We want to add an UpdateDatetime column in a SQL database, when an entry is changed.
In Microservices Architecture, (a) would all 3 services which access the table, need to now include Updatedate in their API, (b) Or would Microservices share a same DataAccess Layer?
If letter (a), is their any method to make development easier?
We are inquiring about developer maintenance associated with Microservices, since we may have 10 applications which interact with 1 table. If something is wrong in the table or column is added, we need to look/modify code through 10 app locations, as opposed to 1 location in Service Oriented Architecture.
The question is a little off because the diagram in (a) actually doesn't make much sense but given the domain and what I understand. I think the proper solution is that you'll have the order service at the same level as your other microservices, customer management, warehouse management, and order fulfillment in this case. In total, that'll be four microservices.
When an order is created, it can propagate a message to a message bus where the other three services that are interested in servicing the order will get the event and update the order accordingly. If there are different steps to complete the order, you can also pipeline this with something like a queue where it moves from one topic to another where the respective service will update it accordingly.
Related
so im learning about microservices and common patterns and i cant seem to find how to address this one issue.
Lets say that my customer needs a module managing customers, and a module managing purchase orders.
I believe that when dealing with microservices its pretty natural to split these two functionalities into separate services - each having its own data.
CustomerService
PurchaseOrderService
Also, he wants to have a table of purchase orders displaying the data of both customers and purchase orders, ie .: Customer name, Order number.
Now, i dont want to use the API Composition pattern because the user must be able to sort over any column he wants which (afaik) is impossible to do without slaughtering the performance using that pattern.
Instead, i choose CQRS pattern
after every purchase order / customer update a message is sent to the message broker
message broker notifies the third service about that message
the third service updates its projection in its own database
So, our third service .:
PurchaseOrderTableService
It stores all the required data in the single database - now we can query it, sort over any column we like while still maintaining a good performance.
And now, the tricky part .:
In the future, client can change his mind and say "Hey, i need the purchase orders table to display additional column - 'Customer country'"
How does one handle that data migration? So far, The PurchaseOrderTableService knows only about two columns - 'Customer name' and 'Order number'.
I imagine that this probably a pretty common problem, so what can i do to avoid reinventing the wheel?
I can of course make CustomerService generate 'CustomerUpdatedMessage' for every existing customer which would force PurchaseOrderTableService to update all its projections, but that seems like a workaround.
If that matters, the stack i thought of is java, spring, kafka, postgresql.
Divide the problem in 2:
Keeping live data in sync: your projection service from now on also needs to persist Customer Country, so all new orders will have the country as expected.
Backfill the older orders: this is a one off operation, so how you implement it really depends on your organization, technologies, etc. For example, you or a DBA can use whatever database tools you have to extract the data from the source database and do a bulk update to the target database. In other cases, you might have to solve it programmatically, for example creating a process in the projection microservice that will query the Customer's microservice API to get the data and update the local copy.
Also note that in most cases, you will already have a process to backfill data, because the need for the projection microservice might arrive months or years after the orders and customers services were created. Other times, the search service is a 3rd party search engine, like Elastic Search instead of a database. In those cases, I would always keep in hand a process to fully reindex the data.
The company that I work at uses a microservices architecture with the 'database per service' pattern. This pattern makes it harder to query based on data from multiple services, since each service has its own database. Imagine a service for managing your products and one for managing stock. You would have to somehow combine the data from both services to query for products based on stock.
I know that event sourcing and API composition are potential solutions to the problem, but I was wondering if it is possible to continuously replicate specific tables from the product and stock databases based on database transaction logs. Wouldn't this be much simpler than say implementing an event based solution like event sourcing? One service that I am working with contains a lot of domain events, which would make implementing and maintaining event-based solution rather complex.
Another reason for why I am considering to look at the problem from a different angle is that there is a lot of data. In-memory joins with say API composition will most likely be slow.
To sum it all up, I would like to know if it is possible to continuously replicate specific tables from different databases into one database.
The technologies that my company uses are primarily Spring Framework and PostgreSQL.
I would step back and ask why you have microservices (including why you have multiple databases). This is because it's quite easy to make choices that are superficially easy but which achieve that ease by negating the reason you had the microservices to begin with, and in such a situation, it may in fact be easier to just not do microservices.
