OxideDB:另外一套用 PostgreSQL 為底的 MongoDB 相容層

看到 OxideDB 這個專案:

OxideDB is a translation layer that works as a MongoDB database server while using PostgreSQL's JSON capabilities as the underlying data store.

跟之前提到的 MangoDB 有些淵源 (參考「MangoDB:拿 PostgreSQL 當作後端的 MongoDB 相容層」),順便提一下 MangoDB 然後後來被要求改名為 FerretDB:「MangoDB 改名為 FerretDB (雪貂)」。

主要的差異在於 OxideDB 只以 PostgreSQL 為底層,另外是用 Rust 寫的:

The project was heavily inspired by FerretDB and is on its early days. The main difference is that there is no intention to support any database other than PostgreSQL (FerretDB is also supporting Tigris) and it's written in Rust, as opposed to Go.

看起來大家都拿 PostgreSQL 在搞事,但這個專案裡面好像沒搜到 GIN 這個關鍵字,不知道是不是連 index 都沒下...

Linode 過了三年,終於想起來要推出 Managed Databases 服務了

看到 Linode 宣佈 Managed Databases 服務:「Linode Managed Databases in Open Beta」。

測試期間不用錢,但目前只有支援 MySQL,其他幾個像是 PostgreSQLRedisMongoDB 都還沒推出 (在 roadmap 上):

Our new managed database service is now in open beta for new and existing customers! We currently support MySQL during this beta—with a near-term roadmap to add PostgreSQL, Redis, MongoDB—and plan to include additional features.

搜了一下隔壁 DigitalOcean 的資料,Manage Databases 這條產品線在 2019 年二月推出 PostgreSQL 的版本:「Our Valentine’s Gift to You: Managed Databases for PostgreSQL」,在 2019 年八月推出了 MySQL 與 Redis 的版本:「Take the worry out of managing your MySQL & Redis databases」,然後在 2021 年六月推出了 MongoDB 的版本:「Introducing DigitalOcean Managed MongoDB – a fully managed, database as a service for modern apps」。

不過 Vultr 看起來是還是完全沒有樣子,相比起來 Linode 好像不算慢?

另外看起來 DigitalOcean 是跟 MongoDB 合作,不像 AWS 自己另外用 PostgreSQL 搞了一套 XDDD

MangoDB 改名為 FerretDB (雪貂)

先前提到的 MongoDB 相容方案 MangoDB,透過PostgreSQL 當底層而且維持 open source license 的方案 (參考先前寫的「MangoDB:拿 PostgreSQL 當作後端的 MongoDB 相容層」),正式改名為 FerretDB:「MangoDB has a new name, and the momentum is stronger than ever. Meet FerretDB!」。

依照官方的說明,應該就是收到 C&D notice 了:

Moreover, a representative of MongoDB Inc. asked us to stop using the MangoDB name on our website, GitHub, or anywhere else, due to similarity or potential confusion.

Hacker News 上沒什麼討論,不過這邊還是列一下:「MangoDB has a new name (ferretdb.io)」,裡面有提到另外的「Ferret Database」這個網站,看起來是真的雪貂網站 XDDD

MangoDB:拿 PostgreSQL 當作後端的 MongoDB 相容層

Hacker News Daily 上看到「A truly Open Source MongoDB alternative」這個東西,在「MangoDB: An open-source MongoDB alternative (mangodb.io)」的討論也可以翻一翻。

MongoDB 最主要的問題就是 4.0 以及以後的版本變成 SSPL 後就不是 open source license 了。

而 MangoDB 是個 Proxy service,前端提供 MongoDB 的協定,後端則是 PostgreSQL

GitHub 上的「MangoDB-io/MangoDB」這邊可以看到 MangoDB 主要是用 Golang 寫的,軟體授權則是 Apache License 2.0

The core of our solution is a stateless proxy, which converts MongoDB protocol queries to SQL, and uses PostgreSQL as a database engine. This will be compatible with MongoDB drivers, and should work as a drop-in replacement to MongoDB in many cases.

這對於只有提供 MongoDB 當儲存層的軟體來說會是個替代方案。不過如果是自己開發的話,這其實也證明了可以直接用 PostgreSQL,基本上 MongoDB 的功能都可以在 PostgreSQL 上找到方案。

話說這個讓我想到 2019 年 AWS 推出 Amazon DocumentDB 的時候,大家都一直在猜 Amazon DocumentDB 是不是拿 PostgreSQL 前面加上一些東西 (參考「大家在猜 Amazon DocumentDB 的底層是不是 PostgreSQL...」),後來也有人發現再更早之前就有人 PoC 過了:「A proof of concept MongoDB clone built on Postgres (github.com/jerrysievert)」,現在一般的公認應該就是,只是 AWS 沒有 open source 出來。

目前 MangoDB 還在早期的階段,但看起來這波應該會有一些能量進去幫忙...

