Introducing a RDBMS to the stack seems unnecessary for this.

If we consider the data access patterns for user profiles, we are unlikely to 
query into them, or indeed do anything other than look them up, or write them 
out by a username key. To that end, using an ORM to translate a a nested config 
object into a load of tables seems to introduce complexity and brittleness we 
then have to take away through relying on relational consistency models. We 
would also end up with, as Mike points out, a whole new disk deployment 
patterns and a bunch of additional DBA ops process requirements for every 

Since the access pattern is almost entirely key => value, hbase seems a good 
option (because we already have it there, it would be kinda crazy at this scale 
if we didn’t already have it) or arguably zookeeper, but that might be at the 
other end of the scale argument. I’d even go as far as to suggest files on HDFS 
to keep it simple. 


> On 1 Feb 2018, at 23:24, Michael Miklavcic <> 
> wrote:
> Personally, I'd be in favor of something like Maria DB as an open source
> repo. Or any other ansi sql store. On the positive side, it should mesh
> seamlessly with ORM tools. And the schema for this should be pretty
> vanilla, I'd imagine. I might even consider skipping ORM for straight JDBC
> and simple command scripts in Java for something this small. I'm not
> worried so much about migrations of this sort. Large scale DBs can get
> involved with major schema changes, but thats usually when the datastore is
> a massive set of tables with complex relationships, at least in my
> experience.
> We could also use hbase, which probably wouldn't be that hard either, but
> there may be more boilerplate to write for the client as compared to
> standard SQL. But I'm assuming we could reuse a fair amount of existing
> code from our enrichments. One additional reason in favor of hbase might be
> data replication. For a SQL instance we'd probably recommend a RAID store
> or backup procedure, but we get that pretty easy with hbase too.
> On Feb 1, 2018 2:45 PM, "Casey Stella" <> wrote:
>> So, I'll answer your question with some questions:
>>   - No matter the data store we use upgrading will take some care, right?
>>   - Do we currently depend on a RDBMS anywhere?  I want to say that we do
>>   in the REST layer already, right?
>>   - If we don't use a RDBMs, what's the other option?  What are the pros
>>   and cons?
>>   - Have we considered non-server offline persistent solutions (e.g.
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Ryan Merriman <> wrote:
>>> There is currently a PR up for review that allows a user to configure and
>>> save the list of facet fields that appear in the left column of the
>> Alerts
>>> UI:  The REST layer has ORM
>>> support which means we can store those in a relational database.
>>> However I'm not 100% sure this is the best place to keep this.  As we add
>>> more use cases like this the backing tables in the RDBMS will need to be
>>> managed.  This could make upgrading more tedious and error-prone.  Is
>> there
>>> are a better way to store this, assuming we can leverage a component
>> that's
>>> already included in our stack?
>>> Ryan

Reply via email to