No SQL Databases as modern database concepts

Distributed Data Stores and
No SQL Databases
S. Sudarshan
IIT Bombay

Parallel Databases and Data Stores
 Relational Databases – mainstay of business
 Web-based applications caused spikes
 Especially true for public-facing e-Commerce sites
 Many application servers, one database
 Easy to parallelize application servers to 1000s of
servers, harder to parallelize databases to same scale
 First solution: memcache or other caching
mechanisms to reduce database access

Scaling Up
 What if the dataset is huge, and very high
number of transactions per second
 Use multiple servers to host database
 Parallel databases have been around for a
while
 But expensive, and designed for decision
support not OLTP

Scaling RDBMS – Master/Slave
 Master-Slave
 All writes are written to the master. All reads
performed against the replicated slave
databases
 Good for mostly read, very few update
applications
 Critical reads may be incorrect as writes may
not have been propagated down
 Large data sets can pose problems as
master needs to duplicate data to slaves

Scaling RDBMS - Partitioning
 Partitioning
 Divide the database across many machines
 E.g. hash or range partitioning
 Handled transparently by parallel databases
 but they are expensive
 “Sharding”
 Divide data amongst many cheap databases
(MySQL/PostgreSQL)
 Manage parallel access in the application
 Scales well for both reads and writes
 Not transparent, application needs to be partition-aware

What is NoSQL?
 Stands for Not Only SQL
 Class of non-relational data storage systems
 E.g. BigTable, Dynamo, PNUTS/Sherpa, ..
 Usually do not require a fixed table schema nor
do they use the concept of joins
 All NoSQL offerings relax one or more of the
ACID properties (will talk about the CAP
theorem)
 Not a backlash/rebellion against RDBMS
 SQL is a rich query language that cannot be
rivaled by the current list of NoSQL offerings

Why Now?
 Explosion of social media sites (Facebook,
Twitter) with large data needs
 Explosion of storage needs in large web
sites such as Google, Yahoo
 Much of the data is not files
 Rise of cloud-based solutions such as
Amazon S3 (simple storage solution)
 Shift to dynamically-typed data with frequent
schema changes
 Open-source community

Distributed Key-Value Data Stores
 Distributed key-value data storage systems allow
key-value pairs to be stored (and retrieved on key)
in a massively parallel system
 E.g. Google BigTable, Yahoo! Sherpa/PNUTS, Amazon
Dynamo, ..
 Partitioning, high availability etc completely
transparent to application
 Sharding systems and key-value stores don’t
support many relational features
 No join operations (except within partition)
 No referential integrity constraints across partitions
 etc.

Typical NoSQL API
 Basic API access:
 get(key) -- Extract the value given a key
 put(key, value) -- Create or update the value
given its key
 delete(key) -- Remove the key and its
associated value
 execute(key, operation, parameters) -- Invoke
an operation to the value (given its key)
which is a special data structure (e.g. List,
Set, Map .... etc).

Flexible Data Model
ColumnFamily: Rockets
Key Value
1
2
3
Name Value
toon
inventoryQty
brakes
Rocket-Powered Roller Skates
Ready, Set, Zoom
5
false
name
Name Value
toon
inventoryQty
brakes
Little Giant Do-It-Yourself Rocket-Sled Kit
Beep Prepared
4
false
Name Value
toon
inventoryQty
wheels
Acme Jet Propelled Unicycle
Hot Rod and Reel
1
1
name
name

NoSQL Data Storage: Classification
 Uninterpreted key/value or ‘the big hash
table’.
 Amazon S3 (Dynamo)
 Flexible schema
 BigTable, Cassandra, HBase (ordered keys,
semi-structured data),
 Sherpa/PNuts (unordered keys, JSON)
 MongoDB (based on JSON)
 CouchDB (name/value in text)

PNUTS Data Storage Architecture

CAP Theorem
 Three properties of a system
 Consistency (all copies have same value)
 Availability (system can run even if parts have failed)
 Partitions (network can break into two or more parts,
each with active systems that can’t talk to other parts)
 Brewer’s CAP “Theorem”: You can have at most
two of these three properties for any system
 Very large systems will partition at some point
 Choose one of consistency or availablity
 Traditional database choose consistency
 Most Web applications choose availability
 Except for specific parts such as order processing

Availability
 Traditionally, thought of as the
server/process available five 9’s (99.999 %).
 However, for large node system, at almost
any point in time there’s a good chance that
a node is either down or there is a network
disruption among the nodes.
 Want a system that is resilient in the face of
network disruption

Eventual Consistency
 When no updates occur for a long period of time, eventually
all updates will propagate through the system and all the
nodes will be consistent
 For a given accepted update and a given node, eventually
either the update reaches the node or the node is removed
from service
 Known as BASE (Basically Available, Soft state, Eventual
consistency), as opposed to ACID
 Soft state: copies of a data item may be inconsistent
 Eventually Consistent – copies becomes consistent at some
later time if there are no more updates to that data item

Common Advantages
 Cheap, easy to implement (open source)
 Data are replicated to multiple nodes (therefore
identical and fault-tolerant) and can be
partitioned
 When data is written, the latest version is on at least
one node and then replicated to other nodes
 Down nodes easily replaced
 No single point of failure
 Easy to distribute
 Don't require a schema

What does NoSQL Not Provide?
 Joins
 Group by
 But PNUTS provides interesting
materialized view approach to
joins/aggregation.
 ACID transactions
 SQL
 Integration with applications that are based
on SQL

Should I be using NoSQL Databases?
 NoSQL Data storage systems makes sense for
applications that need to deal with very very large
semi-structured data
 Log Analysis
 Social Networking Feeds
 Most of us work on organizational databases,
which are not that large and have low
update/query rates
 regular relational databases are THE correct
solution for such applications

Further Reading
 Lots of material on the Web

E.g. nice presentation on NoSQL by Perry Hoekstra
E.g. nice presentation on NoSQL by Perry Hoekstra
(Perficient)
(Perficient)
 Some material in this talk is from above presentation
Some material in this talk is from above presentation

Use a search engine to find information on data
Use a search engine to find information on data
storage systems such as
storage systems such as
 BigTable (Google), Dynamo (Amazon), Cassandra
BigTable (Google), Dynamo (Amazon), Cassandra
(Facebook/Apache), Pnuts/Sherpa (Yahoo),
(Facebook/Apache), Pnuts/Sherpa (Yahoo),
CouchDB, MongoDB, …
CouchDB, MongoDB, …
 Several of above are open source
Several of above are open source

No SQL Databases as modern database concepts

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to No SQL Databases as modern database concepts (20)

More from debasisdas225831 (10)

Recently uploaded (20)

No SQL Databases as modern database concepts

Editor's Notes