Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
534 lines (383 loc) · 23.6 KB

database.md

File metadata and controls

534 lines (383 loc) · 23.6 KB

How to decide database for your next application

Choosing the best database for your next application involves analyzing your application's requirements, use case, and expected growth. The choice between SQL vs. NoSQL, monolithic vs. distributed, and the desired properties (ACID, scalability, availability, fault tolerance) depends on these factors. Below is a guide to help you decide.

Key Factors to Consider

  1. Data Model

    • Relational Data: Well-structured and related entities.
    • Non-relational Data: Semi-structured (JSON, XML), key-value pairs, graphs, etc.

  2. Consistency and Transactions

    • Does the application require strict consistency (e.g., banking)?
    • Are complex transactions (ACID properties) critical?

  3. Scalability

    • Do you anticipate high read/write traffic?
    • Is horizontal scaling (adding nodes) or vertical scaling (upgrading servers) needed?

  4. Availability

    • Is 24/7 uptime critical?
    • Can your system tolerate temporary inconsistencies for high availability?

  5. Fault Tolerance

    • Can your application handle node failures seamlessly?
    • Does the database have built-in replication and failover mechanisms?

  6. Latency

    • How fast do queries and writes need to be?

  7. Data Volume

    • How much data will the application generate, and how quickly will it grow?

  8. Ecosystem

    • Does the database integrate with your stack (e.g., .NET for cloud-native apps)?

SQL Databases

Relational databases with ACID properties, ideal for structured and transactional data.

When to Choose SQL Databases

  1. Structured Data: Data has a clear schema with relationships (e.g., user, orders, inventory).
  2. Transactional Integrity: Critical for banking, finance, and e-commerce.
  3. Complex Queries: Joins, aggregations, and analytics.
  4. Scalability: Vertical scaling (traditional) or sharding (modern).
  5. Tools: Mature tools for backup, monitoring, and reporting.

Popular SQL Databases

  1. MySQL/PostgreSQL:

    • Open-source, ACID-compliant, widely used.
    • PostgreSQL is more feature-rich for complex queries.

  2. Microsoft SQL Server:

    • Enterprise-grade, seamless .NET integration.
    • Strong transactional support with built-in replication options.

  3. Amazon Aurora:

    • Cloud-native, distributed, and highly available.

Advantages

  • Strong ACID guarantees.
  • Mature tooling and widespread community support.
  • Ideal for applications needing consistency.

Disadvantages

  • Horizontal scaling can be complex (sharding).
  • Schema constraints may slow iteration in rapidly evolving applications.

NoSQL Databases

Non-relational databases designed for scalability and flexibility.

Types of NoSQL Databases

  1. Key-Value Stores: Redis, DynamoDB.

    • Simple, fast lookups (e.g., session storage, caching).

  2. Document Stores: MongoDB, Couchbase.

    • Flexible schemas, JSON-like data storage (e.g., content management systems).

  3. Columnar Databases: Apache Cassandra, HBase.

    • Designed for write-heavy and time-series data (e.g., IoT, logs).

  4. Graph Databases: Neo4j, Amazon Neptune.

    • Handles relationships efficiently (e.g., social networks, recommendation systems).

When to Choose NoSQL Databases

  1. Scalability: Massive horizontal scaling.
  2. High Availability: Eventual consistency is acceptable for availability.
  3. Flexible Schema: Evolving requirements with varying data models.
  4. Real-time Data: Applications with high write throughput (e.g., chat apps).

Popular NoSQL Databases

  1. MongoDB:

    • Schema-less document store.
    • Ideal for dynamic applications.

  2. Amazon DynamoDB:

    • Managed, distributed key-value store.
    • Strong performance with auto-scaling.

  3. Cassandra:

    • Distributed, fault-tolerant column store.
    • Used for IoT, analytics, and logs.

  4. Redis:

    • In-memory, key-value store for caching and real-time data.

Advantages

  • Horizontal scaling by design.
  • Flexible and suitable for diverse use cases.
  • High availability and fault tolerance.

