Does Each Microservice Really Need Its Own Database ? | Microservice Design Pattern | InterviewDOT

4 Просмотры
Click here - to get notifications.

Does Each Microservice Really Need Its Own Database ? | Microservice Design Pattern | InterviewDOT

Does each microservice really need its own database?
The short answer is yes.

The main benefit of the microservice architecture is that it dramatically improves agility and velocity. That’s because when you correctly decompose a system into microservices, you can develop and deploy each microservice independently and in parallel with the other services. In order to be able to independently develop microservices , they must be loosely coupled. Each microservice’s persistent data must be private to that service and only accessible via it’s API . If two or more microservices were to share persistent data then you need to carefully coordinate changes to the data’s schema, which would slow down development.

There are a few different ways to keep a service’s persistent data private. You do not need to provision a database server for each service. For example, if you are using a relational database then the options are:

Private-tables-per-service – each service owns a set of tables that must only be accessed by that service
Schema-per-service – each service has a database schema that’s private to that service
Database-server-per-service – each service has it’s own database server.
Private-tables-per-service and schema-per-service have the lowest overhead. Using a schema per service is appealing since it makes ownership clearer. For some applications, it might make sense for database intensive services to have their own database server.

It is a good idea to create barriers that enforce this modularity. You could, for example, assign a different database user id to each service and use a database access control mechanism such as grants. Without some kind of barrier to enforce encapsulation, developers will always be tempted to bypass a service’s API and access it’s data directly.

It might also make sense to have a polyglot persistence architecture. For each service you choose the type of database that is best suited to that service’s requirements. For example, a service that does text searches could use ElasticSearch. A service that manipulates a social graph could use Neo4j. It might not make sense to use a relational database for every service.

In summary, it is important that each service’s persistent data is private. There are, however, a few different ways to accomplish this such as a schema-per-service. Some applications benefit from a polyglot persistence architecture that uses a mixture of database types. A downside of not sharing databases is that maintaining data consistency and implementing queries is more challenging.
Декор своими руками
Комментариев нет.