we have started using elasticsearch in our project, we are storing user data and his friend list as nested object, and nested to nested object storing friend's friend list because we required this data when we are doing global search.
Now we are syncing this data in real time with our database, so is this good to syncing done in real time 50-100 TPS or in future it will create problem.
We need to create complex queries for updating the data because we are managing friend list in 2nd level. so how to create advance scripting in painless, I have checked this in Google but not found anything in detail.
If my approach is wrong of doing this, please let me know.
To answer your first question
so is this good to syncing done in real time 50-100 TPS or in future
it will create problem
As of version ES6.0, Multi level nesting is automatically supported, and detected, resulting in an inner nested query to automatically match the relevant nesting level (and not root) if it exists within another nested query. But there is a caveat, indexing a document with 100 nested fields actually indexes 101 documents as each nested document is indexed as a separate document. To safeguard against ill-defined mappings the number of nested fields that can be defined per index is usually limited to 50 using the index.mapping.nested_fields.limit . This setting allows you to limit the number of field mappings that can be created manually or dynamically, in order to prevent bad documents from causing a mapping explosion. So to answer your question, this is fine, but as your data grows, it becomes more complicated to manage and you risk the danger of a mapping explosion.
To answer your second question
We need to create complex queries for updating the data because we are
managing friend list in 2nd level. so how to create advance scripting
in painless, I have checked this in Google but not found anything in
detail.
You might need to present some context here to be able to understand why your approach is necessary, but basically, in a social profile context, managing a friends list as you are doing is always a bad idea, especially if you anticipate scaling in the future. It may work for smaller use-cases, but it does not work very well when you scale. This is because, the relationships become more sophisticated and you will end up having too many multi nested objects. As mentioned, all factors kept at a constant, you might want to look at a graph database for this kind of a scenario. You could, however, have other reasons to your approach which is why you might want to enumerate your context so we can better advise.
Hope this helps!!
We are trying to implement a FHIR Rest Server for our application. In our current data model (and thus live data) several FHIR resources are represented by multiple tables, e.g. what would all be Observations are stored in tables for vital values, laboratory values and diagnosis. Each table has an independent, auto-incrementing primary ID, so there are entries with the same ID in different tables. But for GET or DELETE calls to the FHIR server a unique ID is needed. What would be the most sensible way to handle this?
Searching didn't reveal an inherent way of doing this, so I'm considering these two options:
Add a prefix to all (or just the problematic) table IDs, e.g lab-123 and vit-123
Add a UUID to every table and use that as the logical identifier
Both have drawbacks: an ID parser is necessary for the first one and the second requires multiple database calls to identify the correct record.
Is there a FHIR way that allows to split a resource into several sub-resources, even in the Rest URL? Ideally I'd get something like GET server:port/Observation/laboratory/123
Server systems will have all sorts of different divisions of data in terms of how data is stored internally. What FHIR does is provide an interface that tries to hide those variations. So Observation/laboratory/123 would be going against what we're trying to do - because every system would have different divisions and it would be very difficult to get interoperability happening.
Either of the options you've proposed could work. I have a slight leaning towards the first option because it doesn't involve changing your persistence layer and it's a relatively straight-forward transformation to convert between external/fhir and internal.
Is there a FHIR way that allows to split a resource into several
sub-resources, even in the Rest URL? Ideally I'd get something like
GET server:port/Observation/laboratory/123
What would this mean for search? So, what would /Obervation?code=xxx search through? Would that search labs, vitals etc combined, or would you just allow access on /Observation/laboratory?
If these are truly "silos", maybe you could use http://servername/lab/Observation (so swap the last two path parts), which suggests your server has multiple "endpoints" for the different observations. I think more clients will be able to handle that url than the url you suggested.
Best, still, I think is having one of your two other options, for which the first is indeed the easiest to implement.
QUESTION
Is it possible to query other couchdb documents as part of a standard couchdb validation function ?
If not, what is the standard approach for including properties of other documents as part of a validation rule inside a couchdb validation function?
RATIONALE
Consider a run-of-the-mill address book application where the validation function is intended to prevent two or more entries having the same value for the 'e-mail' in one of the address book entry fields.
Consider also an address book application where it is possible to specify validation rules in separate documents, based on whether the postal code is a US-based postal code or something else.
No, it is not possible to query other couchdb documents in a validate_doc_update function. Each runs in isolation passing references only to: the new document, the old document, and user (where applicable).
My personal experience has been there are at least three options for dealing with duplicate checking:
Use Cloudant as your CouchDB provider. They offer a free tier for now if you'd like to experiment, but they guarantee consistency across nodes for a CouchDB database. (See #2)
I've used a secondary "reserve table" for names using the type-key as the ID. Then, you need to check for conflicts if not using a system like Cloudant. Basically, there's a simple document that maintains a key to prevent duplicates. It's not fun code to write given that you need to watch for conflicts. (Even with cloudant, you need to deal with failed requests to write, but it's easier than dealing with timing issues surrounding data replication across multiple nodes).