Amazon DocumentDB 推出相容 MongoDB 4.0 的版本

在「Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) adds support for MongoDB 4.0 and transactions」這邊看到 AWSAmazon DocumentDB 上推出相容 MongoDB 4.0 的版本。

把年初在 Ptt 上寫的「Re: [請益] 選擇mongoDB或是relational database ??」這篇拿出來講一下,MongoDB 4.0 最大的改進就是 multi-document transactions 了。

不過 AWS 先前推出 DocumentDB (MongoDB) 時看到的限制,大家都猜測是用 PostgreSQL 當底層 (「AWS 推出 MongoDB 服務:Amazon DocumentDB」與「大家在猜 Amazon DocumentDB 的底層是不是 PostgreSQL...」),雖然目前還是不太清楚,但如果這個猜測屬實的話,要推出各種 transaction 的支援完全不是問題 XDDD

Percona 對 MongoDB 的建議

看到「5 Things DBAs Should Know Before Deploying MongoDB」這篇,裡面給了五個建議,其中第五點頗有趣:

5) Whenever Possible, Working Set < RAM

As with any database, fitting your data into RAM will allow for faster reads than from disk. MongoDB is no different. Knowing how much data MongoDB has to read in for your queries can help you determine how much RAM you should allocate to your database.

這樣的設計邏輯很奇怪啊,你不要扯其他 database 啊,你們家主力的 InnoDB 一直都沒有推薦要 Working Set < RAM 啊,反過來才是用 InnoDB 的常態吧,而且在 PostgreSQL 上也是這樣吧 XDDD

現在上面的文章真的是挑著看了... XD

MongoDB 的欺騙性廣告

Jepsen 最近丟出了一篇新的測試報告在測新版的 MongoDB 4.2.6,而且語氣看起來比以前兇很多,翻了一下前因後果,看起來起因是出自 Twitter 上的這則推,提到了 MongoDB 拿 Jepsen 宣傳的頁面:

然後 Jepsen 的官方帳號這邊也回應,覺得不可置信:

過兩個禮拜後 Jepsen 就丟出由老大 Kyle Kingsbury 發表的「Jepsen: MongoDB 4.2.6」,這篇測試 MongoDB 4.2.6 最新版的測試報告了。

在這篇報告裡面提到了很多不道德的行為,首先是在之前的測試發現有很多會掉資料的問題,但在 MongoDB 官方的宣傳文件「MongoDB and Jepsen」裡面則是完全沒提到,而且還宣稱有業界最強的資料一致性與正確性 (與 Jepsen 報告所提供的資料不符),所以 Jepsen 建議把這些問題列到這個頁面上,以避免使用者受到「誤解」:

Curiously, MongoDB omitted any mention of these findings in their MongoDB and Jepsen page. Instead, that page discusses only passing results, makes no mention of read or write concern, buries the actual report in a footnote, and goes on to claim:

MongoDB offers among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today.

We encourage MongoDB to report Jepsen findings in context: while MongoDB did appear to offer per-document linearizability and causal consistency with the strongest settings, it also failed to offer those properties in most configurations. We think users might want to be aware that their database could lose data by default, but MongoDB’s summary of our work omits any mention of this behavior.

另外當然就是重測 MongoDB 4.2.6 版,沒時間看內容的人可以先瞄一下標題,裡面就已經點出不少東西了:

3 Results
3.1 Sometimes, Programs That Use Transactions… Are Worse
3.2 How ACID is Snapshot Isolation, Anyway
3.3 Indeterminate Errors
3.4 Duplicate Effects
3.5 Read Skew
3.6 Cyclic Information Flow
3.7 Read Your (Future) Writes

不過在最後面的 Discussion 比較清楚。

首先是批評 snapshot isolation 不是 ACID:

MongoDB 4.2.6 claims to offer “full ACID transactions” via snapshot isolation. However, the use of these transactions is complicated by weak defaults, confusing APIs, and undocumented error codes. Snapshot isolation is questionably compatible with the marketing phrase “full ACID”. Even at the highest levels of read and write concern, MongoDB’s transaction mechanism exhibited various anomalies which violate snapshot isolation.

Snapshot isolation is a reasonably strong consistency model, but claiming that snapshot isolation is “full ACID” is questionable.

