This would work great for many classes of Sass applications, where each user's data is largely separated from others. The fact that you've delegated the SQL bits to sqlite, and worked on the clustering aspect means I can trust the actorDB architecture more easily. Congrats on the release.
Do you have any prominent users running this on their production deployments?
> Do you have any prominent users running this on their production deployments?
Not that we know of unfortunately. We use it for basically every project that we do. It's definitely not some side project. It is the core of everything at the company.
We would be very happy to get any bug reports or suggestions.
That's awesome. It looks very cool and pragmatically design. So as far as I can see:
- There is a database schema per actor type.
- Each actor has a separate physical (SQLite but with the backend replaced by LMDB) database.
Is this the case? Won't this be using a lot of file handles if there are thousands or tens of thousands of actors? I'm assuming you already optimize this by closing "idle" actors, but what if they're all "live"?
How do you coordinate safe schema changes across all actors? You mention that schema changes are performed "just in time", that is, not when an actor is idle. I can definitely see the benefit of doing that. But for many types of schema changes you do want a controlled migration where you ensure that all tables are fully updated. Can you force the schema upgrade by touching all agents with a dummy query, perhaps?
It looks like ActorDB is designed for schemas where data is strictly partitioned, and where data wouldn't cross these boundaries, because joins would be impractical/not performant. For example, in a Dropbox-style system, every user would be an agent, and every user would really only talk to a single agent at a time. So that's a perfect fit.
You also show a discussion thread example, where there is one actor per thread. This would mean that if you wanted to do something like "get all threads where user X has commented", you would need to either query all agents of type "thread", or you would need to maintain an agent that keeps track of [user, thread] mappings, and then either query each manually, or use the looping construct (section 4.1.4 in the documentation) to perform the query across the relevant agents. Am I getting this right?
How much failover testing have you done on your Raft implementation?
- Incorrect. They are all inside a single LMDB file. So there is not an open file handle for every actor.
> How do you coordinate safe schema changes across all actors?
Before committing a schema change, we test it against the existing schema. If SQLite runs the SQLs successfully (on a dummy memory-only database) it is committed. We do not guard against writing updates which might succeed in some actors and not succeed and others. It is the developers/administrators responsibility to create schema updates that are valid.
We assume schema changes are reasonable (add tables, columns, indexes). Not rewrite the entire schema kind. Of course you can do that, but it's your responsibility that it is working.
If there is any doubt of a schema update, one can always create a dump of the live database, start it up in a staging environment and perform the planned update there first.
> But for many types of schema changes you do want a controlled migration where you ensure that all tables are fully updated. Can you force the schema upgrade by touching all agents with a dummy query, perhaps?
I don't really see a benefit in doing that. But you can very easily write such a query: "actor mytype(*); select id from sometable limit 1;"
> Thread example...
The user actor would be the right place to store the list of threads where it has commented. So every post would be a transaction to thread (where the message and actor id would go) and user actor (that would just store a list of thread ids).
There is also another way of modelling a forum that I think would be better. Have two KV types, users and threads.
The schema:
------------
actor user kv
CREATE TABLE actors (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, hash INTEGER, name TEXT);
ActorDB is not a distributed clone of MySQL. So yes you must know which actor you are querying.
This is why we say it is mainly a database for apps. If your queries are always hitting a specific user, then you make that user into an actor. Fully relational, within an user.
There is another data type, which is a KV store. But there you are always operating on keys. With the added functionality compared to most other KV stores is that the value can be structured. You can have multiple columns and tables all tied to a specific key and you can incrementally update the value (most other KV stores only support complete rewrites of value).
> LMDB writes will keep data exactly where it was placed the first time it was written.
Wait a minute. I was under the impression that the reason LMDB works so well under concurrent access is that it _never_ modifies anything in place, but when it has to modify a value it will copy the existing content of the page along with the new value to some unused place... so data _is_ moved between updates.
You understand correctly. My point was LMDB does not have checkpoints/compaction steps where it "silently" in the background copies data around.
When writes are large, this is an important point. LevelDB/RocksDB type stores work great for small values, but perform very poorly for large writes because they copy data around in compaction steps.
- No but the key point is you will be creating this index in small steps. Adding an index is a change in schema, schema updates are always executed "per actor". This means actors who are currently not doing anything, will not perform this schema change. Once that actor is required to do something it will perform the schema update. This can be right after schema change, or it can be 10 days later.
- We are limited to what SQLite supports. If you absolutely must drop a column, you can only do it by re-creating a table. Again the above point stands. You will not be doing this for the entire database at once.
- There is a backup tool. It basically uses lmdb backup functionality. It will perform a database copy very quickly if you are copying to a second disk (at the performance limit of sequential writes).
Your website claims linear scalability, but since you're using Raft for consensus, don't you see a slowdown due to synchronization overhead the more nodes you add?
17 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.2 ms ] threadDo you have any prominent users running this on their production deployments?