Use a traditional DB like MySQL for example that can maintain a unique and consistent index for specific data values like you're describing. Store the documents away in CouchDB though. While slightly annoying that you need different data providers, it's reliable.
(Optional: decide that CouchDB isn't a great fit for the type of system you're building)
I need to synchronize my Relational database(Oracle or Mysql) to CouchDb. Do anyone has any idea how its possible. if its possbile than how we can notify the CouchDb for any changes happened on the relational DB.
Thanks in advance.
First of all, you need to change the way you think about database modeling. Synchronizing to CouchDB is not just creating documents of all your tables, and pushing them to Couch.
I'm using CouchDB for a site in production, I'll describe what I did, maybe it will help you:
From the start, we have been using MySQL as our primary database. I had entities mapped out, including their relations. In an attempt to speed up the front-end I decided to use CouchDB as a content repository. The benefit was to have fully prepared documents, that contained all the relational data, so data could be fetched with much less overhead.
Because the documents can contain related entities - say a question document that contains all answers - I first decided what top-level entities I wanted to push to Couch. In my example, only questions would be pushed to Couch, and those documents would contain the answers, and possible some metadata, such as tags, user info, etc. When requesting a question on the frontend, I would only need to fetch one document to have all the information I need at that point.
Now for your second question: how to notify CouchDB of changes. In our case, all the changes in our data are done using a CMS. I have a single point in my code which all edit actions call. That's the place where I hooked in a function that persisted the object being saved to CouchDB. The function determines if this object needs persisting (ie: is it a top level entity), then creates a document of this object (think about some sort of toArray function), and fetches all its relations, recursively. The complete document is then pushed to CouchDB.
Now, in your case, the variables here may be completely different, but the basic idea is the same: figure out what documents you want saved, and how they look like. Then write a function that composes these documents and make sure this is called when changes are made to your relational database.
Notifying CouchDB of a change
CouchDB is very simple. Probably the easiest thing is directly updating an existing document. Two ways to implement this come to mind:
The easiest way is a normal CouchDB update: Fetch the current document by id; modify it; then send it back to Couch with HTTP PUT or POST.
If you have clear application-specific changes (e.g. "the views value was incremented") then writing an _update function seems prudent. Update function are very simple: they receive an HTTP query and a document; they modify the document; and then CouchDB stores the new version. You write update functions in Javascript and they run on the server. It is a great way to "compress" common actions into simpler (and fewer) HTTP queries.
I have a feeling that there must be client-server synchronization patterns out there. But i totally failed to google up one.
Situation is quite simple - server is the central node, that multiple clients connect to and manipulate same data. Data can be split in atoms, in case of conflict, whatever is on server, has priority (to avoid getting user into conflict solving). Partial synchronization is preferred due to potentially large amounts of data.
Are there any patterns / good practices for such situation, or if you don't know of any - what would be your approach?
Below is how i now think to solve it:
Parallel to data, a modification journal will be held, having all transactions timestamped.
When client connects, it receives all changes since last check, in consolidated form (server goes through lists and removes additions that are followed by deletions, merges updates for each atom, etc.).
Et voila, we are up to date.
Alternative would be keeping modification date for each record, and instead of performing data deletes, just mark them as deleted.
Any thoughts?
You should look at how distributed change management works. Look at SVN, CVS and other repositories that manage deltas work.
You have several use cases.
Synchronize changes. Your change-log (or delta history) approach looks good for this. Clients send their deltas to the server; server consolidates and distributes the deltas to the clients. This is the typical case. Databases call this "transaction replication".
Client has lost synchronization. Either through a backup/restore or because of a bug. In this case, the client needs to get the current state from the server without going through the deltas. This is a copy from master to detail, deltas and performance be damned. It's a one-time thing; the client is broken; don't try to optimize this, just implement a reliable copy.
Client is suspicious. In this case, you need to compare client against server to determine if the client is up-to-date and needs any deltas.
You should follow the database (and SVN) design pattern of sequentially numbering every change. That way a client can make a trivial request ("What revision should I have?") before attempting to synchronize. And even then, the query ("All deltas since 2149") is delightfully simple for the client and server to process.
As part of the team, I did quite a lot of projects which involved data syncing, so I should be competent to answer this question.
Data syncing is quite a broad concept and there are way too much to discuss. It covers a range of different approaches with their upsides and downsides. Here is one of the possible classifications based on two perspectives: Synchronous / Asynchronous, Client/Server / Peer-to-Peer. Syncing implementation is severely dependent on these factors, data model complexity, amount of data transferred and stored, and other requirements. So in each particular case the choice should be in favor of the simplest implementation meeting the app requirements.
