o/ , First of all thanks for reply, seems it will be wiser to use another database ( mySQL? seems 5.7 uses JSON also have archive table thing) for logging purposes and leave rest to ArangoDB. Probably over my noob talents atm but in addition to nested documents, Redis may help fewer joins as well. Just not sure about performance for functions like COUNT, MAX, MIN or ORDER BY although ArangoDB benchmarks are promising.
Best regards, 4 Şubat 2017 Cumartesi 01:10:36 UTC+3 tarihinde Scott B. yazdı: > > I've been working with ArangoDB for well over a year now (with 15+ years > using RDBMSes prior). In that time, I've come to know ArangoDB quite well, > but I certainly don't know everything about it, so take what I say as just > one possible answer: > > You're right that using a "mostly memory" database like ArangoDB for a > "mostly disk" task like logging probably isn't ideal. I know others (and > I) have asked about the possibility of marking collections as primarily > memory vs. disk. That being said, that particular feature is not available > at the moment. I too do lot of logging, and I use ElasticSearch for that. > It is pretty easy to implement, because ElasticSearch also uses JSON, is > pretty well-tested in logging scenarios (see the ELK stack), and also has a > REST API. The limiting factors of course would be if you needed to do a > "join" between data in ArangoDB and Elastic. You could also consider > setting up a second ArangoDB server, giving it limited resources, and using > that server just for the data intensive logging stuff, while using your > main server for everything else. I suspect it'd work fine, but I haven't > intentionally starved ArangoDB of RAM to see whether it breaks, or simply > degrades performance. > > As for an RDBMS, I have not found the need. ArangoDB fully supports > joins, so you really can force-fit a relational model into ArangoDB without > issues. However, if you take advantage of the nested document capabilities > of ArangoDB, you'll be doing far fewer joins to begin with. I will tell > you that moving from SQL to AQL is a little bit of a transition, but > overall isn't too bad. > > Overall, ArangoDB has worked quite well for us, and I'm glad I went with > it. It has been a solid, reliable part of our stack. > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:42:20 AM UTC-7, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> Hello there o/, >> >> Although I am watching ArangoDB closely for a long while, finally I am >> about to actually start after planning features. If question sounds stupid >> , I am using one of my "stupid question golden pass" tickets :) >> >> Well, I intend to use ArangoDB for a browser based MMO game. I am fine >> with parts ArangoDB will shine and fit perfectly such as >> Djikstra/Floyd-Warshall, player profiles (where friendship relations will >> matter) or maps ( involving tiles with different properties and some are >> connected like roads ). But I have two main concerns. First one is game >> will involve some features that should be logged but will not be frequently >> accessed (kind of old Facebook/twitter posts) so it doesn't make sense if >> "Player X built a MoonChickenSword ages ago" will reside in memory. My >> another concern is some data will be perfect use case for relational >> databases also needing aggregration functions where multimodel databases >> don't really shine. >> >> Although I'd be happy to have ArangoDB as single database, I sense that >> using ArangoDB , RDBMS and Redis together might make more sense. I'd like >> to hear your opinion on this matter. Thanks in advance. >> >> Best regards, >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArangoDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
