Post reply

NoSQL Basics

  • January 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    #232033

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item NoSQL Basics

  • January 11, 2011 at 5:56 am

    #1271829

    Thanks for the informative article, Steve, but the inner English major in me couldn't resist.

    "Cassandra is not interchangeable with MongoDB, and Voldemort is different than the other two."

    No, it's not. It's different from the other two. This increasingly common gaffe also appears in the first linked article in today's newsletter.

    OK, English major off, and thanks again.

  • January 11, 2011 at 8:41 am

    #1271913

    Doh!, can't believe I didn't catch that. Fixed.

  • January 11, 2011 at 10:20 am

    #1271968

    I definitely agree that there are very valid occasions to use a NoSQL option as a solution and to rule them out entirely is just as silly as wanting to use them only because Google does.

    At the same time, these are pretty funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs = Mongo DB Is Web Scale

    http://howfuckedismydatabase.com/nosql/ = Querying NoSQL

    SQL# — https://SQLsharp.com/ ( SQLCLR library ofover 340 Functions and Procedures)
    Sql Quantum Lift — https://SqlQuantumLift.com/ ( company )
    Sql Quantum Leap — https://SqlQuantumLeap.com/ ( blog )
    Info sites — Collations     •     Module Signing     •     SQLCLR

  • January 11, 2011 at 10:31 am

    #1271975

    I attended a user group meeting in which we had two speakers talk about and show some examples of both Cassandra and MongoDB. Let me tell you I was not impressed! I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 100 foot pole. The documentation is almost non-existent, it's hard to keep up with the revision changes and what seemingly basic features are in what version, and I just don't see the cost benefit in trying to use it.

    I asked one of the speakers what the largest database and system he was using Cassandra for and he said that he hadn't even used it in a Production environment yet and that in the development environment it was just running a very small database (a few hundred megabytes) on a single server.

    Oh, so add one more item to my list of complaints above. If you run into some problems, who's going to help you? Chances are, there won't be anyone else who has done what you're trying to do.

  • January 11, 2011 at 10:32 am

    #1271977

    The CAP was interesting, so all a good RDMS would have to do is make it partition tolerant and the NOSQL would become completely superfluous? 'I suppose that's easier said than done of course.

    The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking

  • January 11, 2011 at 11:51 am

    #1272017

    Isn't Voldemort evil? J.K. Rowling must be freelancing...and the MulletDB is hilarious!

    [font="Courier New"]____________________________________________________________________________________________
    Remember as you walk down lifes road, don't forget to stop and pee on the bushes - Thordog    [/font]

  • January 13, 2011 at 8:49 am

    #1273102

    I found the CAP diagram interesting and insightful for this NOSQL dilemma. Though I found it interesting that Oracle and MS were left off that list.

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • January 13, 2011 at 10:49 am

    #1273186

    The author is an open source person, so I'm not surprised that Oracle/SQL Server aren't on there. I assume they qualify as RDBMSes, just like MySQL 😎

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply