3 ms·
> Clustered relational DBs are really remarkably hard to get right. That is probably be true, but I'd like to point out that clustered non-relational DBs are a
by wobbleblob 11y ago
> Clustered relational DBs are really remarkably hard to get right.
That is probably be true, but I'd like to point out that clustered non-relational DBs are also really remarkably hard to get right, it's just a hard problem to solve.
The tradeoffs you make with a non relational DB to make this easier are usually also available in relational DBs. It's not like Galera is your only choice.
- angelbob 11y agoMany of those choices to make it easier only work if you're willing to disallow a lot of SQL semantics. Like, tradeoffs in consistency? No transactions? That requires not implementing some important bits of SQL.
- wobbleblob 11y agoYou're not forced to use joins and most DBs don't force you to use transactions if you don't need them. Sharding is supported by postgres, oracle, sqlserver and mysql, even if it's not the recommended solution in all cases. A database doesn't magically start to scale by not supporting SQL nor does SQL support magically prevent it from scaling.
- jeffdavis 11y agoInterestly, those tradeoffs have nothing to do with relational or non-relational. They are a part of SQL.