For example, you might be doing microservices because you want to be able to have the team maintaining your product service be able to make changes without coordinating with the stock service or vice versa. By setting up a direct replication of a table from service A's database into service B's database, you essentially require many changes service A might want to make to that table to be coordinated with service B. It's perhaps less operationally coupled than unifying the services into a monolith, but in terms of developer velocity, you're giving up a fair amount.
Alternatively, if the rationale is to allow one service to be down (failures, maintenance, releases: doesn't matter) without taking the others down, a replication which guarantees strong consistency implies that taking service B's database down prevents service A from updating its database (because if you allowed service A to update its database in that situation, you couldn't have strong consistency).
Rather than direct replication, it might make sense to use change data capture (e.g. with Debezium) to publish a stream of changes from the transaction logs (e.g. to Kafka). The critical difference from logical replication is that the consumer can, for instance, choose to ignore updates to columns it doesn't care about: the stock service might include details like where things are stocked in a warehouse, for instance, which is data you don't need for answering a query like "show me the products in this category which are in stock". This can be a nice middle ground between going full event-sourcing and other approaches.
I want to decompose my application to adopt microservices architecture, and i will need to come up with a solid strategy to split my database (Mysql) into multiple small databases (mysql) aligned with my applications.
TL;DR: Depends on the scenario and from what each service will do
Although there is no clear answer to this, since it really depends on your needs and on what each service should do, you can come up with a general starting point (assuming you don't need to keep the existing database type).
Let's assume you have a monolithic application for an e-commerce, and you want to split this application into smaller services, each one with it's own database.
The approach you could use is to create some services that handles some parts of the website: for example you could have one service that handles users authentication,one for the orders, one for the products, one for the invoices and so on...
Now, each service will have it's own database, and here's come another question: which database a specific service should have? Because one of the advantages of this kind of architecture is that each service can have it's own kind of database, so for example the products service can have a non relational database, such as MongoDB, since all it does is getting details about products, so you don't have to manage any relation.
The orders service, on the other hand, could have a relational database, since you want to keep a relation between the order and the invoice for that order. But wait, invoices are handled by the invoice service, so how can you keep the relation between these two without sharing the database? Well, that's one of the "issues" of this approach: you have to keep services independent while also let them communicate each other. How can we do this? There is no clear answer here too... One approach could be to just pass all invoices details to the orders service as well, or you can just pass the invoice ID when saving the order and later retrieve the invoice via an API call to the invoice service, or you can pass all the relevant details you need for the invoice to an API endpoint in the order service that stores these data to a specific table in the database (since most of the times you don't need the entire actual object), etc... The possibilities are endless...
Let's say we want to create the app with microservices.
We have some page where we display some items (products).
These products have multiple joins(categories, tags, users, and so on).
If users, categories data are within another services, how can we manage and filter the results?
For example in SQL you create 3,4 joins and get.
With microservices - I have to filter the categories, then filter tags and then products - this could be 10 time slower than the speed of the SQL query.
Also if I have table "products_categories" which set categories for each product which service is responsible for that? Product service or Category service ?
Thank you
In Microservices architecture there are two ways to deal with it.
The API composition pattern— This is the simplest approach and should be used whenever possible. It works by making clients of the services that own the data responsible for invoking the services and combining the results.
The Command query responsibility segregation (CQRS) pattern— This is more powerful than the API composition pattern, but it’s also more complex. It maintains one or more view databases whose sole purpose is to support queries.
I will prefer to use CQRS, Define a view database, which is a read-only replica to support specifically that query. The rest of the services keeps the replica up to date by subscribing to (create, update, insert)events published by the data owner services.
This is a very standard problem whenever any micro-service is built.. People just always feel micro-service is the solution for everything which is not true.
Solution to this problem is designing better. Designing so that there is a balance between performance and redundancy of data. Higher performance ( lower latency numbers ) means more duplicacy of data across different databases of microservice. You should not target to achieve performance as good as SQL Joins ; but also do not duplicate data too much. A balance is needed..
Most importantly, dividing the requirement into right set of micro-services is needed.
I assume you created a "microservice" per database table. Those are not microservices, those are just HTTP-based CRUD interfaces to your database.
First, know why you need microservices. (Is there an actual reason?) Second, you have to create microservices that encompass at least one full (business) functionality for your software. Meaning it doesn't need other services to do it.
If you need a table that needs data from multiple microservices, you by definition made wrong microservices. If a microservice can't provide it's own UI without the help of other services, it doesn't fully contain it's own functionality.
