Sunday, July 1, 2012

On crime and document stores

Having worked with several storage paradigms over these last few months - from flatfiles, to  NoSQL, to the big enterprisey relational databases -, I have spent plenty of time trying to make sense of all the options out there. It wasn't until I watched one of the last episodes of The Wire season 3 that I had an epiphany regarding modeling data in document stores. Yes, I know, I tend to take those things home with me.

Somewhere half way through that episode, you see a detective going through one of those old school, gray and clumsy file cabinets, looking for a dossier on one of the recent murders. Once he finds the dossier, he takes it out of the drawer, scribbles down contact information of an eyeball witness, puts it back in the drawer, and closes the drawer again with a loud stomp.

And that file cabinet actually isn't very different from a MongoDB collection; it stores and categorizes documents of the same type, and the trade-offs you have to consider when modeling dossiers, or documents, are basically the same.

Let me work the homicide department angle a little further..

A few months later, the murder is still not solved, and one of the detectives, being out of work, starts working the case again. He walks over to that same file cabinet, searches the file and goes through the data one more time. Short on leads, he decides to interrogate the witness again. So he takes the file, steps in his black Buick, and drives over to the address scribbled down next to the name of the witness. When he arrives, after a grueling car ride through morning rush hour, he finds himself standing in front of a vacant house. Son of a... He drives over to city hall, waits in line for 24 minutes, gets the new address, and heads over there. When he gets back to the office, empty handed, and several hours later, he is determined to prevent this from happening again. He suggests the other detectives either check and update their dossiers, or documents, every time somebody moves, or that they just write down a reference to the person in the dossier, and look up the data in the file cabinets at city hall. Since going through all the files every time somebody moves is not feasible, he convinces his chief to enforce the second option. Over time, people get a hang of it, and are content to be relieved of stale data in the dossiers. However, the more they introduce this system in other scenarios, the more they get frustrated doing the manual look-ups. They now first have to fetch the document in the file cabinet, and then go through five more cabinets, just to collect all the bits of the file.

To make matters worse, since it's often hard to find something in the dossier, chain of command has introduced templates for each of the documents. Now each document has a fixed schema, a list of fields, of which each one is in a fixed position on the document, and some of them are even required. When you want to add a new file, they should be signed off by your superior first. Sigh.

Getting a taste after work, the detectives are discussing the new system. 'It's great that we now have a single source of truth, are rid of stale data, and don't have to manually update everything when something changes. But damn, all the extra paperwork, all the fuss over formats and the going back and forth between file cabinets is getting old quickly.' 'However, I'm happy we could at least keep our OT slips and expense notes simple; just one document, which we can fill in and update as we please.' They collegially gulp down their drinks, and signal the bartender to bring another round.

In this short story, you witnessed the detectives totally ruining their document store. By normalizing their documents and putting constraints on the formats, they no longer reap the benefits of using a document store. Now, they would be far better of with a relational solution.

I hope these analogies made some sense, and maybe made you think about, or even challenge the SQL dogma. What it all comes down to, is having enough knowledge to be able to pick the right tool for the job. Each paradigm has its merits, and as with any other decision in our field, trade-offs have to be considered. The way you can or want to model your data isn't the only consideration to make though. While for some it is scalability and performance that makes NoSQL the obvious choice, for me it is the simplicity that does it. You don't have to be an IT pro to install a server instance locally, nor to migrate your application to the cloud (MongoDB, for example, creates its collections on the fly). The way you talk to the database also becomes easier; the mismatch between your code and storage can become a lot smaller, while you also rid yourself of some of the SQL foo. This doesn't mean that you don't have to be considerate about how you query your data though; you still need common sense, but there is a lot less black magic you need to master.

NoSQL solutions seem to put the developer first; I see NoSQL, and particularly the document store flavor, not as a silver bullet, but as a great new asset to my toolbox.

3 comments:

  1. Nice post. Very interesting analogy :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a nice analogy for document stores vs relational stores. You definitely wind up hitting strong resistance when you try to enforce schema and relationships on a non-relational database. I feel this happens most often when people new to databases hear that NoSQL databases are "faster/web-scale/cooler", and try to fit their perfectly relational model into a document store.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is somewhat similar to the situation regarding web apps. MVC was the flavor of the week so it also became the solution to every problem, regardless of whether it fit or not. Thankfully, it's getting better.

    ReplyDelete