Favorites API Replatforming Case Study

| 1
© 2014 XO GROUP INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

| 2
XO Group Inc.
Membership and Community Team
Alexander Copquin - Senior Software Engineer
Vladimir Carballo - Senior Software Engineer

| 3
Favorites API Re-platforming
…a case study

| 4
Favorites API Re-platforming
• Architectures SQL .NET / Ruby Mongo
• Reasons for migration
• Schema design
• RoR model design and implementation
• Migration strategies and systems
• Lessons learned

| 5
Our Favorites Feature

| 6
Favorites API
• Add / Edit / Delete Object.
• Manage Boards
• Get counts & stats
• RESTful API
• Rails
• JavaScript
• Ios
• Android
Features

| 7
• + 100,000,000 “favorited” objects
• + 760,000 boards
• Avg. 55,000 new objects per day
Stats

| 8
Legacy Architecture

| 9
• Database 55 GB and growing…
• Avg 45 rpm on peak times
• Avg 80 msec response POST
• Avg 460 msec response GET
Legacy Benchmarks

| 10
• Db Reaching max. capacity for setup
• Scalability problems
• Hard to modify schema
• Bad response times
• Very complex caching layer
• Out of line with company’s strategy
Maxed

| 11
New Architecture

| 12
• Easy to scale
• Flexible schema
• Fast Response
• No Cache Layer
• Fast Iteration / Deploy
• TDD first and foremost
• At a glance monitoring of all layers
Scalable

| 13
Implementation

| 14
What we persisted in the legacy schema
• UserId (primary key)
• UniqueId
• Url (unique per user)
• ImageUrl
• Name
• Description
• ObjectId (unique per application
adding favorites)
• Category
• Timestamps
• Other

| 15
Favorites DB Legacy Schema

| 16
select top 10 UserFavoriteId, Name, Description, Url, ImageUrl
from userFavorites
where userId = '5174181997807393'
Sample queries

| 17
select top 5 grp.groupId, grp.Name as GroupName,
fav.userFavoriteId, fav.name,
fav.Description, fav.Url, fav.ImageUrl
from userFavoritesGroups grp
inner join userFavoritesGroupsItems grpItm
on grp.GroupId = grpItm.GroupId
inner join userFavorites fav
on grpItm.userFavoriteId = fav.userFavoriteId
where grp.userId = '5174181997807393'
Sample queries

| 18
Towards a new Schema and Persistance Layer
• Start with a clean slate
• Break with the past
• Persist only relevant minimum data points
• Think and rethink relationships
• High Performance
• Flexible
• Prototype different scenarios

| 19
First attempt

| 20
UserFavorites

| 21
• Document contains embedded documents which are
required to be accessed on its own
• Documents would grow without bound
• Most queries would be slow
• Indexes would be very expensive
• Tries too hard to imitate legacy
Cons

| 22
Second attempt

| 23

| 24
Board document with one recent favorite

| 25
Board document with more recent favorites

| 26

| 27
Favorite document located on different boards

| 28
• Document structure matches the data required on the view
• A Board document includes the 4 most recent favorites.
• A Favorite document includes the list of boards it was
added to
• Faster queries.
• More control on the size of each document
• Better implementation of UX intent
Pros

| 29
Sample queries
db.favorites.find({'member': 'e1606ed5-4ac8-48b4-aee6-bc4203937903'})
.limit(1)
db.favorites.find({'boards': '7557acf8-b7b1-4eab-a64d-57449034cfc6'})
.limit(1)
db.favorites.find({'application': 'marketplace'})
.limit(1)
db.boards.find({'member': 'e1606ed5-4ac8-48b4-aee6-bc4203937903'})
.limit(1)
db.boards.find({'member': 'e1606ed5-4ac8-48b4-aee6-bc4203937903',
'default_board': true})
db.boards.find({'name' : 'Simple Reception Decor'}).limit(1)

| 30
● Rails web application framework
● We speak RoR and JS
● mongoDB as a data repository (we love NoSQL)
● Two collections, one for Boards and one for
Favorites
● No joins, no foreign keys
● Referential integrity is handled in a different fashion.
● MongoId Gem (Pros & Cons)
Some implementation details

