I'd like to ask a theoretical question about routing and using a database to look up specific routes.
Let's say that I have a product system. I know all about to_param and how it works (thanks to Ryan Bates about a zillion years ago) and even that I can take the ID out of the param if I set it statically on the model itself.
The problem is that I want to take the ID out of it for search engine optimization and other purposes. I can't put it on the Product model itself, because the slug has the tendency to change with product changes, etc. Therefore, I need to keep slugs in something, e.g. a Route model. I have a table with a product_id column, and a slug column. The slug is indexed, so it would be fast for Rails to look up.
I have a few concerns, though:
Is this even the best way to do this?
Is there a way to cache the slugs in memory so that there isn't a roundtrip to the database every time?
Will my database take a huge hit if it is just looking up a simple slug in a table which is indexed? I suppose I will need to do some performance testing on this myself, but I am curious as to whether anyone else has ever measured this before.
Thanks!
Use http://memcached.org/
Free & open source, high-performance, distributed memory object caching system, generic in nature, but intended for use in speeding up dynamic web applications by alleviating database load.
Memcached is an in-memory key-value store for small chunks of arbitrary data (strings, objects) from results of database calls, API calls, or page rendering.
Memcached is simple yet powerful. Its simple design promotes quick deployment, ease of development, and solves many problems facing large data caches. Its API is available for most popular languages.
Ruby gem is http://rubygems.org/gems/memcache
You may opt any gem here http://rubygems.org/searchutf8=%E2%9C%93&query=memcache
Related
I am developing a web app in Meteor, with Mongo, that will be running on cloud. Each user must belong to a Company.
Each Company can only access it's own data.
Each user can access it's own data and some data shared with other users of the same company.
Imagine 1.000 companies and 100 users per company, it could get very bad in performance and secutiry, if I use 1 Mongodb database for whole app.
So, because Mongo is "Schema-less and Database-less" I think I can define 1.000 dbs, lets say db_0001, db_0002, ... with same name collections, lets say tasks, messages, ..., so the app can be efficient and more secure (same code for every Company and isolation of data).
Also, on hosting side (let's say for example with Digital Ocean), I think its easier to distribute the dbs if the are already atomized.
Is this a good approach? Or should I not worry about it and let the hosting do this job?
Any thoughts are wellcome.
You are currently only looking at one side of the coin. That's fine to start with.
Think about how you are going to be displaying that data and what query does it translate to. Do a thorough due diligence on all the potential query. For example, how often would user/getbyid be called and how often would you have to show a user their info and their relationship with other users. What other meta data would be required beside user info, would you have to perform a join to get that data? or is it stored as an embedded document? What fields are you going to be searching and sorting by most? Which types of data are write heavy and what are read heavy?
Now lets get back to your database shading approach. It's great that you are thinking ahead of time on this front rather than having to rewrite your component later. Data volume/storage does not worry me here. How many concurrent users would be using at application and what are primary use cases should be the first place to look at to think about scale.
Additionally, you need to understand the nature of the business and project growth. Is it like Instragram type of hyper growth? or is it more predictable. A big Mongo cluster can handle thousands of concurrent read/write requests (assuming your design and query are optimized) so that does not bother me. If you want to keep it flexible MongoDB has a sharding mechanism and you can shard on a key and it takes care all the fancy stuff for ya.
MongoDB has eventual consistency (look up MongoDB CAP theorem) if you enable read from secondaries and you have a high volume business critical app you need to be careful because you can be reading out of date result.
As far as hosting is concerned, DO is fine but always have a backup in another region to maintain geographic redundancy so in case if a region goes down (Hello AWS!) you have something to fall back on.
Good luck on your project!
I'm currently create a program that imports all groups and feeds from Facebook which the user wants.
I used to use the Graph API with OAuth and this works very well.
But I came to the point that I realized that one request can't handle the import of 1000 groups plus the feeds.
So I'm looking for a solution that imports this data in the background (like a cron job) into a database.
Requirements
Runs in background
Runs under Linux
Restful
Questions
What's you experience about that?
Would hadoop the right solution?
You can use neo4j.
Neo4j is a graph database, reliable and fast for managing and querying highly connected data
http://www.neo4j.org/
1) Decide structure of nodes, relationships, and there properties and accordingly
You need to create API that will get data from facebook and store it in Neo4j.
I have used neo4j in 3 big projects, and it is best for graph data.
2) Create a cron jon that will get data from facebook and store into the neo4j.
I think implementing mysql for graph database is not a good idea. for large data neo4j is the good option.