Not that we know of unfortunately. We use it for basically every project that we do. It's definitely not some side project. It is the core of everything at the company.
We would be very happy to get any bug reports or suggestions.
- There is a database schema per actor type.
- Each actor has a separate physical (SQLite but with the backend replaced by LMDB) database.
Is this the case? Won't this be using a lot of file handles if there are thousands or tens of thousands of actors? I'm assuming you already optimize this by closing "idle" actors, but what if they're all "live"?
How do you coordinate safe schema changes across all actors? You mention that schema changes are performed "just in time", that is, not when an actor is idle. I can definitely see the benefit of doing that. But for many types of schema changes you do want a controlled migration where you ensure that all tables are fully updated. Can you force the schema upgrade by touching all agents with a dummy query, perhaps?
It looks like ActorDB is designed for schemas where data is strictly partitioned, and where data wouldn't cross these boundaries, because joins would be impractical/not performant. For example, in a Dropbox-style system, every user would be an agent, and every user would really only talk to a single agent at a time. So that's a perfect fit.
You also show a discussion thread example, where there is one actor per thread. This would mean that if you wanted to do something like "get all threads where user X has commented", you would need to either query all agents of type "thread", or you would need to maintain an agent that keeps track of [user, thread] mappings, and then either query each manually, or use the looping construct (section 4.1.4 in the documentation) to perform the query across the relevant agents. Am I getting this right?
How much failover testing have you done on your Raft implementation?
- Incorrect. They are all inside a single LMDB file. So there is not an open file handle for every actor.
> How do you coordinate safe schema changes across all actors?
Before committing a schema change, we test it against the existing schema. If SQLite runs the SQLs successfully (on a dummy memory-only database) it is committed. We do not guard against writing updates which might succeed in some actors and not succeed and others. It is the developers/administrators responsibility to create schema updates that are valid.
We assume schema changes are reasonable (add tables, columns, indexes). Not rewrite the entire schema kind. Of course you can do that, but it's your responsibility that it is working.
If there is any doubt of a schema update, one can always create a dump of the live database, start it up in a staging environment and perform the planned update there first.
> But for many types of schema changes you do want a controlled migration where you ensure that all tables are fully updated. Can you force the schema upgrade by touching all agents with a dummy query, perhaps?
I don't really see a benefit in doing that. But you can very easily write such a query: "actor mytype(*); select id from sometable limit 1;"
> Thread example...
The user actor would be the right place to store the list of threads where it has commented. So every post would be a transaction to thread (where the message and actor id would go) and user actor (that would just store a list of thread ids).
There is also another way of modelling a forum that I think would be better. Have two KV types, users and threads.
The schema:
------------
actor user kv
CREATE TABLE actors (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, hash INTEGER, name TEXT);
CREATE TABLE messages (user INTEGER, thread INTEGER, FOREIGN KEY (user) REFERENCES actors (id) ON DELETE CASCADE, PRIMARY KEY (uid,thread)) WITHOUT ROWID;
actor thread kv
CREATE TABLE actors (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, hash INTEGER, title TEXT, date INTEGER);
CREATE TABLE messages (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, thread INTEGER, uid INTEGER, txt TEXT, FOREIGN KEY (thread) REFERENCES actors (id) ON DELETE CASCADE);
------------
KV types with sub-tables are quite powerful. You can have a rich data model and the data will not be too fragmented over a large number of actors.
> How much failover testing have you done on your Raft implementation?
Replication receives the bulk of testing.
This is why we say it is mainly a database for apps. If your queries are always hitting a specific user, then you make that user into an actor. Fully relational, within an user.
There is another data type, which is a KV store. But there you are always operating on keys. With the added functionality compared to most other KV stores is that the value can be structured. You can have multiple columns and tables all tied to a specific key and you can incrementally update the value (most other KV stores only support complete rewrites of value).
Wait a minute. I was under the impression that the reason LMDB works so well under concurrent access is that it _never_ modifies anything in place, but when it has to modify a value it will copy the existing content of the page along with the new value to some unused place... so data _is_ moved between updates.
Or am I missing something ?
When writes are large, this is an important point. LevelDB/RocksDB type stores work great for small values, but perform very poorly for large writes because they copy data around in compaction steps.
- Is it possible to create an index without blocking concurrent operations? (The lack of background indexing is a well known limitation of SQLite)
- Is it possible to drop a column?
- Is there a backup/restore functionality?
- We are limited to what SQLite supports. If you absolutely must drop a column, you can only do it by re-creating a table. Again the above point stands. You will not be doing this for the entire database at once.
- There is a backup tool. It basically uses lmdb backup functionality. It will perform a database copy very quickly if you are copying to a second disk (at the performance limit of sequential writes).
(I've been blogging about eventual consistency for SQL databases http://kyle.marek-spartz.org/posts/2015-09-08-eventual-consi...)