What's stopping you from having multiple services for reading / writing to the same database / table? For example:
One service to write to categories
One service to write to tags
One service to write to products
You could then write another service to read from all three of these services, however, this might not be at a HTTP level, instead you could read from the same database within your read service and leverage the power of SQL.
The service that reads could encompass your join logic which would mean you wouldn't need to consume the other services around it.
I am trying to convert one monolithic application into micro service oriented architecture style. Back end I am using spring , spring boot frameworks for development. Front-end I am using angular 2. And also using PostgreSQL as database.
Here my confusion is that, when I am designing my databases as distributed, according to functionalities it may contain 5 databases. Means I am designing according to vertical partition. Then I am thinking to implement inter-microservice communication services to achieve the entire functionality.
The other way I am thinking that to horizontally partition the current structure. So my domain is based on some educational university. So half of university go under one DB and remaining will go under another DB. And deploy services according to Two region (two for two set of university).
Currently I am decided to continue with the last mentioned approach. I am new to these types of tasks, since it referring some architecture task. Also I am beginner to this microservice and distributed database world. Would someone confirm that my approach will give solution to my issue? Can I continue with my second approach - horizontal partitioning of databases according to domain object?
Can I continue with my second approach - Horizontal partitioning of
databases according to domain object?
Temporarily yes, if based on that you are able to scale your current system to meet your needs.
Now lets think about why on the first place you want to move to Microserices as a development style.
Small Components - easier to manager
Independently Deployable - Continous Delivery
Multiple Languages
The code is organized around business capabilities
and .....
When moving to Microservices, you should not have multiple services reading directly from each other databases, which will make them tightly coupled.
One service should be completely ignorant on how the other service designed its internal structure.
Now if you want to move towards microservices and take complete advantage of that, you should have vertical partition as you say and services talk to each other.
Also while moving towards microservices your will get lots and lots of other problems. I tried compiling on how one should start on microservices on this link .
How to separate services which are reading data from same table:
Now lets first create a dummy example: we have three services Order , Shipping , Customer all are three different microservices.
Following are the ways in which multiple services require data from same table:
Service one needs to read data from other service for things like validation.
Order and shipping service might need some data from customer service to complete their operation.
Eg: While placing a order one will call Order Service API with customer id , now as Order Service might need to validate whether its a valid customer or not.
One approach Database level exposure -- not recommened -- use the same customer table -- which binds order service to customer service Impl
Another approach, Call another service to get data
Variation - 1 Call Customer service to check whether customer exists and get some customer data like name , and save this in order service
Variation - 2 do not validate while placing the order, on OrderPlaced event check in async from Customer Service and validate and update state of order if required
I recommend Call another service to get data based on the consistency you want.
In some use cases you want a single transaction between data from multiple services.
For eg: Delete a customer. you might want that all order of the customer also should get deleted.
In this case you need to deal with eventual consistency, service one will raise an event and then service 2 will react accordingly.
Now if this answers your question than ok, else specify in what kind of scenario multiple service require to call another service.
If still not solved, you could email me on puneetjindal.11#gmail.com, will answer you
Currently I am decided to continue with the last mentioned approach.
If you want horizontal scalability (scaling for increasingly large number of client connections) for your database you may be better of with a technology that was designed to work as a scalable, distributed system. Something like CockroachDB or NoSQL. Cockroachdb for example has built in data sharding and replication and allows you to grow with adding server nodes as required.
when I am designing my databases as distributed, according to functionalities it may contain 5 databases
This sounds like you had the right general idea - split by domain functionality. Here's a link to a previous answer regarding general DB design with micro services.
In the Microservices world, each Microservice owns a set of functionalities and the data manipulated by these functionalities. If a microservice needs data owned by another microservice, it cannot directly go to the database maintained/owned by the other microservice rather it would call an API exposed by the other microservice.
Now, regarding the placement of data, there are various options - you can store data owned by a microservice in a NoSQL database like MongoDB, DynamoDB, Cassandra (it really depends on the microservice's use-case) OR you can have a different table for each micro-service in a single instance of a SQL database. BUT remember, if you choose a single instance of a SQL Database with multiple tables, then there would be no joins (basically no interaction) between tables owned by different microservices.
I would suggest you start small and then think about database scaling issues when the usage of the system grows.