Oskar Dudycz

Pragmatic about programming

General strategy for migrating relational data to document-based

2023-05-07 oskar dudyczEvent Sourcing

cover

I was recently asked how to migrate a project using relational data to a document-based approach (e.g. from .NET ORM Entity Framework into Marten). As always, it’s easy to ask a question but much harder to answer. But hell, let’s try!

Document approach differs from relational mainly by:

  • using weak schema,
  • having denormalised data.

Contrary to common belief, document data is structured but less rigidly, as in the relational approach. We can easily extend the schema for our documents, even for specific ones, by adding new fields. We should also not fail if the field we expect to exist, but doesn’t. That’s why probably it’s called weak schema. In my opinion, that’s not a weakness by definition. In fact, it may mean that we care about ourselves and apply backwards and forward compatibility.

Document databases work best if we access them by id, as they’re type of key-value databases. That means we should group related data and keep them together to use it efficiently. For instance, selected product items only make sense with the shopping cart. That’s why we should keep them together, use a shopping cart as a root document, and keep product items as nested collections.

Documents may also have relations. But also lightweight, without enforcement like relational databases with their foreign keys. Keeping the shopping cart example, we may have products’ definitions as separate documents and keep only their ids in the product items list. We may also take the tradeoff and keep basic information like names to reduce the need to access other documents. Document databases usually don’t provide efficient joins like relational databases. They typically do look-ups. Look-up means that you’re querying first one set of documents, then using data from them getting related documents.

So, how to migrate relational data into document-based? The simplistic answer is to migrate data by loading batches from the relational database, serialising them and storing them in batches in the document database. But that’s the technical recommendation. Moving from a relational way to the document one requires more than that, e.g. denormalising data and finding a way to break the strong relationships.

My general strategy would be:

  1. Find root entities (e.g. for a shopping cart with product items, the shopping cart is the root entity).

  2. Then check related properties to see if they can live independently.

  3. If they can’t live separately, embed them inside the root entity. If they can, reference them by id.

  4. Set those entities that can live on their own as documents.

  5. Do this exercise and define policies for each table. Prepare the classes that will be loading and storing the data.

  6. Set up a project to load data from a relational database and store them in a document database. The import process may take some time, so it should be run by a background worker. Remember to put extensive logging; this will help you troubleshoot issues.

  7. Do a dry run and test the first migration for a single table.

  8. After that, create a program that will load entities from relational and document databases and compare if they’re the same.

  9. Check what type of indexes your document database provides and apply those that make sense.

  10. Rinse/repeat for other data.

  11. Consider also using the strangler fig pattern while migrating to your existing system to do it step by step.

Of course, you’ll need to figure out a lot of grey area, but it’d be worth first making the change easy, then making the easy change. So, minimising the data model refactoring during migration.

It’s also better to start with simple mapping without changing schema too much(unless your data is simple). After it works, consider adjusting it to fit the document approach. Read also my other article where I lined up the heuristics on changing legacy design: What do the British writer and his fence have to do with Software Architecture?.

See also decent reference guides:

Of course, those are just simple heuristics, as each migration should be made case by case, respecting the data we have and their business context.

Still, I hope that they will be helpful enough to start your journey and plan your migration strategy!

Cheers!

Oskar

p.s. Ukraine is still under brutal Russian invasion. A lot of Ukrainian people are hurt, without shelter and need help. You can help in various ways, for instance, directly helping refugees, spreading awareness, putting pressure on your local government or companies. You can also support Ukraine by donating e.g. to Red Cross, Ukraine humanitarian organisation or donate Ambulances for Ukraine.

👋 If you found this article helpful and want to get notification about the next one, subscribe to Architecture Weekly.

✉️ Join over 11500 subscribers, get the best resources to boost your skills, and stay updated with Software Architecture trends!

Loading...
Event-Driven by Oskar Dudycz

cover

Through my window, I see the result of good plans but poor execution. Opposite my flat, there is a partially completed construction place. Buildings were supposed to be eye-catching Mediterranean style apartments. Delivery date? Two years ago. Actual? More and more unknown.

Some time ago, I heard that using Event Sourcing makes creating Event-Driven Architecture easier. The arguments were correct, that if we’re already publishing events to trigger business workflows, then at some point, we may want to also store events to not lose information. Agreed. However, I also heard that keeping the state as events will simplify things. We’ll have a source of truth with a record of the system behaviour. This will allow, e.g. to confront the results of the operations with the recorded state. I’d agree with that, with one distinction. It’s easier as long as you already know Event Sourcing.

Many people in the DDD community claim that the essential is to properly break down the system into autonomous parts called bounded contexts. Once we have it, the rest is secondary and will sort itself out. For sure.

Many seasoned programmers speak similarly about new technologies. They claim that they can translate past experience into new technologies. That’s true that by analogy, they can catch the big picture quicker. But isn’t it a bold assumption to say that Win.Forms specialist will learn Angular quickly?

The end result may differ a lot from the initial ideas. I saw the plan of those buildings next to me. Now I can see the effects of the execution. Or actually, the lack.

I believe that we should carefully acknowledge not only the point of view of our authorities but also their seating point. If we want to find out how to form a wall, do we ask an architect or a foreman? An architect may know the theory, but the practice is what we’re looking for. On the other hand, if you want to know where to put the wall, you prefer the architect to do measurements. At least if you don’t want to have the roof falling to your head.

After I had torn a ligament in my knee, I went to two qualified orthopedists. One said I should have surgery and do a reconstruction. The second stated that there is no need for that; rehabilitation should be enough. Guess which one had a specialization in surgery and which in rehabilitation?

People usually give us advice from the point where they’re currently standing. They are entitled to a biased view. An architect who rarely does programming will tend to downplay the value of implementation and tactical patterns. Midlevel developers will focus on technicalities instead of the global system impact. The team manager or consultant will emphasize the importance of soft skills (or esoteric techniques known only to them).

The truth is that we need all of them. The excellent plan will fall on the bad execution. The best execution for the wrong case will be just a waste of time. We should carefully evaluate the advice considering what we need and what an expert can give us.

Therefore, when we’re reading an article, watching a talk, let’s also pay attention to the place where the person is standing. The perspective from there may be much different from where we are right now. That can be good, as it may push us in the right direction. But it may also be misleading, as we accidentally take biases of this person without understanding the tradeoffs. Personally, I prefer to follow not only people from pedestal but also those that are closer to my position. A bit further in the journey, but not too far. That helps me to calibrate my view as those people are more relative to my daily struggles.

Polish historical leader Józef Piłsudzki reportedly used to say: “Right is like an ass, everyone has its own”.

Cheers!

Oskar