Disadvantages

  • Weaker consistency guarantees (eventual consistency).
  • Limited support for complex joins and analytics.

Distributed vs. Monolithic Databases

Distributed Databases

  • Spread across multiple nodes for high scalability and fault tolerance.
  • Examples: Cassandra, DynamoDB, CockroachDB.

Advantages:

  1. Scalability: Handles large volumes of data and traffic.
  2. Fault Tolerance: Redundant nodes prevent data loss.
  3. Global Availability: Low-latency access for global users.

Disadvantages:

  1. Complexity: Requires careful design for consistency and partitioning.
  2. Eventual Consistency: May not guarantee real-time consistency.

Monolithic Databases

  • Single-node or centralized databases.

Advantages:

  1. Simplicity: Easy to set up and manage.
  2. Consistency: Strong guarantees without complex configurations.

Disadvantages:

  1. Scalability: Limited by hardware.
  2. Single Point of Failure: Requires backups or failover systems.

Decision Matrix

Factor SQL NoSQL
Data Structure Structured (schema-based) Semi-structured or unstructured
Scalability Vertical (mostly), horizontal via sharding Horizontal (built-in)
Consistency Strong (ACID) Eventual (BASE), configurable in some
Use Case Banking, ERP, CRM Real-time analytics, IoT, content mgmt.
Query Flexibility Complex joins and analytics Limited, optimized for specific queries
Latency May be higher for large datasets Optimized for low latency
Availability High with replicas Built-in high availability

Example Use Cases

Monolithic Application (e.g., E-commerce Backend)

  • Database: PostgreSQL or MySQL.
  • Why:
    • Relational structure for users, orders, products.
    • ACID transactions for payment processing.
    • Scalability can be achieved via sharding.

Distributed Application (e.g., IoT Data Ingestion)

  • Database: DynamoDB or Cassandra.
  • Why:
    • Horizontal scalability for high write throughput.
    • Eventual consistency is acceptable for analytics.
    • Low-latency reads and fault tolerance.

The decision between SQL and NoSQL databases depends entirely on your application's specific requirements, including data structure, scalability needs, consistency guarantees, and expected growth. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you make an informed decision:

When to Choose SQL Databases

SQL databases are a better fit if your application requires:

1. Structured Data

  • Data has a predefined schema and relationships.
  • Example: Tables for users, orders, and products with foreign key constraints.

2. ACID Transactions

  • Strict consistency and transactional integrity are critical.
  • Example: Banking systems, e-commerce transactions, and inventory management.

3. Complex Queries

  • The application requires complex joins, aggregations, and analytics.
  • Example: Reporting dashboards or systems that involve relational data analysis.

4. Established Business Logic

  • Your application uses well-defined workflows or processes that depend on consistent, structured data.
  • Example: ERP, CRM systems.

5. Limited Scalability Needs

  • The workload can be managed by vertical scaling or light horizontal scaling (e.g., sharding).

Examples of SQL Databases:

  • PostgreSQL: Feature-rich, open-source, great for analytics.
  • MySQL: Lightweight, reliable, open-source.
  • Microsoft SQL Server: Seamless .NET integration and enterprise features.
  • Amazon Aurora: Cloud-native, distributed SQL database for scalability.

When to Choose NoSQL Databases

NoSQL databases are ideal if your application requires:

1. Flexible or Unstructured Data

  • The data is semi-structured (e.g., JSON, XML) or unstructured.
  • Example: Storing user profiles, product catalogs, or logs.

2. High Scalability

  • The application needs to handle massive amounts of traffic with horizontal scaling.
  • Example: Social media platforms, IoT systems, or real-time analytics.

3. High Availability

  • Your application prioritizes uptime and can tolerate eventual consistency.
  • Example: Content delivery networks, caching layers, or chat applications.

4. Variable Workloads

  • The schema is dynamic, or data models evolve rapidly.
  • Example: Rapid prototyping or applications with changing requirements.