Based on a review of existing off-the-shelf solutions, we can delineate several major classes of syncing, different in granularity of objects subject to synchronization:
Syncing of a whole document or database is used in cloud-based applications, such as Dropbox, Google Drive or Yandex.Disk. When the user edits and saves a file, the new file version is uploaded to the cloud completely, overwriting the earlier copy. In case of a conflict, both file versions are saved so that the user can choose which version is more relevant.
Syncing of key-value pairs can be used in apps with a simple data structure, where the variables are considered to be atomic, i.e. not divided into logical components. This option is similar to syncing of whole documents, as both the value and the document can be overwritten completely. However, from a user perspective a document is a complex object composed of many parts, but a key-value pair is but a short string or a number. Therefore, in this case we can use a more simple strategy of conflict resolution, considering the value more relevant, if it has been the last to change.
Syncing of data structured as a tree or a graph is used in more sophisticated applications where the amount of data is large enough to send the database in its entirety at every update. In this case, conflicts have to be resolved at the level of individual objects, fields or relationships. We are primarily focused on this option.
So, we grabbed our knowledge into this article which I think might be very useful to everyone interested in the topic => Data Syncing in Core Data Based iOS apps (http://blog.denivip.ru/index.php/2014/04/data-syncing-in-core-data-based-ios-apps/?lang=en)
What you really need is Operational Transform (OT). This can even cater for the conflicts in many cases.
This is still an active area of research, but there are implementations of various OT algorithms around. I've been involved in such research for a number of years now, so let me know if this route interests you and I'll be happy to put you on to relevant resources.
The question is not crystal clear, but I'd look into optimistic locking if I were you.
It can be implemented with a sequence number that the server returns for each record. When a client tries to save the record back, it will include the sequence number it received from the server. If the sequence number matches what's in the database at the time when the update is received, the update is allowed and the sequence number is incremented. If the sequence numbers don't match, the update is disallowed.
I built a system like this for an app about 8 years ago, and I can share a couple ways it has evolved as the app usage has grown.
I started by logging every change (insert, update or delete) from any device into a "history" table. So if, for example, someone changes their phone number in the "contact" table, the system will edit the contact.phone field, and also add a history record with action=update, table=contact, field=phone, record=[contact ID], value=[new phone number]. Then whenever a device syncs, it downloads the history items since the last sync and applies them to its local database. This sounds like the "transaction replication" pattern described above.
One issue is keeping IDs unique when items could be created on different devices. I didn't know about UUIDs when I started this, so I used auto-incrementing IDs and wrote some convoluted code that runs on the central server to check new IDs uploaded from devices, change them to a unique ID if there's a conflict, and tell the source device to change the ID in its local database. Just changing the IDs of new records wasn't that bad, but if I create, for example, a new item in the contact table, then create a new related item in the event table, now I have foreign keys that I also need to check and update.
Eventually I learned that UUIDs could avoid this, but by then my database was getting pretty large and I was afraid a full UUID implementation would create a performance issue. So instead of using full UUIDs, I started using randomly generated, 8 character alphanumeric keys as IDs, and I left my existing code in place to handle conflicts. Somewhere between my current 8-character keys and the 36 characters of a UUID there must be a sweet spot that would eliminate conflicts without unnecessary bloat, but since I already have the conflict resolution code, it hasn't been a priority to experiment with that.
The next problem was that the history table was about 10 times larger than the entire rest of the database. This makes storage expensive, and any maintenance on the history table can be painful. Keeping that entire table allows users to roll back any previous change, but that started to feel like overkill. So I added a routine to the sync process where if the history item that a device last downloaded no longer exists in the history table, the server doesn't give it the recent history items, but instead gives it a file containing all the data for that account. Then I added a cronjob to delete history items older than 90 days. This means users can still roll back changes less than 90 days old, and if they sync at least once every 90 days, the updates will be incremental as before. But if they wait longer than 90 days, the app will replace the entire database.
That change reduced the size of the history table by almost 90%, so now maintaining the history table only makes the database twice as large instead of ten times as large. Another benefit of this system is that syncing could still work without the history table if needed -- like if I needed to do some maintenance that took it offline temporarily. Or I could offer different rollback time periods for accounts at different price points. And if there are more than 90 days of changes to download, the complete file is usually more efficient than the incremental format.
If I were starting over today, I'd skip the ID conflict checking and just aim for a key length that's sufficient to eliminate conflicts, with some kind of error checking just in case. (It looks like YouTube uses 11-character random IDs.) The history table and the combination of incremental downloads for recent updates or a full download when needed has been working well.
For delta (change) sync, you can use pubsub pattern to publish changes back to all subscribed clients, services like pusher can do this.
For database mirror, some web frameworks use a local mini database to sync server side database to local in browser database, partial synchronization is supported. Check meteror.
This page clearly describes mosts scenarios of data synchronization with patterns and example code: Data Synchronization: Patterns, Tools, & Techniques
It is the most comprehensive source I found, considering whole of delta syncs, strategies on how to handle deletions and server-to-client and client-to-server sync. It is a very good starting point, worth a look.