| 31
Favorites re-platform

| 32
Board
class

| 33

| 34
Favorite
class

| 35

| 36
Scaling reads with replica sets

| 37
Scaling reads with sharding

| 38
Migration

| 39
Clients switchover
New
API
Legacy API
Client
Client
Client
Client
ONE WAY

| 40
Migration Timeline
new API.
Continuous
Migr.
Implement
Monitors
Turn on
Continuous
Data
Catch-up
Plug ClientsBulk Migr.
Development
Bulk Migr.
Migration

| 41
Bulk Migration
ETL

| 42
Bulk Migration
FavoritesUserFavorites
SQL Tables Mongo Collections
BoardsUserFavoritesGroups
UserFavoritesGroupsItems

| 43
Favorites Job

| 44
Pentaho Steps

| 45
Auto-increment Id vs. UUID
UserFavoriteId
GroupId
Favorites UUID
Groups UUID
Continuous
Migration

| 46
Get UUID from the Get Go
• Add a column to legacy Db (+ 100M recs!!) with new
Mongo UUID
• Then migrations will take care of inserting into new
documents
SQL
has all new
ids
xxxxx-xxxx-xxxx
xxxxx-xxxx-xxxx
xxxxx-xxxx-xxxx
Mongo
Ids are
inserted
Migration
Systems

| 47
Add UUID Columns in SQL
100 M recs!!!Alter table add UUID uniqueidentifier
New Favs TempTable
with UUID
SELECT *, uuid = NEWID()
INTO NewUserFavorites
FROM UserFavorites
Add
Indexes
Rename & drop

| 48
• SQL needed some sanitation
• SQL prep scripts approx. 4 hs
• Pentaho ETL on local Workstation: 8hs
• Restore into production Mongo Cluster: 4hs
Facts

| 49
We’ve got data!!

| 50
Continuous Migration Architecture
Clients
Legacy API New API
SQS Queue Messenger
ONE WAY SYNC…

| 51
Continuous Migration
Favorites Legacy Messenger
• Ruby
• Consumer of an SQS queue coming from Legacy
that generates 1 message per operation
• Issues API call to new app per each operation
• Runs as a worker in the background
Legacy
API
SQS
Legacy
Messenge
r
New
API
Mongo

| 52
SQS Queue is not a FIFO Friend
Sent by Legacy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5
3
1
2
4
6
7
Consumed by Messenger

| 53
• Queue is not FIFO
• Objects don’t exist
• Queue bloats fast
• Can get like not-real-time
• Data is different
Challenges

| 54
• Verify if entity exists (API call),
otherwise, throw back in queue
• Set message expiration
• Sanitize data
• Get multiple workers to achieve
near real-time syncing.
Solutions

| 55
• Favor a simple document structure
• Try different schema paradigms
• Bypass native objectId generation in favor of UUID
• Break with the past
• Queues can be deceiving
• Gems can simplify application layer impl.
• Manage ref. integrity in app. layer
• No cache required Take away

| 56
• Avg 85 rpm on peak times
• Avg 58 msec response POST
• Avg 18 msec response GET
New Benchmarks

| 57
New vs. Legacy
• Overall Performance Increase
• 18 ms vs. 460 ms for GET
• 58 ms vs. 80 ms for POST
• Easy Schema Changes
• Scalable
• Simpler architecture
• No Cache layer
• Fast Code iteration, testing and deployment
• In-line with company’s technology strategy
Good

| 58
Acknowledgments
• Dmitri Nesterenko
• Jason Sherman
• Nelly Santoso
• Phillip Chiu
• Sean Lipkin
• George Taveras
• Alison Fay
• Diana Taykhman
• Rajendra Prashad
• Josh Keys
• Lewis DiFelice

| 59
contact, questions, inquiries?
memcomtech@xogrp.com

Favorites API Replatforming Case Study

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Favorites API Replatforming Case Study

Ähnlich wie Favorites API Replatforming Case Study (20)

Mehr von MongoDB

Mehr von MongoDB (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Favorites API Replatforming Case Study