5. Real-Time Processing

  • Your application handles high write throughput or time-sensitive operations.
  • Example: IoT telemetry, gaming leaderboards, or live event tracking.

Examples of NoSQL Databases:

  • MongoDB: Document store for flexible schemas.
  • DynamoDB: Key-value store with managed scaling.
  • Cassandra: Write-heavy, distributed column store.
  • Redis: In-memory key-value store for caching and real-time use cases.

Decision Tree: SQL vs NoSQL

  1. Is your data structured with clear relationships?

    • Yes → SQL
    • No → NoSQL

  2. Do you need strong ACID guarantees?

    • Yes → SQL
    • No → NoSQL

  3. Do you expect high scalability and availability?

    • Yes → NoSQL
    • No → SQL

  4. Do you need complex queries and joins?

    • Yes → SQL
    • No → NoSQL

  5. Is your application cloud-native?

    • Yes → Depends:
      • SQL: Aurora, Spanner, etc., if relational features are needed.
      • NoSQL: DynamoDB, MongoDB, etc., for high scalability.

Hybrid Approach

In many cases, the best solution is to use a combination of SQL and NoSQL databases to handle different aspects of the application:

  • SQL for Structured Data:
    • Example: User accounts, transactional data.
  • NoSQL for Unstructured Data:
    • Example: Logs, real-time analytics, or content storage.

For example:

  • In an e-commerce application:
    • Use SQL for transactions (orders, inventory).
    • Use NoSQL (e.g., DynamoDB) for product catalog search or caching.

For most modern applications, especially cloud-native ones, both SQL and NoSQL can coexist, depending on the component's requirements. Evaluate your workload, scalability needs, and data model carefully to make the best choice.

Conclusion

  1. Use SQL databases for transactional systems requiring strong consistency and structured data.
  2. Use NoSQL databases for flexible schemas, real-time data, and large-scale distributed systems.
  3. Choose SQL if consistency, structure, and transactional integrity are critical.
  4. Choose NoSQL if flexibility, scalability, and availability are more important.
  5. For cloud-native apps, consider managed services like Amazon RDS (SQL) or DynamoDB (NoSQL) to reduce operational overhead.
  6. Analyze specific workloads to decide between monolithic simplicity and distributed fault tolerance and scalability.

Why RDBMS supports only Vertical scaling

Relational databases traditionally favor vertical scaling over horizontal scaling due to their inherent design and reliance on features like strict ACID compliance, schema-based structure, and complex query execution. Below is a detailed explanation of why relational databases struggle with horizontal scaling and how modern advancements address this limitation.

Why Relational Databases Prefer Vertical Scaling

  1. Schema and Relationships

    • Tightly Coupled Schema: Relational databases are built on structured schemas with explicit relationships (e.g., foreign keys).
    • Complex Joins: Queries involving multiple tables often require joins, which rely on the entire dataset being available on the same machine for efficient processing.
    • Data Partitioning Complexity: Splitting data across multiple nodes can lead to challenges in maintaining relationships and processing joins.

  2. ACID Transactions

    • Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability (ACID): These guarantees require a global view of data and transactions.
    • Distributed Transactions: When scaling horizontally, ensuring ACID compliance across nodes requires distributed transaction protocols like Two-Phase Commit (2PC), which introduce high latency and complexity.
    • Single-Node Locking: In traditional RDBMS systems, locks are managed at the single-node level, making distributed locking systems harder to implement.

  3. Query Execution

    • Query Planning: Relational databases rely on centralized query planners to optimize queries. Spreading data across nodes increases the complexity of query planning and execution.
    • Indexing: Indexes are designed for single-node datasets, and creating distributed indexes across nodes is difficult to manage efficiently.

  4. Stateful Nature

    • Relational databases are stateful systems that maintain connections, locks, and in-memory buffers. These states are harder to synchronize across multiple nodes.

  5. Replication vs. Partitioning

    • While relational databases support read replicas (replication), these are not the same as horizontal scaling. Read replicas do not distribute the write load; they only handle additional reads.

  6. Data Partitioning Challenges

    • Horizontal scaling requires partitioning data across nodes (sharding). For relational databases:
      • Key-based Partitioning: Simple but limits query flexibility (e.g., queries that span shards).
      • Range Partitioning: Can lead to uneven data distribution (hotspots).
      • Joins Across Partitions: Joining data across shards introduces significant overhead.

Vertical Scaling in Relational Databases

Vertical scaling involves upgrading the hardware (e.g., CPU, RAM, SSDs) of the single machine running the relational database. Relational databases prefer vertical scaling because:

  • Single Node: The entire dataset is on a single node, simplifying operations like joins and transactions.
  • ACID Guarantees: ACID compliance can be maintained without the complexity of distributed coordination.
  • Simpler Architecture: There is no need for partitioning or complex routing of queries to different nodes.

Modern Advances for Horizontal Scaling in RDBMS

  1. Sharding

    • Sharding is a form of horizontal scaling where the dataset is divided into smaller, independent chunks (shards) distributed across multiple nodes.
    • Modern relational databases like PostgreSQL and MySQL can be manually sharded using middleware like Vitess or Citus.
    • Challenges:
      • Application-layer logic is often required to route queries.
      • Cross-shard queries can degrade performance.

  2. Distributed SQL Databases

    • Modern relational databases like CockroachDB, Google Spanner, and TiDB implement distributed architecture while maintaining relational capabilities and ACID compliance.
    • These databases use:
      • Distributed Transactions: Use advanced consensus algorithms like Raft or Paxos.
      • Global Query Execution: Query planners optimized for distributed environments.
      • Automatic Sharding: Data is partitioned and replicated across nodes transparently.

  3. Hybrid Models

    • Some databases like Amazon Aurora offer semi-distributed models where the storage layer is distributed but the compute layer remains centralized, providing some benefits of horizontal scaling while maintaining simplicity.

Key Differences: Vertical vs. Horizontal Scaling

Aspect Vertical Scaling Horizontal Scaling
Approach Upgrade hardware (CPU, RAM, etc.) Add more machines (nodes)
Complexity Simple to implement Complex (requires partitioning, coordination)
Query Execution Efficient for joins Challenging for cross-node joins
Transaction Handling Native ACID compliance Requires distributed transaction management
Scalability Limits Limited by hardware capacity Virtually unlimited
Cost Expensive beyond a certain scale Lower cost at scale

Summary

  • Relational databases traditionally favor vertical scaling due to their reliance on schemas, ACID compliance, and centralized query execution.
  • Horizontal scaling is challenging for relational databases because of the complexities in maintaining relationships, handling distributed transactions, and optimizing query execution across nodes.
  • Modern advancements like distributed SQL databases and sharding mechanisms are bridging the gap, enabling relational databases to scale horizontally while preserving many of their traditional benefits.

Consistency in RDBMS with read replicas

Ensuring consistency in RDBMS with read replicas is critical in scenarios where the database is scaled for high read throughput. However, because replication often introduces some latency, ensuring consistency between the primary database and its replicas requires thoughtful strategies.

Challenges of Consistency with Read Replicas

  1. Replication Lag: Updates made to the primary database might take time to propagate to the replicas.
  2. Stale Reads: Queries directed to replicas may return outdated data if the replica hasn't yet received the latest updates.
  3. Data Conflicts: In rare cases, data conflicts can occur if multiple replicas have differing states during replication.

Approaches to Ensure Consistency

1. Synchronous Replication

  • In synchronous replication, write operations to the primary database are only confirmed once the updates are propagated and acknowledged by all replicas.
  • This ensures strong consistency but can significantly increase latency for write operations.

Pros:

  • Guarantees strong consistency.
  • Ideal for critical systems where stale data cannot be tolerated.

Cons:

  • Increased write latency.
  • Reduced throughput due to waiting for replica acknowledgments.

Use Case: Financial transactions or systems with strict consistency requirements.

