To be relational, or not to be relational? That's NOT the question!

To be relational, or not ?
That's not the question!
@sbtourist aka sergio bossa
@alexsnaps aka alex snaps

sergio bossa & alex snaps - @sbtourist & @alexsnaps

Agenda

Act 1 – Relational databases:
a difficult love affair.
Interlude 1 – Problems in the modern era:
big data and the CAP theorem.
Act 2 : Non-relational databases: love is in the air.
Interlude 2 : Relational or non-relational?
Not the correct question.
Act 3 : Building scalable apps.
The End

About us

Sergio Bossa
Software Engineer at Bwin Italy.
Long time open source contributor.
(Micro)Blogger - @sbtourist.
Alex Snaps
Software engineer at Terracotta …
… after 10 years of industry experience.
www.codespot.net — @alexsnaps

Act I
Relational databases
A difficult love affair …


The relational model

Defines constraints
Finite model
aka relation variable, relation or table
Candidate keys
Foreign keys
Queries are relations themselves
Heading & body
SQL differs slightly from the "pure" relational model

The ACID guarantees

Let people easily reason about the problem.
Atomic.
We see all changes, or no changes at all.
Consistent.
Changes respect our rules and constraints.
Isolated.
We see all changes as independently happening.
Durable.
We keep the effect of our changes forever.
Fits a simplified model of our reality.


The SQL ubiquity

SQL is everywhere
Still trying to figure out why my blog
uses a relational database to be honest
SQL is known by everyone
Raise your hand if you've never written a SQL query
... and if you don't want to
ORM are there for you
ActiveRecord if you're into Rails
Simple persistence for all our objects!

Interlude 1
Problems of the Modern Era


Big Data

What's Big Data for you?
Not a question of quantity.
Gigabytes?
Terabytes?
Petabytes?
It's all about supporting your business growth.
Growth in terms of schema evolution.
Growth in terms of data storage.
Growth in terms of data processing.
Is your data stack capable of handling such a growth?


CAP Theorem

Year 2000: Formulated by Eric Brewer.
Year 2002: Demonstrated by Lynch and Gilbert.
Nowadays: A religion for many distributed system guys.
CAP Theorem in a few words:
Consistency.
Availability.
Partition-Tolerance.
Pick (at most) two.
More later.


Act II
Non-relational databases
Love is in the air



From the origins to the current explosion...
How do they differ?


Data Model (1)

Column-family.
Key-identified rows
with a sparse number of columns.
Columns grouped in families.
Multiple families for the same key.
Dynamically add/remove columns.
Efficiently access same-family columns


Data Model (2)

Graph.
Vertices represent your data.
Edges represent meaningful relations between nodes.
Key/Value properties attached to both.
Indexed properties.
Efficient traversal.


Data Model (3)

Document.
Schemaless documents.
With denormalized data.
Stored as a whole unit.
Clients can update/query contents.


Data Model (4)

Key/Value.
Opaque values.
Maximize flexibility.
Efficiently store and retrieve by key.


Consistency Model (1)

Strict (Sequential) Consistency.
Every read/write operation act on either:
The last value read.
The last value written.


Consistency Model (2)

Eventual Consistency.
All read/write operations will eventually reach
consistent state.
Stale data may be served.
Versions may diverge.
Repair may be needed.


Partitioning (1)

Client-side partitioning.
Every server is self-contained.
Clients partition data per-request.


Partitioning (2)

Server-side partitioning.
Servers automatically partition data.
Consistent-hashing, ring-based
is the most used.


Replication (1)

Master/Slave.
Master propagates changes to slaves.
Log replication.
Statement replication.
Slaves may take over master
in case of failures.


Replication (2)

N-Replication.
Nodes are all peers.
No master, no slaves.
Each node replicates its data
to a subset (N) of nodes.


Processing

A distributed system is built by:
Moving data toward its behavior.
... or ...
Moving behavior toward its data.
An efficient distributed system is built by:
Moving behavior toward its data.
Map/Reduce is the most common and efficient.


CAP - Problem

CAP Theorem.
Consistency.
Availability.
Partition tolerance.
Pick two.
Do you remember?
Makes sense only
when dealing with partitions/failures ...

CAP - Trade-offs

Consistency + Availability.
Requests will wait until partitions heal.
Full consistency.
Full availability.
Max latency.
Consistency + Partition tolerance.
Some requests will act on partial data.
Some requests will be refused.
Full consistency.
Reduced availability.
Min latency.
Availability + Partition tolerance.
All requests will be fulfilled.
Sacrifice consistency.
Max availability.
Min latency.


Interlude II
Relational or non-relational?
Not the correct question!


Relational or non-relational? Not the correct question!

Freedom to build the right solution for your problems.
Freedom to scale your solution as your problems scale.
Know your use case.
Understand the problem domain, then choose technology.
Know your data.
Understand your data and data access patterns, then choose technology.
Know your tools.
Understand available tools, don't go blind.
Pick the simple solution.
Choose the simpler technology that works for your problem.
Build on that.


Act III
Building scalable apps


Scaling out...

Adding app servers will work...
... for a little while!
But at some point we need to scale the database as well

RDBMS
WRITE

READ

PowerBook G4
PowerBook G4 PowerBook G4


Master-Slave

One master
gets all the writes
replicates to slaves
Slaves (& master)
gets the read operations

We didn't really scale writes
Static topology
SPOF remains

Master-Master

Multiple masters
Writes & reads all participants
Writes are replicated to masters
Synchronously
Expensive 2PC
Asynchronously
Conflicts have to be resolved

Complex
Static topology
Limited performance again
Solved SPOF, sort of…


Vertical Partitioning

Data is split across multiple database servers based
on
The functional area

Joins are moved to the application
Not relational anymore

SPOF back
What about one functional area growing "out of hand" ?


