I have a small web application that uses Firestore for the data.
I am currently storing around 8 million objects.
The data size in the Firestore database is 10 times bigger than it is in "raw" format (json files).
Reading this wiki I came to the conclusion that there is a high chance that the automatic indexes are guilty of the humongous size of the database.
I have read the indexing documentation and it says how to create and remove custom indexes from the console, but I haven't find a way of removing automatic indexes.
Since I am only doing direct access to the objects, I don't need fields indexing at all.
During the Beta there is no way to remove automatic generated indexes in Firestore.
So far you are only able to manage composite indexes by yourself.
Source: A Google Firestore employee mentioned this as a part of an answer on another question on Stackoverflow. Though, I can't find the link to the post anymore.
Related
When using Firestore and subscribing to document updates, it states a limit of 1M concurrent mobile/web connections per database.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/quotas#realtime_updates
Is that a hard limit (enforced/throttled in code)? Or is it a theoretical limit (like you're safe up to 1M, then things get dicey)? Is it possible to get an uplift?
Trying to understand how to support a large user base without needing to shard the database (which is one of the advantages of Firestore). Even at 5M users, it seems you would start having problems because you'd probably hit times when >20% of those users were on your app simultaneously.
As you already noticed, the maximum size of a single document in Firestore is 1 Megabyte. Trying to store large number of objects (maps) that may exceed this limitation, is generally considered a bad design.
You should reconsider the logic of you app and think at the reson why you need to have more than 1Mib in single a document, rather than each object being their own document. So to be able to use Firestore, you should change the way you are holding the data from within a single documents to a collection. In case of collections, there are no limitations. You can add as many documents as you want. According to the official documentation regarding Cloud Firestore Data model:
Cloud Firestore is optimized for storing large collections of small documents.
IMHO, you should take advantage of this feature.
For details, I recommend you see my answer from this post where I have explained some practices regarding storing data in arrays (documents), maps or collections.
Edit:
Without sharding, I'm affraid it is not an option. So in this case, sharding will work for sure. So in my opinion, that's certainly a reasonable option.
Edit: After posting the question I thought I could also make this post a quick reference for those of you needs a quick peek at some of the differences between these two technologies which might help you decide on one of them eventually. I will be editing this question and adding more info as I learn more.
I have decided to use firebase for the backend of my project. For firestore is says "the next generation of the realtime database". Now I am trying to decide which way to go. Realtime database or cloud firestore?
Billing:
At a first glance, it looks like firestore charges per number of results returned, number of reads, number of writes/updates etc. Real-time database charges based on the data transmitted. The number of read-write operations is irrelevant. They both also charge on the data stored on the google servers too (I think in this respect firestore is cheaper one). Why am I mentioning this price point? Because from my point of view, although it might a lower weight, it is also a point to consider while choosing the one over the other.
Scaling:
Cloudstore seems to scale horizontally seamlessly. I think this is not possible with the real-time database.
Edit:
In the real-time database, you need to shard your data yourself using multiple databases. And you can only do this if you are in BLAZE pracing plan.
ref: https://firebase.google.com/docs/database/usage/sharding
Performance & Indexing:
Another thing is the real-time database data structure is different in both. The real-time database stores the data as a JSON object in any way we structure them. Firestore structures the data as collections and documents. And hence the querying also changes between the two.
I think firestore does auto indexing which increases the read performance greatly too (which will decrease read performance). I am not sure if this is also the case with the real-time database.
Edit:
The real-time database does not automatically index your data. You need to do it yourself after a solid inspection of your data and your needs.
ref:https://firebase.google.com/docs/database/security/indexing-data
What other differences can you think of?
What would be (or has been) your choice for different types of projects?
Do you still go with the real-time database or have you migrated from that to the firestore? If so why?
And one last thing. How would you compare the SDKs of these two?
Thanks a lot!
What other differences can you think of?
what i think, ok. I use realtime-database for 6 months experience and difference is, firestore easy for sorting data. As Example, i want to retrieving user name based timestamp.
Query firstQuery = firestore.collection("Names").orderBy("timestamp", Query.Direction.DESCENDING).limit(10); // load 10 names
What would be (or has been) your choice for different types of
projects?
For me, Realtime-Database for Data Streaming when i work with Arduino, i want to store Drone Speed.
And Firestore for SMART OFFICE, like Air Conditioner, or light-room and Enterprise like Inventory Quantities, etc.
Do you still go with the real-time database or have you migrated from
that to the firestore? If so why?
still go with real-time because i need TREE for displaying streaming data strucure instead of query TABLE like firestore.
