Currently I have a DB structure in MySQL with a few dozen tables with various foreign key linkages among them. All of the data is in files that I'm going to load in, so I'm hoping I can port the design over to a storage system that works with Drupal 7, since I can simply setup something (using the Feeds module?) to get my data in a way that Drupal 7 likes. The ultimate purpose of this is for lots of manual human revision, linking together entries in tables with relations and possibly revising some field data that looks wrong. So the whole goal is to make the human interface for viewing and editing (particularly adding) relations in Drupal 7. The question is, what is the proper way for the data to be stored so I have to write as little module code as needed?
It seems to me that I would choose one of 3 modules to accomplish this task:
Relation
Entity Reference
Data
Relation and Entity Reference would allow me to store all of my data in nodes (entities?) in Drupal 7, so Drupal would have "native support" for handling all of the stuff. However, I expect there to be 100s of millions to low billions of nodes with perhaps up to ~3 relations to other nodes in each. How efficiently does Relation or Entity Reference handle this when referencing foreign data (and perhaps grabbing referenced data from that reference, and so on) with Views and the like? Can they support a node having a null reference, since many will be null until a user can set them (so I'd need a way to also have a view to find nodes with particular null references)?
Data is another possibility, but it's in alpha and I wonder about its stability and efficiency. It also seems to me that having all of my data stored in an external MySQL database instead of in Drupal nodes defeats the entire purpose of using Drupal in the first place. Is my feeling on this correct?
I'm having a difficult time nailing down what I would need to manage my content, which seems odd considering Drupal 7 is a CMS. I have to be missing something here, but I'm not sure what it is. What is the most mature module(s?) for handling/interfacing with this large quantity of inter-related data and being able to go through and have a user mostly setting up and managing the links (so "foreign keys") between "tables", along with perhaps field data review and revision? Are there any that would suffice?
Relation and Entity Reference would allow me to store all of my data
in nodes (entities?) in Drupal 7, so Drupal would have "native
support" for handling all of the stuff. However, I expect there to be
100s of millions to low billions of nodes with perhaps up to ~3
relations to other nodes in each. How efficiently does Relation or
Entity Reference handle this when referencing foreign data (and
perhaps grabbing referenced data from that reference, and so on) with
Views and the like?
If your need the Data to display, another model will not help you. You might need some Pagination or give your query an maximum depth of recursion to load only the entities you are interested in. I guess using something that is already supported will save you a lot of work.
Without benchmarks you can barely find your bottlenecks. So go the easiest way which seems to be the Entity References and optimize as needed. You can create some test data to find limitations early. But there will be ways to optimize the requests later for sure.
Related
Does GSI Overloading provide any performance benefits, e.g. by allowing cached partition keys to be more efficiently routed? Or is it mostly about preventing you from running out of GSIs? Or maybe opening up other query patterns that might not be so immediately obvious.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-gsi-overloading.html
e.g. I you have a base table and you want to partition it so you can query a specific attribute (which becomes the PK of the GSI) over two dimensions, does it make any difference if you create 1 overloaded GSI, or 2 non-overloaded GSIs.
For an example of what I'm referring to see the attached image:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsI50oUOFIx-CFp7zcYMij7KQc5hJGIa/view?usp=sharing
The base table has documents which can be in a published or draft state. Each document is owned by a single user. I want to be able to query by user to find:
Published documents by date
Draft documents by date
I'm asking in relation to the more recent DynamoDB best practice that implies that all applications only require one table. Some of the techniques being shown in this documentation show how a reasonably complex relational model can be squashed into 1 DynamoDB table and 2 GSIs and yet still support 10-15 query patterns.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-relational-modeling.html
I'm trying to understand why someone would go down this route as it seems incredibly complicated.
The idea – in a nutshell – is to not have the overhead of doing joins on the database layer or having to go back to the database to effectively try to do the join on the application layer. By having the data sliced already in the format that your application requires, all you really need to do is basically do one select * from table where x = y call which returns multiple entities in one call (in your example that could be Users and Documents). This means that it will be extremely efficient and scalable on the db level. But also means that you'll be less flexible as you need to know the access patterns in advance and model your data accordingly.
See Rick Houlihan's excellent talk on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaEPXoXVf2k for why you'd want to do this.
I don't think it has any performance benefits, at least none that's not called out – which makes sense since it's the same query and storage engine.
That being said, I think there are some practical reasons for why you'd want to go with a single table as it allows you to keep your infrastructure somewhat simple: you don't have to keep track of metrics and/or provisioning settings for separate tables.
My opinion would be cost of storage and provisioned throughput.
Apart from that not sure with new limit of 20
I have an aggerate data model (think a Customer entity with Widgets that belong to them as a list of embedded entities).
When I search for customers (e.g DocumentDBRepository.GetItemsAsync) That will be hydrating the customer data model along with the widgets for each. For efficiency reasons, I don’t really need the customer search to consider the widgets.
