need to scale to any maningful degree in the foreseeable future.
Why not just stick with MySQL as a sensible choice rather than a fast one? If you really want some sense that you designed for speed maybe bolt sqlite on instead.
Since you are thinking you may not have the need for a complex relational structure, this might be a fun opportunity to try something more down the middle.
Check out CouchDB, it is a document-based, schema free database (yet still indexable). The database is made of documents that contain named fields (think key-value pairs).
Have fun....
Though I don't know for certain, it seems to me that a MySQL database would be a lot faster, especially as the amount of data gets larger and larger.
Also, using MySQL with PHP is super easy, especially if you use an abstraction class like ezSQL. ezSQL makes working with a database really simple and I think you'd be creating more unnecessary work for yourself by going the home-brewed JSON direction.
I've done both. I like files for very simple problems and databases for complicated problems.
For file solutions, note these problems as the number of files increases:
1) Much more disk space is used than you might expect, because even tiny files use up a whole block. Blocks are fairly large on filesystems which support large drives.
2) Most filesystems get very slow when the number of files in a directory gets very large. My solution to this (assuming the names of the files are reasonably spread out across the alphabet) is to create a directory consisting of the first two letters of the filename. Thus, the file, "animal.txt" would be found at an/animal.txt. This works surprisingly well. If your filenames are not reasonable well-distributed across the alphabet, use some sort of hashing function to create the directories. Sounds a little crazy, but this can work very, very well, and I've used it for very fast solutions with tens of thousands of files.
But the file solutions really only fit sometimes. Unless you have a great reason to go with files, use a database.
This is really cool. It's a PHP class that controls a flat-file database with queries http://www.fsql.org/index.php
For blogs, I recommend caching the pages because blogs usually only have static content. This way, the queries only get run once while caching. You can update the cached pages when a new blog post is added.