Horizontal partitioning

Data is split across multiple database servers based on
Key sharding

Joins are moved to the application
Not relational anymore

SPOF back
What about one functional area growing "out of hand" ?
Routing required
Where's Order#123 ?


Caching


Caching

If going to the database is so
expensive...
... we should just avoid it!
Put a cache in front of the database

Data remains closer to processing unit
If needed, distribute


Distributed Caching

What if data isn't perfectly partitioned ?
How do we keep this all in sync ? RDBMS
WRITE

Peer-to-peer ? READ

Cache Cache Cache

PowerBook G4


Distributed Caching

Cached data remains close to the
processing unit RDBMS

Central unit L2

orchestrates it all L1 L1 L1

PowerBook G4


Distributed Caching

RDBMS

L2

L1 L1 L1

PowerBook G4


Distributed Caching

SLOWER LARGER

RAM

L2

L1 L1 L1

Core Core Core
FASTER SMALLER


Distributed Caching

SLOWER LARGER

RDBMS

L2

L1 L1 L1

FASTER PowerBook G4
PowerBook G4
PowerBook G4

SMALLER


Distributed Caching
We've scaled our reads
But what about writes ?
SLOWER LARGER

RDBMS

L2

L1 L1 L1

FASTER PowerBook G4
PowerBook G4
PowerBook G4

SMALLER


Write-behind Cache

Rather than write changes directly to the slowest participant
Write to fastest durable store (persistent queue)
required for recovery in the face of failure
Only write to database later
in batches and/or coalesced
while still controlling
the lag
the load on the database
In a distributed environment handling failures
we enforce happens at least once
loosens the contract vs. "once and only once"!


Write-through

RDBMS

Cache

Application
code


Write-behind

RDBMS

Cache

Application
code


Write-behind

RDBMS

Cache Writer

Application
code


Write-behind

RDBMS

Writer
Cache Writer

Application
code


The case for non-relationals

We've seen how to scale our relational database.
We've seen how to add caching.
We've seen how to make caching scale.
So why going non-relational?
A matter of use case


Rich Data

Frequent schema changes.
cannot easily handle table modifications.
Column, Document and Graph databases can.
Tracking/Processing of large relations.
Relational databases keep and
traverse table relations by foreign-key joins.
Joins are expensive.
Graph databases provide cheap and
fast traversal operations.


Runtime Data

Poorly structured data.
Relational model
doesn't fit unstructured data.
Unless you want BLOBs.
Non-relational databases provide more flexible models.
Throw-away data.
Relational databases provide maximum data durability.
But not all kind of data are the same.
When you can afford to possibly lose some data, non-relational
databases let you trade durability for higher flexibility and
performance.


Massive Data

Large quantity of data.
Relational databases are typically single instance.
Otherwise cost too much.
Choose a partitioned non-relational database.
High volume of writes.
Scaling writes with relational databases is difficult.
Even if using write-behind caching.
Choose a partitioned non-relational database.
Eventual consistency may also help.
Complex, aggregated, queries.
Complex aggregations and queries
are expensive in standard relational databases.
Remember joins?
Choose a non-relational database supporting distributed data processing.
Hint: Map/Reduce.


Multi-paradigm


A case for multi-paradigm: CQRS


CQRS - Explained

Command Store.
Strictly modeled after the problem domain.
Commands model domain changes.
Domain changes cause events publishing.
Query Store.
Fed by published events.
Strictly modeled after the user interface.
Possibly denormalized to accommodate queries.
Offline Store.
Fed by published events.
Strictly modeled after processing needs.
Business Intelligence.
Reporting.
Statistical aggregations, …


What about stores implementation?


Introducing Ehcache

Started in 2003 by Greg Luck
Apache 2.0 License
Integrated by lots of projects, products
Hibernate Provider implemented 2003
Web Caching 2004
Distributed Caching 2006
REST and SOAP APIs 2008
Acquired
by Terracotta Sept. 2009


Introducing Ehcache 2.4

New Search API
New consistency modes
New transactional modes

Still:
Small memory footprint
Cache Writers
JTA
Bulk load
Grows with your application
with only two lines of configuration
Scale Up - BigMemory (100’s of Gig, in process, NO GC)
Scale Out - Clustering Platform (Up to 2 Terabytes, HA)


Ehcache & Terracotta

Terabyte scale with minimal footprint
Server array with striping for linear scale
High availability
High performance data persistence
In-memory performance as you scale


Introducing Terrastore

Document Store.
Ubiquitous.
Consistent.
Distributed.
Scalable.
Written in Java.
Based on Terracotta.
Open Source.
Apache-licensed.

Terrastore Architecture


CQRS - Implemented


CQRS - Implemented
Command Store.
Express your domain as an object model.
Process and store it with Ehcache and Terracotta.
Optionally write it back to a relational database.
Query Store.
Map queries to user (screen) views.
Map views to JSON documents.
Store and get them back with Terrastore.
Offline Store.
Collect data from input commands.
Keep data denormalized.
Aggregate and process with Terrastore Map/Reduce.


The end
Be a polyglot!


Conclusion

Be polyglot
Go out and play with all this
Know your options (all of them)
Understand your domain
It’s current and future requirements
Be wise, and choose well!


Creative Commons by wwworks


More info

www.ehcache.org
www.terracotta.org
code.google.com/p/terrastore


To be relational, or not to be relational? That's NOT the question!

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to To be relational, or not to be relational? That's NOT the question!

Similar to To be relational, or not to be relational? That's NOT the question! (20)

More from Sergio Bossa

More from Sergio Bossa (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

To be relational, or not to be relational? That's NOT the question!