I have seen videos and read the documentation of Cloud firestore, from Google Firebase service, but I can't figure this out coming from realtime database.
I have this web app in mind in which I want to store my providers from different category of products. I want perform a search query through all my products to find what providers I have for such product, and eventually access that provider info.
I am planning to use this structure for this purpose:
Providers ( Collection )
Provider 1 ( Document )
Name
City
Categories
Provider 2
Name
City
Products ( Collection )
Product 1 ( Document )
Name
Description
Category
Provider ID
Product 2
Name
Description
Category
Provider ID
So my question is, is this approach the right way to access the provider info once I get the product I want?
I know this is possible in the realtime database, using the provider ID I could search for that provider in the providers section, but with Firestore I am not sure if its possible or if this is right approach.
What is the correct way to structure this kind of data in Firestore?
You need to know that there is no "perfect", "the best" or "the correct" solution for structuring a Cloud Firestore database. The best and correct solution is the solution that fits your needs and makes your job easier. Bear also in mind that there is also no single "correct data structure" in the world of NoSQL databases. All data is modeled to allow the use-cases that your app requires. This means that what works for one app, may be insufficient for another app. So there is not a correct solution for everyone. An effective structure for a NoSQL type database is entirely dependent on how you intend to query it.
The way you are structuring your data looks good to me. In general, there are two ways in which you can achieve the same thing. The first one would be to keep a reference of the provider in the product object (as you already do) or to copy the entire provider object within the product document. This last technique is called denormalization and is a quite common practice when it comes to Firebase. So we often duplicate data in NoSQL databases, to suit queries that may not be possible otherwise. For a better understanding, I recommend you see this video, Denormalization is normal with the Firebase Database. It's for Firebase Realtime Database but the same principles apply to Cloud Firestore.
Also, when you are duplicating data, there is one thing that needs to keep in mind. In the same way, you are adding data, you need to maintain it. In other words, if you want to update/delete a provider object, you need to do it in every place that it exists.
You might wonder now, which technique is best. In a very general sense, the best way in which you can store references or duplicate data in a NoSQL database is completely dependent on your project's requirements.
So you should ask yourself some questions about the data you want to duplicate or simply keep it as references:
Is the static or will it change over time?
If it does, do you need to update every duplicated instance of the data so they all stay in sync? This is what I have also mentioned earlier.
When it comes to Firestore, are you optimizing for performance or cost?
If your duplicated data needs to change and stay in sync in the same time, then you might have a hard time in the future keeping all those duplicates up to date. This will also might imply you spend a lot of money keeping all those documents fresh, as it will require a read and write for each document for each change. In this case, holding only references will be the winning variant.
In this kind of approach, you write very little duplicated data (pretty much just the Provider ID). So that means that your code for writing this data is going to be quite simple and quite fast. But when reading the data, you will need to load the data from both collections, which means an extra database call. This typically isn't a big performance issue for reasonable numbers of documents, but definitely does require more code and more API calls.
If you need your queries to be very fast, you may want to prefer to duplicate more data so that the client only has to read one document per item queried, rather than multiple documents. But you may also be able to depend on local client caches makes this cheaper, depending on the data the client has to read.
In this approach, you duplicate all data for a provider for each product document. This means that the code to write this data is more complex, and you're definitely storing more data, one more provider object for each product document. And you'll need to figure out if and how to keep up to date on each document. But on the other hand, reading a product document now gives you all information about the provider document in one read.
This is a common consideration in NoSQL databases: you'll often have to consider write performance and disk storage vs. reading performance and scalability.
For your choice of whether or not to duplicate some data, it is highly dependent on your data and its characteristics. You will have to think that through on a case-by-case basis.
So in the end, remember that both are valid approaches, and neither of them is pertinently better than the other. It all depends on what your use-cases are and how comfortable you are with this new technique of duplicating data. Data duplication is the key to faster reads, not just in Cloud Firestore or Firebase Realtime Database but in general. Any time you add the same data to a different location, you're duplicating data in favor of faster read performance. Unfortunately in return, you have a more complex update and higher storage/memory usage. But you need to note that extra calls in Firebase real-time database, are not expensive, in Firestore are. How much duplication data versus extra database calls is optimal for you, depends on your needs and your willingness to let go of the "Single Point of Definition mindset", which can be called very subjective.
After finishing a few Firebase projects, I find that my reading code gets drastically simpler if I duplicate data. But of course, the writing code gets more complex at the same time. It's a trade-off between these two and your needs that determines the optimal solution for your app. Furthermore, to be even more precise you can also measure what is happening in your app using the existing tools and decide accordingly. I know that is not a concrete recommendation but that's software development. Everything is about measuring things.
