Decomposing the database for microservices

If all of these steps had been done in a single database transaction, a simple rollback would clean this all up. However, each step in the order fulfillment process was handled by a different service call, each of which operated in a different transactional scope. Before we go any further, you need to understand that a saga does not give us atomicity in ACID terms we are used to with a normal database transaction. As we break the LLT into individual transactions, we don’t have atomicity at the level of the saga itself.

Should microservice have its own DB?

As the name suggests, this pattern recommends that instead of sharing a common database with other microservices, each microservice should has its own database. This approach has several benefits, including better isolation and scalability, reduced complexity and coupling, improved performance, and easier maintenance.

Distributed systems like Jaeger can really help here, as they provide the ability to get accurate timing of operations that span multiple services. Making an operation slower may be acceptable if it is still fast enough, especially if as a trade-off you gain some other benefits. With a monolithic system, in order to join a row from the Album table with the sales information in the Ledger, we’d have the database perform the join for us. We’d perform a single SELECT query, where we’d join to the Albums table.

Synchronize data in application

The distinction can be important, especially when tracking down data inconsistency issues! Even if not using an HTTP-based protocol, consider whether or not you’d benefit from supporting this sort of response. Our first option might be to ensure that when removing a record from the Albums table, we check with the Finance service to ensure that it doesn’t already have a reference to the record.

Should microservice have its own DB?

As the name suggests, this pattern recommends that instead of sharing a common database with other microservices, each microservice should has its own database. This approach has several benefits, including better isolation and scalability, reduced complexity and coupling, improved performance, and easier maintenance.

The concerns I’ve always had with this approach is that teams may get this far and then stop, leaving a shared database in play on an ongoing basis. If this is the direction you take, you have to understand that you’re storing up trouble for the future if you don’t complete the separation into the data tier. I’ve seen teams that have fallen into this trap, but can happily also report speaking to organizations that have done the right thing here. JustSocial is one such organization that used this approach as part of its own microservices migration.

How should microservices communicate across boundaries?

It’s also possible to strategically use hot tables (a term used to describe tables shared by multiple services) to support a shared database model. One way to approach this is to allow one service in that table ownership over all data writes and update processes. Meanwhile, multiple services can continue to read data without any effect on the underlying writes and updates. In some cases, it may be possible to do this through change data capture events. The shared database approach is also helpful when an architecture’s primary requirements revolve around data consistency.

database microservice

Rather than separating databases by their functionality, multi-tenant databases split them by customer range/demography. This is a natural way of handling database separation, and it helps to think Remote Hiring Guide: How to Ace a Remote Hiring Process? not from a microservice perspective but a database perspective. They can even span across multiple servers, not limited by ACID boundaries since one tenant does not share data with another tenant.

Sample Database

When you get down to it, there aren’t many entries in our country code data. Assuming we’re using the ISO standard listing, we’re looking at only 249 countries being represented.6 This would fit nicely in code, perhaps as a simple static enumerated type. In fact, storing small volumes of static reference data in code form is something that I’ve done a number of times, and something I’ve seen done for microservice architectures. So what do we do in our music shop many parts of our code need the same static reference data? We have defined a foreign-key relationship in our schema, such that a row in the Ledger table is identified as having a relationship to a row in the Albums table.

When interact or sharing data between microservices, The problem is, you can’t use ACID transactions between distributed systems. That means its challenging to implement queries and transactions that visits to several microservices. Data sharing and interservice calls should be kept to a minimum if possible. If you cannot avoid them, consider the implications of turning multiple services into one.

Lastly, alter the existing foreign key constraints to point to the new address tables. The SQL statements for the other two address tables are nearly identical. Conveniently, due to the popularity of PostgreSQL, there are many available sample databases, including the Pagila database. This is where a solution like Apache Tinkerpop or Neo4J would be a good approach. By modeling the solution directly as a graph, we could have avoided a lot of complicated Java and SQL code, and at the same time, probably significantly improved our runtime performance. 5 Maintaining historical data in a relational database like this can get complicated, especially if you need to programmatically reconstitute old versions of your entities.

  • In this post in the microservices series we will study how to manage inter-service dependencies and how to deal with implicit interfaces in the form of data sharing.
  • The idea is that the duration of each of these “sub” transactions will be shorter lived, and will modify only part of the data affected by the entire LLT.
  • The monolith still “owns” the concept of what is and isn’t an allowable change in state; we don’t want to treat it just like a wrapper around a database.
  • The community is full of interesting tools that can help you manage versions of your databases, and considering microservices need a fair amount of databases, additional tools will become handy pretty fast.
  • If the behavior that changes this state is now spread around the system, making sure this state machine can be properly implemented is a tricky issue.

A better option is just to have the Finance service handle the fact that the Catalog service may not have information on the Album in a graceful way. This could be as simple as having our report show “Album Information Not Available” if we can’t look up a given SKU. In this example, we have to consider what happens when a foreign-key relationship effectively spans a schema boundary. Later in this chapter, we’ll explore this very problem in more depth.

All the limitations of database views will apply, however; changing the monolith to make calls to the new Invoice service directly is greatly preferred. I’ve been guilty in the past of using the terms “database” and “schema” interchangeably. This can sometimes lead to confusion, as there is some ambiguity in these terms. Technically, we can consider a schema to be a logically separated set of tables that hold data, as shown in Figure 4-2. Depending on your context, when people say “database,” they could be referring to the schema or the database engine (“The database is down!”).

  • For efficient orchestration and management, microservices are typically containerized with a light memory footprint.
  • You may want to keep a record in the Order service for this aborted order, along with information about what happened, for a whole host of reasons.
  • There will be potential for duplication in terms of processes if we split our databases across multiple nodes/clusters.

In the preceding architecture, no one service knows about any other service. Choreographed sagas aim to distribute responsibility for the operation of the saga among multiple collaborating services. If orchestration is command-and-control, choreographed sagas represent a trust-but-verify architecture.

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.