CASE STUDY:

Optimizing E-commerce Operations with Hybrid Databases

Introduction

The exponential growth of an e-commerce platform catering to millions of global customers has
revealed significant limitations in its current relational database system. Challenges such as slow
query performance, difficulties in scaling during high-traffic events, and managing diverse types of
data have underscored the need for an improved database strategy.

This case study examines the integration of NoSQL databases like MongoDB and graph databases like
Neo4j, alongside an existing relational database, to address these challenges and optimize e-
commerce operations.

Background

Relational databases, a cornerstone of traditional Database Management Systems (DBMS), are

widely trusted for ensuring data integrity and consistency in transactional operations. However, the
ever-increasing velocity of data growth, coupled with the need to manage unstructured and semi-
structured data, exposes limitations in their scalability and adaptability.

In response, NoSQL databases have emerged as a complementary solution rather than a

replacement for relational databases. These systems cater to the demands of modern applications by
offering flexibility, scalability, and support for diverse data structures, addressing the challenges faced
by organizations handling massive amounts of data.

NoSQL databases are particularly effective in scenarios where relational databases struggle, such as
schema evolution, handling diverse data types, and maintaining performance as data volumes grow.
By integrating NoSQL and graph databases with traditional relational systems, businesses can
leverage the strengths of each database type for a hybrid solution tailored to their needs.

Use Cases of MongoDB

MongoDB, a document-oriented NoSQL database, excels in managing and processing unstructured

and semi-structured data. Its key use cases include:

 Content Management Systems (CMS): Ideal for handling diverse content types such as
articles, images, and videos, thanks to its flexible schema design.

 Real-Time Analytics: Supports high-speed data ingestion and analysis, making it suitable for
applications requiring immediate insights.

 Internet of Things (IoT): Efficiently manages large volumes of time-series data generated by
IoT devices.

 Mobile and Social Networking Applications: Enables rapid development and scalability for
dynamic, user-focused interactions.

 E-commerce Platforms: Simplifies the management of product catalogs, customer data, and
transactions, accommodating varying data structures effectively.
Use Cases of Neo4j

Neo4j, a graph database, is purpose-built for managing and querying complex relationships between
data points. Its primary use cases include:

 Recommendation Engines: Analyzes user behavior and preferences to deliver personalized

product or content suggestions.

 Fraud Detection: Identifies suspicious patterns and relationships in financial transactions,

enabling proactive fraud mitigation.

 Network and IT Operations: Models and monitors complex networks, optimizing

performance and detecting issues.

 Social Network Analysis: Examines relationships and interactions within social networks to
understand user connections and influence.

 Knowledge Graphs: Integrates and represents complex information from diverse sources,
facilitating advanced search and discovery capabilities.

Implementation

The hybrid database approach integrates MongoDB and Neo4j with the existing relational database
(MySQL), optimizing data management and addressing the platform’s challenges.

1. MongoDB:

o Purpose: Stored unstructured and semi-structured data, including:

 Customer reviews.

 Product images and metadata.

 Event logs for website activity.

o Key Feature Utilized: Leveraged MongoDB’s sharding capability for horizontal

scalability, ensuring smooth operations during high write loads, especially during
peak sales events.

2. Neo4j:

o Purpose: Managed and analyzed complex relationships between data points, such
as:

 Customers and products for recommendation systems.

 Product categories and related items for enhanced search results.

o Outcome: Delivered real-time product recommendations, significantly improving

customer engagement and experience.

3. Relational Database (MySQL):

o Purpose: Retained for structured, transactional data:

  Orders, inventory, and payments.

 Customer profiles and account details.

o Optimization: Enhanced performance through indexing and caching strategies to

reduce query latency.

Conclusion

The integration of MongoDB, Neo4j, and the existing relational database exemplifies the power of
hybrid database systems in addressing the modern challenges of e-commerce platforms. By
leveraging the strengths of each database type, the platform has significantly improved query
performance, scalability, and data management, paving the way for enhanced user experiences and
sustained growth.

Resources:

Sahatqija, K., Ajdari, J., Zenuni, X., Raufi, B., & Ismaili, F. (2018, May). Comparison between relational
and NOSQL databases. In 2018 41st international convention on information and communication
technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 0216-0221). IEEE.

https://www.mongodb.com/solutions/use-cases

https://neo4j.com/use-cases/
 Comparison Between Cassandra, Redis and MongoDB

Relational databases are a commonly utilized technology that allows for storage, administration and
retrieval of various data schemas. However, for certain big databases, executing queries can become
a time-consuming and inefficient procedure. Furthermore, storing enormous volumes of data
necessitates servers with greater capacity and scalability. Relational databases have limits when it
comes to dealing with scalability for big amounts of data. On the other hand, non-relational database
systems, often known as NoSQL, were created to better fulfill the demands of key-value storing of
enormous volumes of records. However, there are several NoSQL options, and the majority have not
yet been extensively compared.