Remember also, that some database structures are easier to be protected with some security rules. So try to find a schema that can be easily secured using Cloud Firestore Security Rules.
Please also take a look at my answer from this post where I have explained more about collections, maps and arrays in Firestore.
I need to store a large number of fields, like for a star rating system, but firestore only allows 20,000 fields per document. Is there a known way around this? Right now I am going to 'shard' the fields in multiple documents, and keep the size of each document in a documentSizeTracker document that I use to determine which document to shard to (and add to the counter with a transaction). Is this the correct approach? Any problems with this?
Sharding certainly could work. It's hard to say without knowing exactly what kind of data you'll need from your document, and when, but that's certainly a reasonable option. You could also consider having a parent "summary" doc that contains fields you might want to search on and then split all of your data into several documents inside a subcollection of that parent.
One important nuance here: the limit isn't 20,000 fields, but 20,000 indexed fields. So if you're storing a bunch of data inside your document, but you know that you're not going to be searching on all of them, another alternative is to mark some of your fields as unindexed (which you can now do in the Firebase console in the "Exemptions" section).
If you're dealing with thousands of fields, though, you probably won't want to exempt them all one at a time, so a better alternative might be to place your data as a map inside a container field (named something like "allOfMyData"), then just mark that one field as unindexed. That will automatically remove all indexes from any fields contained inside that map.
Actually, I ran into similar problem with the read and write issues with Firebase. So, here is my conclusion:
# if something small needs to be written & read very often, then use Firebase Realtime Database
Firebase Realtime database allows fast writes, but limits concurrent users to 100,000
Firebase Firestore allows a maximum of 1 write per second per document
It's very expensive to read a document that only contains a rating for example in Firestore
# if something (larger) needs to be read very often with writes usually more than 1 second in between then use Firestore
Firestore allows up to 1,000,000 concurrent users at current Beta release (they might make it more)
It's cheaper to read a large document (less than 1 MiB limit) in Firestore than Firebase Realtime database
# If your model doesn't fit into these two choices, then you should modify your model and split them into 2 models:
1 very small model to store in Firebase Real Database (ratings for example)
1 larger model to store in Firestore
Note: You could use both Firebase Realtime database and Firebase Firestore in the same project. Don't forget to take into account the billing differences between both databases. and their different limits. I believe, it's best to combine them and use the good side of each instead of trying to force solutions into one of them.
Note 2: I really didn't like the shard-ing idea in Firestore suggested solution and work around
Migrating from realtime database to cloud firestore needs a total redesign of the database. For this I created an example with some main design decisions.
See picture and the database design in the spreadsheet below.
My two questions are:
1 - when I have a one to many relation is it also an option to store information as an array within the document? See line 8 in database design.
2 - Should I include only a reference, or duplicate all information in the one to many relation. See line 38 in the database model.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13KtzSwR67-6TQ3V9X73HGsI2EQDG9FA8WMN9CCHKq48/edit?usp=sharing
In general: keep the data store as shallow as possible, i.e., avoid subcollections and nesting.
Data can be related one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many. Firestore is an automatically indexed realtime datastore. Firestore is often subscribed to rather than just a one time query/response (the realtime nature of the system).
Regarding the Firestore data model, always consider How will I query this data store?. Use subcollections, arrays, and maps sparingly (rarely) and only if you must (and you most likely don't need to). Use auto-id's vs human readable id's, e.g. use 000kztLDGafF4uKb8Cal rather than banana for document ID's.
As app functionality increases, server-side scripting with Cloud Functions for Firebase and/or the Admin SDK becomes an invaluable tool for managing (creating and indexing) many-to-many data relationships. For example, full-text search is not supported in Firestore. This boils down to what seems like a barrier to implementing robust search functionality on your app.
In conclusion, try and avoid subcollections, nesting, arrays, and maps. Follow the keep it simple stupid, KISS, principle. Once your app scales up and/or requires more functionality, server-side scripting can be utilized to to keep your app responsive (fast) while offering robust features.
For Question 1 there's a solution in the firestore docs:
https://cloud.google.com/firestore/docs/solutions/arrays
instead of using an array you use a map of values and set them to 'true' which allows you to query for them, like so:
teachers: {
"teacherid1": true,
"teacherid2": true,
"teacherid3": true
}
And for Question 2, you just need to save the teacher-ids because if you have those you can easily query for the corresponding data.