September 8th, 2017
(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: email@example.com
Not sure why it has taken so many decades to become obvious, but clearly a history of all events is better than a relational database for keeping track of data. There is no reason why any company should ever use a relational SQL database. The source of truth should be the log, and one’s consumers should build their own denormalized datasets — and these will often work best in a document store, rather than a relational database.
Traditionally, databases have been used as the source of truth for many systems. Despite having a lot of obvious benefits, databases can be difficult to manage in the long run. First, it’s often tricky to change the schema of a database. Adding and removing fields is not too hard, but more fundamental schema changes can be difficult to organize without downtime. A deeper problem is that databases become hard to replace. Most database systems don’t have good APIs for streaming changes; you can take snapshots, but they will immediately become outdated. This means that it’s also hard to create derived stores, like the search indexes we use to power site search on nytimes.com and in the native apps — these indexes need to contain every article ever published, while also being up to date with new content as it is being published. The workaround often ends up being clients writing to multiple stores at the same time, leading to consistency issues when one of these writes succeeds and the other fails.
Because of this, databases, as long-term maintainers as state, tend to end up being complex monoliths that try to be everything to everyone.
Log-based architectures solve this problem by making the log the source of truth. Whereas a database typically stores the result of some event, the log stores the event itself — the log therefore becomes an ordered representation of all events that happened in the system. Using this log, you can then create any number of custom data stores. These stores becomes materialized views of the log — they contain derived, not original, content. If you want to change the schema in such a data store, you can just create a new one, have it consume the log from the beginning until it catches up, and then just throw away the old one.
With the log as the source of truth, there is no longer any need for a single database that all systems have to use. Instead, every system can create its own data store (database) – its own materialized view – representing only the data it needs, in the form that is the most useful for that system. This massively simplifies the role of databases in an architecture, and makes them more suited to the need of each application.
Furthermore, a log-based architecture simplifies accessing streams of content. In a traditional data store, accessing a full dump (i.e., as a snapshot) and accessing “live” data (i.e., as a feed) are distinct ways of operating. An important facet of consuming a log is that this distinction goes away. You start consuming the log at some specific offset – this can be the beginning, the end, or any point in-between — and then just keep going. This means that if you want to recreate a data store, you simply start consuming the log at the beginning of time. At some point you will catch up with live traffic, but this is transparent to the consumer of the log.
A log consumer is therefore “always replaying”.
Log-based architectures also provide a lot of benefits when it comes to deploying systems. Immutable deployments of stateless services have long been a common practice when deploying to VMs. By always redeploying a new instance from scratch instead of modifying a running one, a whole category of problems go away. With the log as the source of truth, we can now do immutable deployments of stateful systems. Since any data store can be recreated from the log, we can create them from scratch every time we deploy changes, instead of changing things in-place — a practical example of this is given later in the article.