Archive for the ‘SQL-NoSQL’ Category

10 things never to do with a relational database

Saturday, November 17th, 2012

10 things never to do with a relational database (The data explosion demands new solutions, yet the hoary old RDBMS still rules. Here’s where you really shouldn’t use it) by Andrew C. Oliver.

From the post:

I am a NoSQLer and a big data guy. That’s a nice coincidence, because as you may have heard, data growth is out of control.

Old habits die hard. The relational DBMS still reigns supreme. But even if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool, Oracle-loving, PL/SQL-slinging glutton for the medieval RAC, think twice, think many times, before using your beloved technology for the following tasks.

[ If you aren’t going to use an RDBMS, which freaking database should you use? | See InfoWorld’s comparative review of NoSQL databases. | Keep up with the latest developer news with InfoWorld’s Developer World newsletter. ]

If you guessed this post is from InfoWorld and that it’s rather ranty, you are right on both counts.

Andrew’s 10 things:

  1. Search
  2. Recommendations
  3. High-frequency trading
  4. Product cataloguing
  5. Users/groups and ACLs
  6. Log analysis
  7. Media repository
  8. Email
  9. Classified ads
  10. Time-series/forecasting

Andrew ducks and covers in his conclusion with:

Can you use the RDBMS for some or many of these? Sure — I have and people continue to. However, is it a good fit? Not really. I expect the cranky old men to disagree, but tradition alone is not a good reason to stick with the old way of doing things.

If you disagree with his assessment, you are by definition a “cranky old man,” and no one wants to be seen as a cranky old man.

Being a “cranky old man,” the label doesn’t sting so I feel free to disagree. ­čśë

Andrew is right that tradition alone isn’t “a good reason to stick with the old way of doing things.”

On the other hand, because something is new or venture capitalists have parted with cash, isn’t a reason to find a new way of doing things.

Your requirements aren’t only technical questions but questions of IT competence to deploy a new solution, training of staff to use a new solution, costs of retraining and construction, and others.

Ignoring the non-technical side of requirements is a step toward acquiring a white elephant to sleep in the middle of your office, interfering with day to day operations.

Hybrid SQL-NoSQL Databases Are Gaining Ground

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Hybrid SQL-NoSQL Databases Are Gaining Ground

From the post:

Hybrid SQL-NoSQL database solutions combine the advantage of being compatible with many SQL applications and providing the scalability of NoSQL ones. Xeround offers such a solution as a service in the cloud, including a free edition. Other solutions: Database.com with ODBC/JDBC drivers, NuoDB, Clustrix, and VoltDB.

Xeround provides a DB-as-a-Service based on a SQL-NoSQL hybrid. The front-end is a MySQL query engine, appealing to the already existing large number of MySQL applications, but its storage API works with an in-memory distributed NoSQL object store up to 50 GB in size. Razi Sharir, Xeround CEO, detailed for InfoQ:

Read the post to find offers of smallish development space for free.

Do you get the sense that terminology is being invented at a rapid pace in this area? Which is going to make comparing SQL, NoSQL, SQL-NoSQL, etc., offerings more and more difficult? Not to mention differences due to platforms (including the cloud).

Doesn’t that make it difficult for both private as well as government CIO’s to:

  1. Formulate specifications for RFPs
  2. Evaluate responses to RFPs
  3. Measure performance or meeting of other requirements across responses
  4. Same as #3 but under actual testing condition?

Semantic impedance, it will be with us always.