2. Asynchronous Replication with Read-Your-Writes Consistency

  • In asynchronous replication, the primary database processes writes and returns success without waiting for replicas to confirm.
  • To ensure consistency for a specific user or session, queries can be directed to the primary database immediately after a write operation (known as read-your-writes consistency).

Pros:

  • Low write latency.
  • High read scalability, as replicas serve most reads.

Cons:

  • May return stale data if not handled correctly.
  • Application needs logic to route reads correctly.

Implementation Example:

  • After a user updates their profile, ensure subsequent reads (e.g., viewing their updated profile) are routed to the primary database until the change propagates to replicas.

3. Primary Reads for Recent Data

  • Always query the primary database for data that is highly dynamic or recently written.
  • For less volatile data, replicas can handle reads.

Pros:

  • Balances consistency and performance.
  • Reduces the risk of stale reads for time-sensitive queries.

Cons:

  • May increase load on the primary database.

Use Case: Social media platforms where user posts are written frequently, but older posts can be read from replicas.

4. Read Repair

  • After a read query, verify the data’s freshness by comparing the result with the primary database in the background.
  • If the replica returns outdated data, initiate a "read repair" process to update the replica.

Pros:

  • Helps reduce the risk of stale reads over time.
  • Keeps replicas progressively in sync.

Cons:

  • Increases read latency slightly.
  • Requires additional logic for validation and repair.

5. Cache Invalidation or TTL for Replicas

  • Use a time-to-live (TTL) mechanism or manual invalidation to ensure replicas serve fresh data after updates.
  • Combine with application-level caching or database caching layers.

Pros:

  • Reduces stale reads by ensuring replicas don’t serve outdated data for long.
  • Provides a balance between performance and consistency.

Cons:

  • Data may still be stale within the TTL window.
  • Complexity in managing cache invalidation.

6. Eventual Consistency with Versioning

  • Accept that replicas may serve stale data temporarily but ensure eventual consistency using versioning or timestamps.
  • Applications can decide whether to accept potentially outdated data or wait for a more consistent state.

Pros:

  • High availability and performance.
  • Useful for systems where slight delays in consistency are acceptable.

Cons:

  • Requires application logic to handle version conflicts or stale data detection.

7. Use of Global Transaction IDs (GTIDs)

  • In replication systems that support GTIDs, replicas can track their state precisely relative to the primary database.
  • Applications can ensure queries are only served by replicas that have applied up-to-date transactions.

Pros:

  • Reduces stale reads significantly.
  • Provides a precise mechanism for ensuring consistency.

Cons:

  • Requires support for GTIDs (e.g., in MySQL or MariaDB).
  • Can increase application complexity.

Implementation Considerations in Cloud-Native Applications

For cloud-native applications in environments like AWS, Azure, or GCP:

  1. AWS Aurora Read Replicas:

    • Use Aurora’s failover and replication-aware features to route queries automatically.
    • For high consistency, use read-your-writes consistency with transaction tracking.

  2. Microsoft SQL Server on Azure:

    • Use Always On Availability Groups for synchronous replication in critical workloads.
    • Leverage read-only routing for replicas.

  3. Google Cloud SQL:

    • Enable replica lag metrics to monitor delays.
    • Direct critical or dynamic queries to the primary database.

Best Practices

  1. Monitor Replica Lag:

    • Continuously track replication delay using metrics or database tools. If lag exceeds acceptable thresholds, adjust routing logic.

  2. Define Consistency Requirements:

    • Use synchronous replication for strong consistency and asynchronous replication for high performance with eventual consistency.

  3. Hybrid Approach:

    • Combine different consistency strategies for different parts of your application. For example:
      • Serve user sessions and real-time data from the primary.
      • Serve historical or less dynamic data from replicas.

  4. Test and Validate:

    • Simulate failure scenarios to test how your system behaves under replication lag and ensure it meets consistency requirements.

By choosing the right approach based on the use case and workload, you can strike the right balance between consistency, performance, and availability.