In this case study, three different NoSQL databases – Cassandra, Redis and MongoDB - are explored
and their performances are evaluated.

1. Flexibility

 MongoDB: As a document-oriented database, MongoDB offers a schema-less design,

allowing storage of JSON-like documents. This flexibility facilitates the handling of diverse
data structures without predefined schemas, accommodating evolving application
requirements.

 Redis: Primarily an in-memory key-value store, Redis supports various data structures such
as strings, hashes, lists, sets, and sorted sets. While it offers flexibility in data types, it lacks
the complex querying capabilities inherent in document or relational databases.

 Cassandra: Employing a wide-column store model, Cassandra provides a flexible schema

design, allowing dynamic addition of columns. However, it is optimized for structured data
and may require careful schema design to accommodate complex data relationships.

2. Scalability

 MongoDB: Supports horizontal scalability through sharding, distributing data across multiple
servers to handle large-scale deployments efficiently. This design enables seamless scaling as
data volumes grow.

 Redis: While Redis can be scaled horizontally using clustering, it is primarily optimized for in-
memory operations, which may limit scalability concerning data persistence and complex
querying.

 Cassandra: Designed for linear scalability, Cassandra's architecture allows adding new nodes
without downtime, making it highly suitable for large-scale distributed systems requiring
high write and read throughput.

3. Availability

 MongoDB: Ensures high availability through replica sets, providing automatic failover and
data redundancy. This setup maintains data availability during server failures.

 Redis: Achieves high availability via replication and Redis Sentinel, which provides automatic
failover mechanisms. However, being in-memory, data persistence strategies must be
carefully implemented to prevent data loss.
  Cassandra: Employs a peer-to-peer architecture with no single point of failure, ensuring high
availability. Data is replicated across multiple nodes, and its tunable consistency model
allows balancing between consistency and availability as per application requirements.

4. Fault-Tolerance

 MongoDB: Replica sets in MongoDB provide fault tolerance by maintaining multiple copies
of data across different servers. In case of hardware failure, automatic failover ensures
continued operation.

 Redis: Offers fault tolerance through replication and persistence options like snapshots and
append-only files. However, being primarily in-memory, there is a risk of data loss if not
properly configured for persistence.

 Cassandra: Its decentralized architecture and data replication across nodes provide robust
fault tolerance. The system is designed to handle node failures without affecting overall
availability, making it resilient in distributed environments.

5. Querying and Indexing

 MongoDB: Offers rich querying capabilities with support for ad-hoc queries, indexing, and
aggregation frameworks, enabling complex data retrieval operations. Indexes can be created
on any field in a document, enhancing query performance.

 Redis: Provides limited querying capabilities, primarily operating on keys and their associated
data structures. It lacks advanced querying and indexing features found in other databases,
focusing instead on rapid data access.

 Cassandra: Supports CQL (Cassandra Query Language), which resembles SQL, for data
manipulation. While it allows indexing on columns, complex querying capabilities are limited
compared to MongoDB, necessitating careful data modeling to optimize query performance.

6. Real-Time Data Access

 MongoDB: Provides real-time data access suitable for many applications, though latency may
be higher compared to in-memory databases due to disk I/O operations.

 Redis: Excels in real-time data access with sub-millisecond latency, making it ideal for
caching, session management, and real-time analytics. Its in-memory nature ensures
extremely fast data retrieval.

 Cassandra: Offers real-time data access with low latency, suitable for high-velocity data
scenarios. Its architecture supports quick read and write operations, though not as fast as in-
memory databases like Redis.

7. Distributed Processing

 MongoDB: Supports distributed data processing through sharding, distributing data across
multiple nodes. However, complex distributed transactions may require additional
configuration to maintain consistency.

 Redis: Primarily designed for single-node operations, with clustering capabilities for
distributed scenarios. It lacks built-in support for complex distributed processing, focusing on
rapid data access and simplicity.
Resources:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
323057709_NoSQL_databases_Critical_analysis_and_comparison

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328095599_A_Comparative_study_of_NoSQL_Databases

Seghier, N. B., & Kazar, O. (2021, September). Performance benchmarking and comparison of NoSQL
databases: Redis vs mongodb vs Cassandra using YCSB tool. In 2021 International Conference on
Recent Advances in Mathematics and Informatics (ICRAMI) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.