I have been looking at different ways to hold onto some predefined character data, however I am having a hard time nailing down which would be the best solution.
An example of data would be 10 strings, 5 int arrays (of size 10 each). There would be 10+ set's of this data. The application would load in the information and inflate generic "character" objects.
Possible solutions:
XML: Due to Android's structured XML requirements it can be hard to use without making a different XML file for every character, and even then it would have ID overlapping for similar named data values.
SQLite: Wouldn't be a huge database, but databases are ugly version controlled unless it is done with a create-database script which has its own downsides (such as making sure DB is up to date between builds).
Hard-coded Objects: By far my least favorite solution, using polymorphism to hardcode all of the objects. Too dirty, not nearly as dynamic as it should be.
I would like to consider things such as version controlling the files, ease of updating (due to them only being inflated, never changed by the app).
If this data is baked i would suggest to use harcoded data.
Reasons.
In those three solution you save the data in the application.
If you use XML-data, you have to consume the time while code parsing inside the code. And you have to write the code that parses your xml.
If you use SQLite, your data will be doubled because of you have to store this database in raw or assest directory, copied in the /data/data folder. Futhermore, if you use Strings and SQLite by default the data will be doubled again (due to UTF-16 encoding).
If think, if only you manage the data this is more usefull to store directly inside the code. Obviously, if you do not use tons of content:)
You might want to use the Realm framework, which is comparatively faster than SQLite and easy to implement inside in your current code.
It handles large data too and it feels like you're using only native android classes.
I have read through the Android Storage Options and I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer to:
Should I use SQLite to store my data or should I use a JSON object that is written to a file?
Requirements:
Store (up to) a few hundred instances of the same object. Each instance will be somewhat complex, storing reference to images, smaller objects, etc. The data will be stored locally, with the option of cloud backup. All the data will be loaded on startup and saved when manipulated by the user.
The reason I ask this is because I don't have a lot of data to store - for a SQLite database there will probably never be more than a few 100 rows, which makes me think SQL is overkill.
Also, exporting my data to a JSON file will allow me to easily import/export from different device platforms (I already do this on iOS).
Or, maybe there's a better option? If there was an NSCoding type library for Android I would probably use that.
Any opinions are helpful.
Thanks!
From the presented so far, storing in files will be more advantageous.
Considering that each "unit" is less than 16 attributes, a json file with short identifiers will likely generate a larger file representation than the SQL representation equivalent.
However, the local file manipulation will allow for easier interactions, as well as easier backing up/down.
Also, the File class is simple enough to generate less issues when compared to SQL.
Finally, given the choices, you are going to have to evaluate the operations used.
If you are going to compare the data, then SQL is likely to go faster, but if you are just inputting/outputting each data as a separate object, than files are going to be as fast as SQL.
Finally, please, particionate your objects, do not create just 1 file with all the info.
I have read through the Android Storage Options and I have a question
that I haven't been able to find the answer to:
Should I use SQLite to store my data or should I use a JSON object
that is written to a file?
You need to analyse your requirement again.
maybe there's a better option?
It depends upon your requirement.
if Your requirement is fixed to simply storing and retrieving then you can have a look on tinnyDB, which is basically using the SharedPreferences as storage mechanism. But if you need case base based selection/query of data then you should go with SQLite.
I am trying to build a application which will be a Ebook kind of (Lot of theory & diagrams) will be there.
Now what i want to know is that since there are many ways of storing the data which one will be the best
Storing in Database
XML
Or simple text files
I am very concerned about the security of the data as well. Since this will be a paid app, i want the data to be secured and also be fast and convenient.
Also, I thought of converting the doc files (Data) in to epub format & then use epub api's to access the data and show it on the android app screen, will this be a gud idea to go for? as compared to the above ways?
Which one will be more secure, fast, flexible & easy!
It depends on how you will access to this data. If you will store in xml you will must to read the whole file from the start to access to chapter (or load to memory, for example). It's not good idea if you will store big data.
Storing in SQL faster. You can gain access to any chapter. You don't need to read all data, like in xml.
