July 11, 2009 at 11:14 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Basically Available, Soft State, Eventually Consistent
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
July 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Thanks Phil, I thought the comparison to the Patriots was overblown. The Patriots wanted to freedom from a tyrannical system that was improper under any condition. The NoSQL crowd just seem to be in a situation that doesn't require all that RDBMSs offer.
July 11, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Noel,
Yes, I had to calm down a bit before writing the editorial. The comparison was, I thought, impertinent. The trouble is it does a great disservice to the NoSQL group, who seem to be a genuine special interest group with some interesting ideas for open-source BASE systems. It doesn't pose any threat to SQL RDBMSs at all as far as I can see from their presentations. A few wild men have rallied to their flag, but I suspect they'll soon drift off to the next 'big thing' in OODBMSs. Then, I reckon we could get some interesting ideas being generated from the group.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
July 11, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Great post Phil.
It inspired a blog post (http://sqlblog.com/blogs/andy_leonard/archive/2009/07/11/art-vs-science.aspx).
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
July 13, 2009 at 1:46 am
Relational databases were meant for structured data and not unstructured data as used by the BASE systems. Using a wrong tool to do the job is not the tools limitation
July 13, 2009 at 2:37 am
Back in the days before PCs, when I worked as a Systems Analyst on IBM Mainframes you had the choice of storing your data either in a hierarchical database (IMS/DL1) or on the new-fangled relational DMBS (DB2/SQL).
If your data model was heirarchical, you didn't attempt to implement it on DB2, conversely if the data model was relational, you didn't use IMS...
30 years later we seem to have lost sight of the fact that not *all* data models are relational.
July 13, 2009 at 7:51 am
A logical data model is a logical one. It can be implemented in a relational, network, hierarchical or object-oriented database. Go to bottom of page here for one assessment of advantages of each: http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~chang/156/20dbdesign.html
July 13, 2009 at 7:55 am
It's a matter of appropriate tool for the job... sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes a nail gun.
I remember one user who had a small (3000 name) ad hoc, lightly used mailing list in Excel. Well meaning people had told her to 'upgrade' to SQL Server, and I advised her just the opposite. Excel did the job, she could understand the model... no need to over complicate.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
July 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The issue boils down to: how stand-alone is the application? If it's totally stand-alone, then the data implementation can be solely for the convenience of the app designer (or user if it's in Excel). But those apps are few and far between: most companies want to see reports, gauge effectiveness, share a customer master and a product master and to measure ROI. Stand-alone apps are rarely designed for that "enterprise vantage."
If the data is a shared resource, then it's an enterprise resource and needs to be managed and designed as such.
It's like the difference between a go-kart and a Hummer. The go-kart is lots easier to build, and may have some specialized military usage. But the Hummer is the better choice for most battles.
July 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Is somebody keeping track of the individuals, projects and companies who're buying into this? I'm going to be on vacation this week and there's not much good on during summer daytime TV. Should be fun to watch... I'll go make some popcorn. :hehe:
July 14, 2009 at 8:10 am
There is a certain portion of the human species that feels the need to do things differently, regardless of whether it's actually an improvement or not.
I have a friend who rejects things simply because they are popular, without actual examination. He like Mac computers, not because he actually gets any better use out of them, but simply because they aren't the popular item. (His IT skills aren't up to Linux, or he'd probably use that. Though, if he did, he would never use Ubuntu. It would have to be something significantly more niche.) He likes bands that nobody else likes, simply because nobody else likes them. If they become popular, he stops liking them. Same for movies, though he does like big superhero and sci-fi pictures, but he's mainly into oddball movies that only get limited releases. He has problems in his IT career because he likes to pick unpopular programming languages and tout their merits.
I've known a few like that. In some cases, it goes beyond his midly neurotic tendencies straight into full-on compulsive behavior. In some, it moves into fanatacism, and even anger at people who don't see things their way.
That applies to relational databases just as much as to anything else.
I find that ignoring them is the most effective solution. [ evil grin ] On the other hand, it can be more fun to "fight back"....[ / evil grin ]
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 14, 2009 at 8:11 am
ganotedp (7/13/2009)
...It's like the difference between a go-kart and a Hummer. The go-kart is lots easier to build, and may have some specialized military usage. But the Hummer is the better choice for most battles.
However an ATV can go many places where a Hummer cannot.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
July 14, 2009 at 8:38 am
A military-spec hummer now has armour-plating underneath. It literally protects your arse. I feel the same way about SQL Server. I speak as the proud owner of a John Deer Gater ATV!
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
October 24, 2009 at 3:36 am
ganotedp (7/13/2009)
I was amused to see, after the description of link representation in the 4 models advantages of relational, network and OO models but no advantages for the 4th (hierarchical) model.
Tom
October 24, 2009 at 3:43 am
Relational, Network, Hierarchical, OO models seem to be all that are talked abot these days - whatever happened to Functional? Doesn't anyone look at this any more? Or has the functional programming world given up on databases? Or given up on communicating with the nonm-functional world?
Tom
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply