Skip to content
MongoDB transaction example
Java
Find file
Latest commit 4facc70 @rystsov Update README.md
Failed to load latest commit information.
src adds support of cross collection transactions
.gitignore adds example
README.md Update README.md
pom.xml adds example

README.md

Optimistic transactions in MongoDB

It seems that MongoDB doesn't support transaction. There are a lot of similar answers to questions related to transactions in MongoDB:

MongoDB doesn't support complex multi-document transactions. If that is something you absolutely need it probably isn't a great fit for you.

If transactions are required, perhaps NoSQL is not for you. Time to go back to ACID relational databases.

MongoDB does a lot of things well, but transactions is not one of those things.

It would be really sad if that were true. But actually MongoDB provides all abilities to implement lock-free transactions on the client side. Under transaction I atomicity of specified changes.

This repository contains a program that uses those abilities and this document describes the algorithm if you want to implement it on your own.

Actually this project demonstrates a way of adding MVCC-style transactions to any CAS-enabled storage. MongoDB is just an example. Durability is provided as long as the storage provides it, in case of MongoDB that means that journaling must be turned on. Moreover it doesn't work for some mongodb deployment schemas since mongodb can rollback changes during reunion after partitions.

My language of choice is Java, so sorry if you were expecting something else. Also English is not my native so this text might be full of grammar errors

Data model

One of the features that differs MongoDB from the other NoSQL solutions is compare-and-set. This is exectly what we need to add transactions to MongoDB. If you are using another NoSQL solution that supports CAS (like HBase, Project Voldemort or ZooKeeper) you can use this approach too.

How can I use CAS

This is a mechanism that prevents updating of an object if the object has been changed by another client after you read object but before you are trying to update it. That must be familiar to you if you have ever used a version control system and your colleague succeeded to commit before you.

Suppose we want to design a model for bank account, there are a one of possible data structures and a operation to change it.

// bank account
var gov = {
  _id : ObjectId(".."),
  name : "gov",
  balance : 600
}
// a changing of an account
db.accounts.update( 
  { _id:ObjectId("...") }, 
  { name:"gov", balance:550 }
);

Obviously this model ignores the problem of concurrent modification described above, so there is a possibility that a client overwrites a version of object that he hasn't seen. Let's fix it with a CAS.

// CAS guarded bank account
var gov = {
  _id : ObjectId(".."),
  version : 0,
  value : {
    name : "gov",
    balance : 600
  }
}
// a changing of an account with respect to version
db.accounts.update({ 
    _id: ObjectId("..."), version: 0
  },{ 
    version : 1, 
    value : { name:"gov", balance:550 } 
});

The new field "version" was added, also fields "name" and "balance" were extracted to subobject in order to separate business and utility data.

Since our model is CAS guarded we should check that any our change to any object will be accepted, hopefully MongoDB returns the number of record affected by the change, so we can check whether our object was updated or update was refused due to a concurrent modification.

Let's assume that any of our object has version and any modification to an object is proceeded with respect to that version. Hereinafter I omit that but you should remember that any modification to any object can be refused.

Actually adding the "version" field to the model is not enough to introduce transaction. We must alter our model one more time:

var gov = {
  _id : ObjectId(".."),
  version : 0,
  value : {
    name : "gov",
    balance : 600
  },
  updated : null,
  tx : null
}

Fields "updated" and "tx" were added. Just like the "version" field those fields are utility too which are being used during transaction. The structure of "updated" is equal to "value" or null. It is representing an altered version of object during transaction. "tx" is an ObjectId-typed object, it is a foreign key for "_id" field of an object representing transaction. An object representing transaction is also CAS guarded.

The algorithm

It is easy to describe an algorithm, but it is harder to describe an algorithm in a way that its correctness is obvious. So at first I'll make some statements, defs and properties about the algorithm. I expect you to return to them after I introduce the algorithm and expect you to say something like "Oh, now I see that is true".

  • "value" always contains a state that was actual sometime in the past
  • a read operation can change data in the base
  • the read operation is idempotent
  • a object can be in one of three states: clean — c, dirty uncommitted — d, dirty committed — dc
  • when object start participating in transaction it must be in the "c" state
  • possible transitions between states: c→d, d→c, d→dc, dc→c
  • possible transitions during transaction: c→d, d→dc, dc→c
  • a possible transition during reads: d→c
  • if there was an d→c transition, the transaction initiated c→d transition must fall on commit
  • after each operation the database has consistent state
  • when read falls we must reread
  • if a transaction falls before commit we should start new transaction
  • if a transaction falls during commit we should check if it has passed and it if hasn't we should repeat the whole thansaction
  • if a transaction has passed then the tx object is removed

States

An object has a clean state when a transaction has successfully passed: its "value" contains new data and "updated" and "tx" are null.

An object has a dirty uncommitted state during transaction: "updated" contains new version, "tx" refers to object representing transaction and that object exists.

The third state is a dirty committed state it describe case when transaction is committed but hasn't yet clean its utility data yet: "value" and "updated" contains new version of an object, "tx" refers to object representing transaction, but that object is deleted.

Transaction

  1. Read objects that are participating in transaction
  2. Create a new object representing transaction (tx) the transaction, it may have empty "value"
  3. For each object update its "updated" field to new version and "tx" to tx._id
  4. Remove tx object
  5. For each object write to "value" its "updated" value and set its "updated" and "tx" to null

Read

  1. Read object
  2. If it is clean then return it
  3. If it is dirty committed then write to "value" its "updated" value and set its "updated" and "tx" to null
  4. If it is dirty uncommitted then change "version" of it's corresponding tx object and set its "updated" and "tx" to null
  5. Repeat step №1

I think it pretty easy to prove transaction properties - just check that all statement I made above are true and use them to prove atomicity.

Conclusion

We have added transactions to MongoDB. But if you want to use it you should remember that:

  • we must set up MongoDB to wait until writes are replicated to quorum
  • we must read only from master
  • transactions are optimistic with all its pros and cons
  • to change n object there are 2n+2 database queries
  • it is slow because of journaling
  • it doesn't work for some mongodb deployment schemas since mongodb can rollback changes during reunion after partitions
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.