It may be helpful to look back at 'How Managers Say "No"' which is about breaking the RDBMS Hegemony.
I got an email in which the simple concepts of "data manipulation" and "persistence" had become entangled with SQL DML to a degree that the conversation failed to make sense to me.
They had been studying Pandas and had started to realize that the RDBMS and SQL were not an essential feature of all data processing software.
I'll repeat that with some emphasis to show what I found alarming.
They had started to realize that the RDBMS and SQL were not an essential feature of all data processing.
Started to realize.
They were so entrenched in RDBMS thinking that the very idea of persistent data outside the RDBMS was novel to them.
They asked me about extending their growing realization to encompass other SQL DML operations: INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE. Clearly, these four verbs were all the data manipulation they could conceive of.
This request meant several things, all of which are unnerving.
- They were sure—absolutely sure—that SQL DML was essential for all persistent data. They couldn't consider read-only data? After all, a tool like Pandas is clearly focused on read-only processing. What part of that was confusing to them?
- They couldn't discuss persistence outside the narrow framework of SQL DML. It appears that they had forgotten about the file system entirely.
- They conflated data manipulation and persistence, seeing them as one thing.
Persistence and Manipulation
We have lots of persistent data and lots of manipulation. Lots. So many that it's hard to understand what they were asking for.
Here's some places to start looking for hints on persistence.
This list might provide some utterly random hints as to how persistent data is processed outside of the narrow confines of the RDBMS.
For manipulation... Well... Almost the entire Python library is about data manipulation. Everything except itertools is about stateful objects and how to change state ("manipulate the data.")
Since the above lists are random, I asked them for any hint as to what their proper use cases might be. It's very difficult to provide generic hand-waving answers to questions about concepts as fundamental as state and persistence. State and persistence pervade all of data processing. Failure to grasp the idea of persistence outside the database almost seems like a failure to grasp persistence in the first place.
The Crazy Request
Their original request was—to me—incomprehensible. As fair as I can tell, they appeared to want the following.
I'm guessing they were hoping for some kind of matrix showing how DML or CRUDmapped to other non-RDBMS persistence libraries.
So, it would be something like this.
|CREATE||file()||some pandas request||json.dump()||csv.writer()|
|INSERT||file.write()||depends on the requirements||could be anything||csv.writerow()|
|UPDATE||file.seek(); file.write()||doesn't make sense||not something that generalizes well||depends on the requirements|
|DELETE||file.seek(); file.write()||inappropriate for analysis||depends on the requirements||hard to make this up without more details|
|APPEND -- not part of DML||file.write()||depends on requirements||could be anything||csv.writerow()|
The point here is that data manipulation, state and persistence is intimately tied to the application's requirements and processing.
All of which presumes you are persisting stateful objects. It is entirely possible that you're persisting immutable objects, and state change comes from appending new relationships, not changing any objects.
The SQL reductionist view isn't really all that helpful. Indeed, it appears to have been deeply misleading.
The Log File
Here's an example that seems to completely violate the spirit of their request. This is ordinary processing that doesn't fit the SQL DML mold very well at all.
Let's look at log file processing.
- Logs can be persisted as simple files in simple directories. Compressed archives are even better than simple files.
- For DML, a log file is append-only. There is no insert, update or delete.
- For retrieval, a query-like algorithm can be elegantly simple.
Without any brain-cramping, one can create simple map-reduce style processing for log files. See "Map Reduce -- How Cool is that?" for a snippet of Python code that turns each row of an Apache log file into a record-like tuple. It also shows how to scan multiple files and directories in simple map-reduce style loops.
Interestingly, we would probably loose considerable performance if we tried to load a log file into an RDBMS table. Why? The RDBMS file for a table that represents a given log file is much, much larger than the original file. Reading a log file directly involves far fewer physical I/O operations than the table.
Here's something that I can't answer for them without digging into their requirements.
A "filter" could be considered as a DELETE. Or a DELETE can be used to implement a filter. Indeed, the SQL DELETE may work by changing a row's status, meaning the the SQL DELETE operation is actually a filter that rejects deleted records from future queries.
Which is it? Filter or Delete? This little conundrum seems to violate the spirit of their request, also.
Here's an example of using persistence to filter the "raw" log files. We keep the relevant events and write these in a more regular, easier-to-parse format. Or, perhaps, we delete the irrelevant records. In this case, we'll use CSV file (with quotes and commas) to speed up future parsing.
We might have something like this:
log_row_pat= re.compile( r'(\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+) (\S+?) (\S+?) (\[[^\]]+?]) ("[^"]*?") (\S+?) (\S+?) ("[^"]*?") ("[^"]*?")' )
def log_reader( row_source ):
for row in row_source:
m= log_row_pat.match( row )
if m is not None:
def some_filter( source ):
for row in source:
with open( subset_file, "w" ) as target:
with open( source_file ) as source:
rdr= log_reader( source )
wtr= csv.writer( target )
wtr.writerows( some_filter( rdr ) )
This is a amazingly fast and very simple. It uses minimal memory and results in a subset file that can be used for further analysis.
Is the filter operation really a DELETE?
This should not be new; it should not even be interesting.
As far as I can tell, they were asking me to show them how is data processing can be done outside a relational database. This seems obvious beyond repeating. Obvious to the point where it's hard to imagine what knowledge gap needs to be filled.
Persistence is not a thing you haphazardly laminate onto an application as an afterthought.
Data Manipulation is not a reductionist thing that has exactly four verbs and no more.
Persistence—like security, auditability, testability, maintainability—and all the quality attributes—is not a checklist item that you install or decline.
Without tangible, specific use cases, it's impossible to engage in general hand-waving about data manipulation and persistence. The answers don't generalize well and depend in a very specific way on the nature of the problem and the use cases.