而且即使把所有的資料安全性相關的設定都調到最高,也根本就做不到宣稱的 snapshot isolation:

Finally, even with the strongest levels of read and write concern for both single-document and transactional operations, we observed cases of G-single (read skew), G1c (cyclic information flow), duplicated writes, and a sort of retrocausal internal consistency anomaly: within a single transaction, reads could observe that transaction’s own writes from the future. MongoDB appears to allow transactions to both observe and not observe prior transactions, and to observe one another’s writes. A single write could be applied multiple times, suggesting an error in MongoDB’s automatic retry mechanism. All of these behaviors are incompatible with MongoDB’s claims of snapshot isolation.

過程中也發現就算設定了 snapshot 層級,MongoDB 在讀取時也不會遵守 snapshot isolation:

MongoDB’s default read and write concern for single-document operations remains local, which can observe uncommitted data, and w: 1, which can lose committed writes. Even when users select safer settings in their clients at the database or collection level, transactions ignore these settings and default again to local and w: 1. The snapshot read concern does not actually guarantee snapshot isolation, and must always be used in conjunction with write concern majority. This holds even for transactions which perform no writes.

然後所有的官方文件都沒有教 snapshot isolation 要怎麼設定,你必須在第三方的文件上才有機會找到:

Nor can users rely on examples to demonstrate snapshot isolated behavior. MongoDB’s transaction documentation and tutorial blog posts show only write-only transactions, using read concern local rather than snapshot. Other examples from MongoDB don’t specify a read concern or run entirely with defaults. Learn MongoDB The Hard Way uses read concern snapshot but write concern local, despite performing writes. Tutorials from DZone, Several Nines, Percona, The Code Barbarian, and Spring.io all claim that transactions are either ACID or offer snapshot isolation, but none set either read or write concern. There are some examples of MongoDB transactions which are snapshot isolated—for instance, from BMC, +N Consulting, and Maciej Zgadzaj, but most uses of MongoDB transactions we found ran—either intentionally or inadvertently—with settings that would (in general) allow write loss and aborted reads.

基本上就是一個老大被惹怒了,丟出來炸,而且看他的語氣還有很多東西沒測,打算要再炸一篇?

在 SQL 裡面避免大量刪除資料的方式

看到 Percona 的「An Overview of Sharding in PostgreSQL and How it Relates to MongoDB’s」這篇,雖然是在講 PostgreSQL 上的 sharding (以及 partition),突然想到好像沒寫過要怎麼避免大量刪除資料的操作...

一個常見的情境是,想要讓某個表格只保留這一個月的資料,所以每個月開頭都會跑一隻 cron job 負責刪掉上個月的資料,像是 DELETE FROM xxx WHERE timestamp < yyy; 這樣的指令。

這個方式無論是在 PostgreSQL 或是 MySQL 都需要很多時間與 I/O 資源,而透過 partition 將不同時間區段切開到不同的表格,再用 TRUNCATE 直接清空表格剛好可以解這樣的問題。

Percona 的文章裡說了一些 PostgreSQL 的歷史與目前的進展。

在 PostgreSQL 9 或更早以前的版本,一個常見的作法是透過 table inheritance 實做 partition,然後用再用 function 實做 INSERT

CREATE TABLE temperature (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
  city_id INT NOT NULL,
  timestamp TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
  temp DECIMAL(5,2) NOT NULL
);

CREATE TABLE temperature_201901 (CHECK (timestamp >= DATE '2019-01-01' AND timestamp <= DATE '2019-01-31')) INHERITS (temperature);
CREATE TABLE temperature_201902 (CHECK (timestamp >= DATE '2019-02-01' AND timestamp <= DATE '2019-02-28')) INHERITS (temperature);
CREATE TABLE temperature_201903 (CHECK (timestamp >= DATE '2019-03-01' AND timestamp <= DATE '2019-03-31')) INHERITS (temperature);

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION temperature_insert_trigger()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
    IF ( NEW.timestamp >= DATE '2019-01-01' AND NEW.timestamp <= DATE '2019-01-31' ) THEN INSERT INTO temperature_201901 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ELSIF ( NEW.timestamp >= DATE '2019-02-01' AND NEW.timestamp <= DATE '2019-02-28' ) THEN INSERT INTO temperature_201902 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ELSIF ( NEW.timestamp >= DATE '2019-03-01' AND NEW.timestamp <= DATE '2019-03-31' ) THEN INSERT INTO temperature_201903 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ELSE RAISE EXCEPTION 'Date out of range!';
    END IF;
    RETURN NULL;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;