Simple text file has the same problem like XML (xml is textfile).
The only one way to secure you data - encrypt it. If user will get root on their device, he will gain access to your files and databases. There is no meaning where you will store your data.
Depends on what is more important to you - speed or security.
Speed
Definitely SQLite, it isn't exactly the cleanest, but definitely the fastest way.
Security
Custom files which are encrypted - it will take a while to read the whole file and then decrypt it in order to display it, but you can be sure that the attacker will access the files encrypted and without the knowledge of the encryption - those data would be useless to him.
EPUB
If you're concerned about security then don't, unless you know how to apply DRM...and that is not a way to go honestly.
I think that the best way to store big amount of data is database. In Android it is sqlite database. I recommend you to put all your text data into sqlite database. You can structure it in easy and beautiful way. Then put your images into assets folder and store the pathes to the the images in database.
Advantages of database solution:
Always well structured data
Easy way to update data with version control system.
You can store and get fast accesses to really big amount of data.
You can use encryption to protect your data.
Disadvantages
It is more complicate to write good code for database solution then for XML or JSON one.
P.S If you will decide to use XML I recommend you to change it to JSON. It is faster and easier to use.
Which one will be more secure, fast, flexible & easy!
Secure: It mainly depends on encryption system.
Fast: SQLite, you can read some advantages of SQLite here Android Performance : Flat file vs SQLite
Flexible and easy: Storing the encrypted files in internal storage is a flexible and easy way. I think it is secure enough. Here you can get some android security tips about storing data http://developer.android.com/training/articles/security-tips.html#StoringData
for saving little data you can use xml for strings but you lose fast loading factor
sqlite is good for almost every purpose, but Security
I am looking to use an XML file to store the data my Android app generates. With that in mind, I have two questions for the community:
Is XML the best way to store data on Android and most efficient in cases where data may be added or altered every second or less then a second.
If XML is indeed the best for the scenario described in #1, how do I go about setting it up?
1.) Is XML the best way to database data on android and most efficient in cases where data may be added or altered every second or less then a second.
Definitely not.
2.) If XML is indeed the best for the scenario described in #1, how do I go about setting it up?
If you plan to store data just locally, the best way would be SQLite which works as a local database on every device.
If you later plan to synchronize this data with a central database, you may do this asynchronously within an AsyncTask or a Thread which would run periodically, but writing each second into a XML file is a bad idea as far as performance goes.
It's probably also a bad idea synchronizing a remote database at each insert/modification/deletion operation as if you had many users you could collapse the remote database.
I think the best approach is (as previously said) having a local database where you would store that data, and implement a webservice in the remote side if needed and use it to periodically synchronize both databases.
I would use JSON over XML and I would highly consider using GSON from Google. You maybe want to consider writing directly to a database with it's own structure and use transactions and sets. Is there are reason you want to go through JSON/XML?
XML is one of the worst ideas to keep local data in Android.
Most common used is SQLite available on the Android platform, but it all depends on what data and how you want to use.
In many mobile applications you don't need the relational database for one of the following reasons:
You have no relational data (i.e. settings) => no point in making relational tables with 1 record each
You have small, and dynamically changed data (like cache for downloaded content)
You don't need to search for data (using indexes etc.)
What alternatives can be used?
Shared preferences - simple key/value storage of primitive objects
Data serialization - for your consideration - binary (native java), JSON, parcelable (can be combined with the shared preferences)
For most of my app I'm currently using the binary serialization for "local storage".
- It's fast enough (usually much faster than starting the local SQLite engine)
- It's extremely easy and quick to implement, especially when you are using it for json/xml downloaded data parsed to POJO objects. All you need to do is just put "extends serializable" and put few lines of code to serialize/deserialize whole structure
- You can use those same classes for keeping data locally and communication with backend
Of course - it all depends from the situation - if you want to keep locally log of data from some sensor, or allow others apps to use this data, have to quick filter 1k+ records, or you really like to write few hundreds lines of code SQLite will be the best option for you. But most of mobile applications has no clear reason to use the relational (and trust me - not perfect one) engine.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I really like Xml for saving data, but when does sqlite/database become the better option? eg, when the xml has more than x items or is greater than y MB?