Interestingly you designed the appropriate solution yourself already. So in fact you need following components:
a relational database, since you want to request data in a structured, quick way
-> from experiences I would pressure the fact to have a fully normalized data model (in your case with tables users, groups, users2groups), also have 4-Byte surrogate keys over larger keys from facebook (for back referencing you can store their keys as attributes, but internal relations are more efficient on surrogate keys)
-> establish indexes based on hashes rather than strings (eg. crc32(lower(STRING))) - an example select would than be this: select somethinguseful from users where name=SEARCHSTRING and hash=crc32(lower(SEARCHSTRING))
-> never,ever establish unique columns based on strings with length > 8 Byte; unique bulk inserts can be done based on hashes+string checking via insert...select
-> once you got that settled you could also look into sparse matrices (see wikipedia) and bitmaps to get your users2groups optimized (however I have learned that this is an extra that should not hinder you to come up with a first version soon)
a cron job that is run periodically
-> ideally along the caps, facebook is giving you (so if they rule you to not request more often than once per second, stick to that - not more, but also try to come as close as possible to the cap) -> invest some time in getting the management of this settled, if different types of requests need to be fired (request for user records <> requests for group records, but maybe hit by the same cap)
-> most of the optimization can only be done with development - so if I were you I would stick to any high level programming language that does not bother to much with var type juggling and that also comes along with a broad support for associative arrays such as PHP and I would programm that thing myself
-> I made good experiences with setting up the cron job as web page with deactivated output buffering (for php look at ob_end_flush(void)) - easy to test and the cron job can be triggered via curl; if you channel status outputs via an own function (eg with time stamps) this could then also become flexible to either run viw browser or via command line -> which means efficient testing + efficient production running
your user ui, which only requests your database and never, ever, never the external system api
lots of memory, to keep your performance high (optimal: all your data+index data fits into database memory/cache dedicated to the database)
-> if you use mysql as database you should look into innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0, and innodb_buffer_pool_size (just google, if interested)
Hadoop is a file system layer - it could help you with availability. However I would put this into the category of "sparse matrix", which is nothing that stops you from coming up with a solution. From my experience availability is not a primary constraint in data exposure projects.
-------------------------- UPDATE -------------------
I like neo4j from the other answer. So I wondered what I can learn for my future projects. My experiences with mysql is that RAM is usually the biggest constraint. So increasing your RAM to be able to load the full database can gain you performance improvements by a factor of 2-1000 - depending on from where you are coming from. Everything else such as index improvements and structure somehow follows. So if I would need to make up a performance prioritization list, it would be something like this:
MYSQL + enough RAM dedicated to the database to load all data
NEO4J + enough RAM dedicated to the database to load all data
I would still prefer MYSQL. It stores records efficiently, but needs to run joins for deriving relations (which neo4j does not require to that extend). Join-costs are usually low with the right indexes and according to http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/configuration-caches.html neo4j does need to add extra management data to the property separation. For big data projects those management data sums up and in full load to memory set ups requires you buy more memory. Performance wise these both options are ultimate. Further, much further down the line you would find this:
NEO4J + not enough RAM dedicated to the database to load all data
MYSQL + not enough RAM dedicated to the database to load all data
In worst case MYSQL will even put indexes to disk (at least partly), which can result in massive read delay. In comparison with NEO4J you could perform a ' direct jump from node to node' exercise, which should - at least in theory - be faster.
Is the cache part of the business or data layer in a simple LAMP stack?
It's cross cutting concern that may be applied to every piece of data in Business, Data or any other Layer that contains and works with data.
memcached is not part of a simple LAMP stack. The basic LAMP app takes its data directly from the database and templates it into the view. The simple application (and even many complicated ones) don't need any more than that.
You add memcached to an application because you've got data that is too slow to compute to do it all live on-the-fly. Whilst certainly memcache counts as being in the data layer, when you are relying on memcache you lose the consistency of a database server, which means you are usually going to need to include some application-specific rules for how long data is cached based on the business logic of your app. So sure, it impinges on the business layer. And if the stuff you're caching is pre-populated views (eg HTML), then it's touching the presentation layer too.
This wide-ranging and not-easily-encapsulated nature is why you shouldn't introduce memcache to an application until you really need to. Don't assume that it's a necessary foundation for performance; remember your database also has table and query caches you may be able to leverage without having to give up consistency and add cache expiry complexity.
Memcached sits between a database and webserver. Its a cache, but more importantly its a explicit cache. So things dont get on it on its own. You have to "put" and "get" from it. The biggest advantage is, that it is close to 10 times faster than a database. And if you fetch data from memcached, you wont need to make a sql call, thus saving your database some cycles to do something more important.
So a book catalog website is ideal candidate 80% reads and 20% writes. For more information <here>.
I'm working on a new Joomla! module where I need to store a read-only data of about 40 key/value pairs with a keyword and corresponding URL link. There are several options but I'm not sure which one would be convenient for the programmer and fast-loading for the user. Or maybe because the data amount is so small it doesn't really matter what method is used.
I could hardcode the values into an array as part of the module code. Not convenient to update but it does load fast.
I could store the data in an flat file or XML file. This would require additional code to implement and would be convenient for updating the list, but doesn't load as fast as being hardcoded.
I could create a table in the database. The Joomla API makes this is a no brainer to use but I'm not sure how much overhead there would with everything else being loaded from the database.
How do I logically evaluate which one works best without trying out each of the options?
Your two opposing concerns are
frequency with which the programmer updates these key value pairs
frequency with which the application queries them
If they're updated more than occasionally, your best bet is to have them in the database and then cache the data at some desirable interval if you're worried about it.