在 PostgreSQL 10 之後,就直接支援一些與 partition 相關的設計,像是這樣:

CREATE TABLE temperature (
  id BIGSERIAL NOT NULL,
  city_id INT NOT NULL,
  timestamp TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
  temp DECIMAL(5,2) NOT NULL
) PARTITION BY RANGE (timestamp);

CREATE TABLE temperature_201901 PARTITION OF temperature FOR VALUES FROM ('2019-01-01') TO ('2019-02-01');
CREATE TABLE temperature_201902 PARTITION OF temperature FOR VALUES FROM ('2019-02-01') TO ('2019-03-01');
CREATE TABLE temperature_201903 PARTITION OF temperature FOR VALUES FROM ('2019-03-01') TO ('2019-04-01');

雖然還是有些限制,但可以看出比起以前簡單不少。

而有了 partition 後,文章的後續就在討論這跟 MongoDB 的 sharding 有什麼關係,但這就不是我關注的事情了...

大家在猜 Amazon DocumentDB 的底層是不是 PostgreSQL...

Amazon DocumentDB 的出現讓人驚訝的倒不是 AWS 推出這塊服務,而是 AWS 對於這類對 PaaS 有攻擊性的 license model 的反擊姿態。這也導致了在 AWS 推出後 MongoDB 的股價掉了 13%。

另外一方面,大家也都想要知道 AWS 怎麼堆底層的系統,畢竟要從頭開發一個所需要的功夫應該不小... (雖然 AWS 應該有這個能力)

從「Is DocumentDB really PostgreSQL?」這邊看到 Hacker News 上的「My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL.」這篇討論,透過目前 DocumentDB 的限制,大家在猜 Amazon DocumentDB 是不是拿 PostgreSQL 改出來的...

目前看起來 Identifiers 的 63 chars 限制,單一 collection 的 32TB 限制 (對應到表格),以及 UTF-8 null character 限制,都跟 PostgreSQL 一樣。

也許過一陣子 AWS 的人會找個地方透漏,不過目前看起來只能猜...

AWS 推出 MongoDB 服務:Amazon DocumentDB

AWS 推出了 Amazon DocumentDB 服務,相容於 MongoDB 3.4 3.6 的界面:「New – Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB Compatibility): Fast, Scalable, and Highly Available」。

這個新聞其實引起不少關注,不單純是 AWS 支援了 MongoDB service,而是 AWS 對去年一系列 license issue 的態度。

先講 license 的事情,後面再提技術上的差異。

背景是 MongoDB 在去年十月的時候決定換 license,決定從 GNU AGPL 換成他們自己定義的 SSPL:「MongoDB now released under the Server Side Public License」。

相關的報導可以參考 TechCrunch 當時寫的「MongoDB switches up its open-source license」,主要的重點在於:

[T]he SSPL explicitly states that anybody who wants to offer MongoDB as a service — or really any other software that uses this license — needs to either get a commercial license or open source the service to give back the community.

而 AWS 在三個月後的回應也意外的清楚,他直接照著 MongoDB 3.6 版的 API 刻一個出來,不需要用你的軟體提供服務 (所以就不用照你的 license 走):

Amazon DocumentDB implements the Apache 2.0 open source MongoDB 3.6 API by emulating the responses that a MongoDB client expects from a MongoDB server, allowing you to use your existing MongoDB drivers and tools with Amazon DocumentDB.

TechCrunch 下的標題也頗直接,認為 AWS 對這套搞法不怎麼認同:「AWS gives open source the middle finger」。

回到技術上的層面來看,可以看到 Amazon DocumentDB 提供的技術資料看起來跟 Amazon Aurora 很像,都是六份三區:

Amazon DocumentDB uses a purpose-built SSD-based storage layer, with 6x replication across 3 separate Availability Zones.

連 read replica 的限制也都是 15 份,可以「猜測」後面應該是用同一套技術在運作...:

In Amazon DocumentDB, the storage and compute are decoupled, allowing each to scale independently, and developers can increase the read capacity to millions of requests per second by adding up to 15 low latency read replicas in minutes, regardless of the size of your data.

看了一下價錢,最小台是 db.r4.large,需要 USD$0.277/hr,相當於一個月要 USD$200 左右,而且 storage 與 i/o 要另外計算,門檻不算低。

目前主要還是歐美區先上:

Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) is available now and you can start using it today in the US East (N. Virginia), US East (Ohio), US West (Oregon), and Europe (Ireland) Regions.

隔壁棚的 Redis 不知道有什麼感想...