I am coding an rss reader and I believe I made the wrong choice in using xml over a sqlite database to store a cache of all the feeds items. There are some feeds which have an xml file of ~1mb after a month, another has over 700 items, while most only have ~30 items and are ~50kb in size after a several months.
I currently have no plans to implement a cap because I like to be able to search through everything.
So, my questions are:
When is the overhead of sqlite/databases justified over using xml?
Are the few large xml files justification enough for the database when there are a lot of small ones, though even the small ones will grow over time? (a long long time)
updated (more info)
Every time a feed is selected in the GUI I reload all the items from that feeds xml file.
I also need to modify the read/unread status which seems really hacky when I loop through all nodes in the xml to find the item and then set it to read/unread.
Man do I have experience with this. I work on a project where we originally stored all of our data using XML, then moved to SQLite. There are many pros and cons to each technology, but it was performance that caused the switchover. Here is what we observed.
For small databases (a few meg or smaller), XML was much faster, and easier to deal with. Our data was naturally in a tree format, which made XML much more attractive, and XPath allowed us to do many queries in one simple line rather than having to walk down an ancestry tree.
We were programming in a Win32 environment, and used the standard Microsoft DOM library. We would load all the data into memory, parse it into a DOM tree and search, add, modify on the in memory copy. We would periodically save the data, and needed to rotate copies in case the machine crashed in the middle of a write.
We also needed to build up some "indexes" by hand using C++ tree maps. This, of course would be trivial to do with SQL.
Note that the size of the data on the filesystem was a factor of 2-4 smaller than the "in memory" DOM tree.
By the time the data got to 10M-100M size, we started to have real problems. Interestingly enough, at all data sizes, XML processing was much faster than SQLite turned out to be (because it was in memory, not on the hard drive)! The problem was actually twofold- first, loadup time really started to get long. We would need to wait a minute or so before the data was in memory and the maps were built. Of course once loaded the program was very fast. The second problem was that all of this memory was tied up all the time. Systems with only a few hundred meg would be unresponsive in other apps even though we ran very fast.
We actually looking into using a filesystem based XML database. There are a couple open sourced versions XML databases, we tried them. I have never tried to use a commercial XML database, so I can't comment on them. Unfortunately, we could never get the XML databases to work well at all. Even the act of populating the database with hundreds of meg of XML took hours.... Perhaps we were using it incorrectly. Another problem was that these databases were pretty heavyweight. They required Java and had full client server architecture. We gave up on this idea.
We found SQLite then. It solved our problems, but at a price. When we initially plugged SQLite in, the memory and load time problems were gone. Unfortunately, since all processing was now done on the harddrive, the background processing load went way up. While earlier we never even noticed the CPU load, now the processor usage was way up. We needed to optimize the code, and still needed to keep some data in memory. We also needed to rewrite many simple XPath queries as complicated multiquery algorithms.
So here is a summary of what we learned.
For tree data, XML is much easier to query and modify using XPath.
For small datasets (less than 10M), XML blew away SQLite in performance.
For large datasets (greater than 10M-100M), XML load time and memory usage became a big problem, to the point that some computers become unusable.
We couldn't get any opensource XML database to fix the problems associated with large datasets.
SQLite doesn't have the memory problems of XML DOM, but it is generally slower in processing the data (it is on the hard drive, not in memory). (note- SQLite tables can be stored in memory, perhaps this would make it as fast.... We didn't try this because we wanted to get the data out of memory.)
Storing and querying tree data in a table is not enjoyable. However, managing transactions and indexing partially makes up for it.
I basically agree with Mitchel, that this can be highly specific depending on what are you going to do with XML and SQLite. For your case (cache), it seems to me that using SQLite (or other embedded databases) makes more sense.