At work, we recently started a project using CouchDB (a document-oriented database). I've been having a hard time un-learning all of my relational db knowledge.
I was wondering how some of you overcame this obstacle? How did you stop thinking relationally and start think documentally (I apologise for making up that word).
Any suggestions? Helpful hints?
Edit: If it makes any difference, we're using Ruby & CouchPotato to connect to the database.
Edit 2: SO was hassling me to accept an answer. I chose the one that helped me learn the most, I think. However, there's no real "correct" answer, I suppose.
I think, after perusing about on a couple of pages on this subject, it all depends upon the types of data you are dealing with.
RDBMSes represent a top-down approach, where you, the database designer, assert the structure of all data that will exist in the database. You define that a Person has a First,Last,Middle Name and a Home Address, etc. You can enforce this using a RDBMS. If you don't have a column for a Person's HomePlanet, tough luck wanna-be-Person that has a different HomePlanet than Earth; you'll have to add a column in at a later date or the data can't be stored in the RDBMS. Most programmers make assumptions like this in their apps anyway, so this isn't a dumb thing to assume and enforce. Defining things can be good. But if you need to log additional attributes in the future, you'll have to add them in. The relation model assumes that your data attributes won't change much.
"Cloud" type databases using something like MapReduce, in your case CouchDB, do not make the above assumption, and instead look at data from the bottom-up. Data is input in documents, which could have any number of varying attributes. It assumes that your data, by its very definition, is diverse in the types of attributes it could have. It says, "I just know that I have this document in database Person that has a HomePlanet attribute of "Eternium" and a FirstName of "Lord Nibbler" but no LastName." This model fits webpages: all webpages are a document, but the actual contents/tags/keys of the document vary soo widely that you can't fit them into the rigid structure that the DBMS pontificates from upon high. This is why Google thinks the MapReduce model roxors soxors, because Google's data set is so diverse it needs to build in for ambiguity from the get-go, and due to the massive data sets be able to utilize parallel processing (which MapReduce makes trivial). The document-database model assumes that your data's attributes may/will change a lot or be very diverse with "gaps" and lots of sparsely populated columns that one might find if the data was stored in a relational database. While you could use an RDBMS to store data like this, it would get ugly really fast.
To answer your question then: you can't think "relationally" at all when looking at a database that uses the MapReduce paradigm. Because, it doesn't actually have an enforced relation. It's a conceptual hump you'll just have to get over.
A good article I ran into that compares and contrasts the two databases pretty well is MapReduce: A Major Step Back, which argues that MapReduce paradigm databases are a technological step backwards, and are inferior to RDBMSes. I have to disagree with the thesis of the author and would submit that the database designer would simply have to select the right one for his/her situation.
It's all about the data. If you have data which makes most sense relationally, a document store may not be useful. A typical document based system is a search server, you have a huge data set and want to find a specific item/document, the document is static, or versioned.
In an archive type situation, the documents might literally be documents, that don't change and have very flexible structures. It doesn't make sense to store their meta data in a relational databases, since they are all very different so very few documents may share those tags. Document based systems don't store null values.
Non-relational/document-like data makes sense when denormalized. It doesn't change much or you don't care as much about consistency.
If your use case fits a relational model well then it's probably not worth squeezing it into a document model.
Here's a good article about non relational databases.
Another way of thinking about it is, a document is a row. Everything about a document is in that row and it is specific to that document. Rows are easy to split on, so scaling is easier.
In CouchDB, like Lotus Notes, you really shouldn't think about a Document as being analogous to a row.
Instead, a Document is a relation (table).
Each document has a number of rows--the field values:
ValueID(PK) Document ID(FK) Field Name Field Value
========================================================
92834756293 MyDocument First Name Richard
92834756294 MyDocument States Lived In TX
92834756295 MyDocument States Lived In KY
Each View is a cross-tab query that selects across a massive UNION ALL's of every Document.
So, it's still relational, but not in the most intuitive sense, and not in the sense that matters most: good data management practices.
Document-oriented databases do not reject the concept of relations, they just sometimes let applications dereference the links (CouchDB) or even have direct support for relations between documents (MongoDB). What's more important is that DODBs are schema-less. In table-based storages this property can be achieved with significant overhead (see answer by richardtallent), but here it's done more efficiently. What we really should learn when switching from a RDBMS to a DODB is to forget about tables and to start thinking about data. That's what sheepsimulator calls the "bottom-up" approach. It's an ever-evolving schema, not a predefined Procrustean bed. Of course this does not mean that schemata should be completely abandoned in any form. Your application must interpret the data, somehow constrain its form -- this can be done by organizing documents into collections, by making models with validation methods -- but this is now the application's job.
may be you should read this
http://books.couchdb.org/relax/getting-started
i myself just heard it and it is interesting but have no idea how to implemented that in the real world application ;)
One thing you can try is getting a copy of firefox and firebug, and playing with the map and reduce functions in javascript. they're actually quite cool and fun, and appear to be the basis of how to get things done in CouchDB
here's Joel's little article on the subject : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html