Are there any strategies for this in document dbs (such as a “LiteCustomer” entity)? I suspect not as that is just the nature of the “schema-less” data I’ve told it to store in the first place, but interested to hear thoughts.
Is this simply a ‘non issue’?
First, disclaimer: data modeling is hard. There are many nuances and a SO question can never cover entire business and everything left unsaid in both Q and A. There's no silver bullets. Regardless..
"LiteCustomer"
Perfectly fine to have such model in your client code. Your main Customer model may and will have many representations, most of them simple subsets of full model. Similarly to relational sql, select only what you need. Don't fetch data to client which you don't need.
The SQL API provides quite cool SQL tools to compose json for return documents for you.
physical storage model may differ from domain model
Consider your usage scenarios. If many scenarios happen to work with customer without widgets (or vice versa) then consider having widgets as separate document(s) in storage model.
In DocDB, the question is often not so much in querying logic but what your application expects on modification logic. Querying which is indexed is fast and every sql query can easily do transformations (though cross-doc joining is troublesome). For C(R)UD - you have less options - it's always by full document. Having too large documents will end up with higher RU costs and complex code.
Questions to consider:
How often customer changes without widget count/details changing?
How often widgets change without customer changing?
Do widgets on customer change independently or always as a set?
When do you need transactional updates on customer+widget changes?
How would queries look like? Can they be indexed?
Test.
True, changing model later is cumbersome in DocDB, but don't try to fix something before you know it's broken. If you are not sure you have an issue or not, then most likely fixing the maybe-issue is costlier than not fixing it.
If in doubt, generate loads of data and test it out.
Official recommendation from the team is, to my knowledge, to put all datatypes into single collection that have something like type=someType field on documents to distinguish types.
Now, if we assume large databases with partitioning where different object types can be:
Completely different fields (so no common field for partitioning)
Related (through reference)
How to organize things so that things that should go together end up in same partition?
For example, lets say we have:
User
BlogPost
BlogPostComment
If we store them as separate types with type=user|blogPost|blogPostComment, in same collection, how do we ensure that user, his blogposts and all the corresponding comments end up in same partition?
Is there some best practice for this?
[UPDATE]
Can you ever avoid cross-partition queries completely? Should that be a goal? Or you just try to minimize them?
For example, you can partition your data perfectly for 99% of cases/queries but then you need some dashboard to show aggregates from all-the-data. Is that something you just accept as inevitable and try to minimize or is it possible to avoid it completely?
I've written about this somewhat extensively in other similar questions regarding Cosmos.
Basically, when dealing with many different logical entity types in a single Cosmos collection the easiest option is to put a generic (or abstract, as you refer to it) partition key on all your documents. At this point it's the concern of the application to make sure that at runtime the appropriate value is chosen. I usually name this document property either partitionKey, routingKey or something similar.
This is extremely important when designing for optimal query efficiency as your choice of partition keys can have a huge impact on query and throughput performance. A generic key like this lets you design the optimal storage of your data as it benefits whatever application you're building.
Even something like tenant does not make sense as different tenants might have wildly different data size and access patterns. Instead you could include the tenantId at runtime as part of your partition key as a kind of composite.
UPDATE:
For certain query patterns it might be possible to serve them entirely out of a single partition. It's definitely not the end of the world if things end up going cross partition though. The system is still quick. If possible, limiting the amount of partitions that need to be touched for a given query is ideal but you're never going to get away from it 100% of the time.
A partition should hold data related to a group that is expected to grow, for instance a Tenant which will group many documents (which can be of different types as you have mentioned) So the Partition Key in this instance should be the TenantId. The partitioning is more about the data relating to a group than the type of data. If the data is related to a User then you could use the UserId, however many users may comment on the same posts so it doesn't seem like a good candidate for a partition key unless there is some de-normalization of the user info so it doest have to relate back to the other users directly.. if that makes sense?
Consider a set of data called Library, which contains a set of Books and each book contains a set of Pages.
Let's say you are using Riak to store this data, and you need to be access the data in two possible ways:
- Query for a particular page (with a unique id)
- Query for all pages in a particular book (with a unique name)
Additionally, you need to be able to easily update and delete pages of a particular Book.
What would be the best way to accomplish this in Riak?
Obviously Riak Search will do the trick, but maybe is inefficient for what I am trying to do. I am wondering if it makes sense to set up buckets where each bucket can be a Book (which would make for potentially millions of "Book" buckets). Maybe that is a bad idea...
Can this be accomplished with secondary indexes?
I am trying to keep this simple...
I am new to Riak and I am trying to find the best way to accomplish something that is probably relatively simple. I would appreciate any help from the Stack Overflow community. Thanks!
A common way to model master-detail relationships in Riak is to have the master record contain a list of detail record IDs, possibly together with some information about the detail record that may be useful when deciding which detail records to retrieve.
In your example, you could have two buckets called 'books' and 'pages'. The master record in the 'books' bucket will contain metadata and information about the book as a whole together with a list of pages that are included in the book. Each page would contain the ID of the 'pages' record holding the page data as well as the corresponding page number. If you e.g. wanted to be able to query by chapter, you could also add information about which chapters a certain page belongs to.
The 'pages' bucket would contain the text of the page and possibly links to images and other media data that are included on that page. This data could be stored in yet another bucket.
In order to get a specific page or a range of pages, one would first retrieve the master record from the 'books' bucket and then based on the contents of the record the appropriate pages. Even though this requires several GET operations, they are all direct lookups based on keys, which is the most efficient and scalable way to retrieve data from Riak, so it is will perform and scale well.
This approach also makes it simple to change the order of pages and/or chapters as only the master record needs to be updated. Adding, deleting or modifying pages would however require both the master record as well as one or more detail records to be updated, added or deleted.
You can most certainly also solve this problem by adding secondary indexes to the objects and query based on this. Secondary index queries in Riak does however have to include processing on a covering set (generally ring size / n_val) of partitions in order to fulfil the request, and therefore puts a bit more load on the system and generally results in higher latencies than retrieving a single object containing keys through a direct key lookup (which only needs to involve the partitions where the object is actually stored).
Although maintaining a separate object containing indexes adds a bit of extra work when inserting or deleting pages/entries, this approach will generally result in more efficient reads, as only direct key lookups are required. If your application is heavy on reads, it probably makes sense to use this approach, while secondary indexes could be more efficient for a write heavy application as inserts and modifications are made cheaper at the expense of more expensive reads. You can however always add secondary indexes just in case in order to keep your options open.
In cases like this I would usually recommend performing some benchmarks to test the solutions and chech which solution that best matches you particular performance and scaling requirements.
The most efficient way will be to store hole book as an one object, and duplicate it's pages as another separate objects.
Pros:
you will be able to select any object by its key(the most cheapest op
in riak is kv query)
any query will be predicted by latency
this is natural way of storing for riak
Cons:
If you need to update any page you must update whole book, and then page. As riak doesn't have atomic ops, you must to think how to recover any failure situation (like this: book was updated, but page was not).
Riak is about availability predictable latency, so if you will use something like 2i to collect results, it will make unpredictable time query, which will grow with page numbers
I have an ASP.NET data entry application that is used by multiple clients. The application consists of multiple data entry modules that are common to all clients.
I now have multiple clients that want their own custom module added which will typically consist of a dozen or so data points. Some values will be text, others numeric, some will be dropdown selections, etc.
I'm in need of suggestions for handling the data model for this. I have two thoughts on how to handle. First would be to create a new table for each new module for each client. This is pretty clean but I don't particular like it. My other thought is to have one table with columns for each custom data point for each client. This table would end up with a lot of columns and a lot of NULL values. I don't really like either solution and suspect there's a better way to do this, so any feedback you have will be appreciated.
I'm using SQL Server 2008.
As always with these questions, "it depends".
The dreaded key-value table.
This approach relies on a table which lists the fields and their values as individual records.
CustomFields(clientId int, fieldName sysname, fieldValue varbinary)
Benefits:
Infinitely flexible
Easy to implement
Easy to index
non existing values take no space
Disadvantage:
Showing a list of all records with complete field list is a very dirty query
The Microsoft way
The Microsoft way of this kind of problem is "sparse columns" (introduced in SQL 2008)
Benefits:
Blessed by the people who design SQL Server
records can be queried without having to apply fancy pivots
Fields without data don't take space on disk
Disadvantage:
Many technical restrictions
a new field requires DML
The xml tax
You can add an xml field to the table which will be used to store all the "extra" fields.
Benefits:
unlimited flexibility
can be indexed
storage efficient (when it fits in a page)
With some xpath gymnastics the fields can be included in a flat recordset.
schema can be enforced with schema collections
Disadvantages:
not clearly visible what's in the field
xquery support in SQL Server has gaps which makes getting your data a real nightmare sometimes
There are maybe more solutions, but to me these are the main contenders. Which one to choose:
key-value seems appropriate when the number of extra fields is limited. (say no more than 10-20 or so)
Sparse columns is more suitable for data with many properties which are filled out infrequent. Sounds more appropriate when you can have many extra fields
xml column is very flexible, but a pain to query. Appropriate for solutions that write rarely and query rarely. ie: don't run aggregates etc on the data stored in this field.
I'd suggest you go with the first option you described. I wouldn't over think it. The second option you outlined would be a bad idea in my opinion.
If there are fields common to all the modules you're adding to the system you should consider keeping those in a single table then have other tables with the fields specific to a particular module related back to the primary key in the common table. This is basically table inheritance (http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server) and will centralize the common module data and make it easier to query across modules.