First I don't really think that SQLite will need more overhead than XML. And I mean both development time overhead and runtime overhead. Only problem is that you have a dependence on SQLite library. But since you would need some library for XML anyway it doesn't matter (I assume project is in C/C++).
Advantages of SQLite over XML:
everything in one file,
performance loss is lower than XML as cache gets bigger,
you can keep feed metadata separate from cache itself (other table), but accessible in the same way,
SQL is probably easier to work with than XPath for most people.
Disadvantages of SQLite:
can be problematic with multiple processes accessing same database (probably not your case),
you should know at least basic SQL. Unless there will be hundreds of thousands of items in cache, I don't think you will need to optimize it much,
maybe in some way it can be more dangerous from security standpoint (SQL injection). On the other hand, you are not coding web app, so this should not happen.
Other things are on par for both solutions probably.
To sum it up, answers to your questions respectively:
You will not know, unless you test your specific application with both back ends. Otherwise it's always just a guess. Basic support for both caches should not be a problem to code. Then benchmark and compare.
Because of the way XML files are organized, SQLite searches should always be faster (barring some corner cases where it doesn't matter anyway because it's blazingly fast). Speeding up searches in XML would require index database anyway, in your case that would mean having cache for cache, not a particularly good idea. But with SQLite you can have indexing as part of database.
Don't forget that you have a great database at your fingertips: the filesystem!
Lots of programmers forget that a decent directory-file structure is/has:
It's fast as hell
It's portable
It has a tiny runtime footprint
People are talking about splitting up XML files into multiple XML files... I would consider splitting your XML into multiple directories and multiple plaintext files.
Give it a go. It's refreshingly fast.
Use XML for data that the
application should know -
configuration, logging and what not.
Use databases(oracle, SQL server etc) for data that the user
interacts with directly or
indirectly - real data
Use SQLite if the user data is more
of a serialized collection - like
huge list of files and their content
or collection of email items etc.
SQLite is good at that.
Depends on the kind and the size of the data.
I wouldn't use XML for storing RSS items. A feed reader makes constant updates as it receives data.
With XML, you need to load the data from file first, parse it, then store it for easy search/retrieval/update. Sounds like a database...
Also, what happens if your application crashes? if you use XML, what state is the data in the XML file versus the data in memory. At least with SQLite you get atomicity, so you are assured that your application will start with the same state as when the last database write was made.
XML is best used as an interchange format when you need to move data from your application to somewhere else or share information between applications. A database should be the preferred method of storage for almost any size application.
When should XML be used for data persistence instead of a database? Almost never. XML is a data transport language. It is slow to parse and awkward to query. Parse the XML (don't shred it!) and convert the resulting data into domain objects. Then persist the domain objects. A major advantage of a database for persistence is SQL which means unstructured queries and access to common tools and optimization techniques.
I have made the switch to SQLite and I feel much better knowing it's in a database.
There are a lot of other benefits from this:
Adding new items is really simple
Sorting by multiple columns
Removing duplicates with a unique index
I've created 2 views, one for unread items and one for all items, not sure if this is the best use of views, but I really wanted to try using them.
I also benchmarked the xml vs sqlite using the StopWatch class, and the sqlite is faster, although it could just be that my way of parsing xml files wasn't the fastest method.
Small # items and size (25 items, 30kb)
~1.5 ms sqlite
~8.0 ms xml
Large # of items (700 items, 350kb)
~20 ms sqlite
~25 ms xml
Large file size (850 items, 1024kb)
~45 ms sqlite
~60 ms xml
To me it really depends on what you are doing with them, how many users/processes need access to them at the same time etc.
I work with large XML files all the time, but they are single process, import style items, that multi-user, or performance are not really needs.
SO really it is a balance.
If any time you will need to scale, use databases.
XML is good for storing data which is not completely structured and you typically want to exchange it with another application. I prefer to use a SQL database for data. XML is error prone as you can cause subtle errors due to typos or ommissions in the data itself. Some open source application frameworks use too many xml files for configuration, data, etc. I prefer to have it in SQL.
