NoSQL databases: Critical analysis and comparison

Adity Gupta, S. Tyagi, Nupur Panwar, Shelly Sachdeva, Upaang Saxena
{"title":"NoSQL databases: Critical analysis and comparison","authors":"Adity Gupta, S. Tyagi, Nupur Panwar, Shelly Sachdeva, Upaang Saxena","doi":"10.1109/IC3TSN.2017.8284494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current research explores and differentiates between various forms in which NoSQL databases exist. It examines the need of NoSQL and how they have become an important alternative to relational databases. NoSQL databases can be categorized into four major classifications which are: key value stores, graph databases, wide column stores, and document stores. These categories are compared on the basis of functional features and non-functional features. The non-functional features include performance, scalability, flexibility, structure and complexity. The functional features include de-normalization, joins, atomicity, aggregation and keys. Then for further analysis, one database is selected from each of these categories that is, MongoDB (document stores), Cassandra (wide column stores), Redis (key value stores), and Neo4j (graph databases). Selected databases are compared on their data model, CAP theorem, distributive properties and other factors. By performing the comparison on non-functional features, it has been found that a document store can be used if high performance, flexibility and scalability are required and if we have represented the data in JSON format. Column store can be used for semi structured data which requires high performance and scalability. Redis is anin-memory store and performs exceptionally fast in the case of single shard operation. Graph databases can be used when it comes to highly interconnected data and continuously evolving data models. The comparison between MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis and Neo4j concluded that all of them follow horizontal scaling and are schema free. Except Neo4j, others don't have complete ACID properties. Write and delete operations are fast for databases MongoDB, Redis and Cassandra, whereas read operation is comparatively slow in Cassandra. In case of Neo4j, REST performance is similar to MongoDB, whereas embedded is comparatively slow. We also discuss how these databases work in a distributed environment.","PeriodicalId":322178,"journal":{"name":"2017 International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies for Smart Nation (IC3TSN)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies for Smart Nation (IC3TSN)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3TSN.2017.8284494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

The current research explores and differentiates between various forms in which NoSQL databases exist. It examines the need of NoSQL and how they have become an important alternative to relational databases. NoSQL databases can be categorized into four major classifications which are: key value stores, graph databases, wide column stores, and document stores. These categories are compared on the basis of functional features and non-functional features. The non-functional features include performance, scalability, flexibility, structure and complexity. The functional features include de-normalization, joins, atomicity, aggregation and keys. Then for further analysis, one database is selected from each of these categories that is, MongoDB (document stores), Cassandra (wide column stores), Redis (key value stores), and Neo4j (graph databases). Selected databases are compared on their data model, CAP theorem, distributive properties and other factors. By performing the comparison on non-functional features, it has been found that a document store can be used if high performance, flexibility and scalability are required and if we have represented the data in JSON format. Column store can be used for semi structured data which requires high performance and scalability. Redis is anin-memory store and performs exceptionally fast in the case of single shard operation. Graph databases can be used when it comes to highly interconnected data and continuously evolving data models. The comparison between MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis and Neo4j concluded that all of them follow horizontal scaling and are schema free. Except Neo4j, others don't have complete ACID properties. Write and delete operations are fast for databases MongoDB, Redis and Cassandra, whereas read operation is comparatively slow in Cassandra. In case of Neo4j, REST performance is similar to MongoDB, whereas embedded is comparatively slow. We also discuss how these databases work in a distributed environment.
NoSQL数据库:关键的分析和比较
目前的研究探索和区分了NoSQL数据库存在的各种形式。它研究了NoSQL的需求,以及它们如何成为关系数据库的重要替代方案。NoSQL数据库可以分为四大类:键值存储、图数据库、宽列存储和文档存储。这些分类是根据功能特征和非功能特征进行比较的。非功能特性包括性能、可伸缩性、灵活性、结构和复杂性。功能特性包括反规范化、连接、原子性、聚合和键。然后进一步分析,从这些类别中选择一个数据库,即MongoDB(文档存储),Cassandra(宽列存储),Redis(键值存储)和Neo4j(图数据库)。对所选数据库的数据模型、CAP定理、分布特性等因素进行了比较。通过对非功能性特性的比较,我们发现,如果需要高性能、灵活性和可扩展性,并且我们以JSON格式表示数据,则可以使用文档存储。列存储可以用于需要高性能和可扩展性的半结构化数据。Redis是一个内存存储,在单分片操作的情况下执行异常快。当涉及到高度互连的数据和不断发展的数据模型时,可以使用图数据库。MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis和Neo4j之间的比较得出结论,它们都遵循水平扩展并且是无模式的。除了Neo4j,其他的都没有完整的ACID属性。MongoDB、Redis和Cassandra的写、删除操作比较快,而Cassandra的读操作比较慢。在Neo4j的情况下,REST性能与MongoDB相似,而嵌入式相对较慢。我们还讨论了这些数据库如何在分布式环境中工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书