Since you ask for a rule of thumb, I would say that use XML based application data, configuration, etc if you are going to set it up once and not access/search it much. For active searches and updations, its best to go with SQL.
For example, a web server stores application data in a XML file and you dont really need to perform complex search, update the file. The web server starts, reads the xml file and thats that. So XML is perfect here. Suppose you use a framework like Struts. You need to use XML and the action configurations dont change much once the application is developed and deployed. So again, the XML file is a good way. Now if your Struts developed application allows extensive searches and updations, deletions, then SQL is the optimal way.
Offcourse, you will surely meet one or two developers in your organisation who will chant XML or SQL only and proclaim XML or SQL as the only way to go. Beware of such folks and do what 'feels' right for your application. Dont just follow a 'technology religion'.
Think of things like how often you need to update the data, how often you need to search the data. Then you will have your answer on what to use - XML or SQL.
I agree with #Bradley.
XML is very slow and not particularly useful as a storage format. Why bother? Will you be editing the data by hand using a text editor? If so, XML still isn't a very convenient format compared to something like YAML. With something like SQlite, queries are easier to write, and there's a well defined API for getting your data in and out.
XML is fine if you need to send data around between programs. But in the name of efficiency, you should probably produce the XML at sending time, and parse it into "real data" at receive time.
All the above means that your question about "when the overhead of a database is justified" is kind of moot. XML has a way higher overhead, all the time, than SQlite does. (Full-on databases like MSSQL are heavier, especially in administrative overhead, but that's a totally different question.)
XML can be stored as text and as a binary file format.
If your primary goal is to let a computer read / write a file format effeciently you should work with a binary file format.
Databases are an easy to use way of storing and maintaining data.
They are not the fastest way to store data that is a binary file format.
What can speed things up is using an in memory database / database type. Sqlite has this option.
And this sounds like the best way to do it for you.
My opinion is that you should use SQLite (or another appropriate embedded database) anytime you don't need a pure-text file format. Note, this is a pretty big exception. There are a lot of scenarios that require, or are benefited by, pure-text file formats.
As far as overhead goes, SQLite compiles to something like 250 k with normal flags. Many XML parsing libraries are larger than SQLite. You get no concurrency gains using XML. The SQLite binary file format is going to support much more efficient writes (largely because you can't append to the end of a well-formatted XML file). And even reading data, most of which I assume is fairly random access, is going to be faster using SQLite.
And to top it all off, you get access to the benefits of SQL like transactions and indexes.
Edit: Forgot to mention. One benefit of SQLite (as opposed to many databases) is that it allows any type in any row in any column. Basically, with SQLite you get the same freedom you have with XML in terms of datatypes. This also means that you don't have to worry about putting limits on text columns.
You should note that many large Relational DBs (Oracle and SQLServer) have XML datatypes to store data within a database and use XPath within the SQL statement to gain access to that data.
Also, there are native XML databases which work very much like SQLite in the sense they are one binary file holding a collection of documents (which could roughly be a table) then you can either XPath/XQuery on a single document or the whole collection. So with an XML database you can do things like store the days data as a separate XML document in the collection... so you just need to use that one document when your dealing with the data for today. But write an XQuery to figure out historical data on the collection of documents for that person. Slick.
I've used Berkeley XMLDB (now backed by Oracle). There are others if you search google for "Native XML Database". I've not seen a performance problem with storing/retrieving data in this manner.
XQuery is a different beast (but well worth learning), however you may be able to just use the XPaths you currently use with slight modifications.
A database is great as part of your program. If quering the data is part of your business logic.
XML is best as a file format, especially if you data format is:
1, Hierarchal
2, Likely to change in the future in ways you can't guess
3, The data is going to live longer than the program
I say it's not a matter of data size, but of data type. If your data is structured, use a relational database. If your data is semi-structured, use XML or - if the data amounts really grow too large - an XML database.
If your searching go with a db. You could split the xml files up into directories to ease seeking, but the managerial overhead easily gets quite heavy. You also get a lot more than just performance with a sql db...