3 ms·

> "MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis, or Hadoop" Adding Hadoop in the mix tells me he doesn't know what a NoSQL is.

by halayli 11y ago

p4wnc6 11y ago
I'm not sure that I understand your point. It seems very reasonable to me to consider a raw HDFS as a type of NoSQL data storage mechanism, with other components of the Hadoop framework acting on top of it as query languages and other utilities. Of course we can bikeshed all day and split hairs about the precise definitions, but in the spirit of pragmatism, I would absolutely put "Hadoop" as a form of NoSQL storage solution. In fact, I'd say the most distinct of the items mentioned is Redis, and Redis is the tool from this list that has use cases that tend to differ the most significantly from traditional RDBMSs (I'm thinking specifically cases where Redis is used as a buffering layer to help relieve congestion for a highly visited base data store). But even so, I still don't think it represents any sort of taxonomic error to put them all in the NoSQL category, at least for practical purposes.
- halayli 11y ago
  hadoop != HDFS is my point.
viraptor 11y ago
Does anyone have a real, globally accepted NoSQL definition yet?
- yoava 11y ago
  Well, it used to be databases that do not do SQL. But now, that Cassandra has SQL like query language, hadoop has SQL like hive and other NoSQLs implement semi-SQL interfaces, I believe a good definition is a database that is not one of 1. ACID 2. Strongly typed table schema.
  - weddpros 11y ago
    Add sharding, rebalancing, replication and partition tolerance to the mix... I know some nosql dbs don't support that, but horizontal scalability is the benefit you should expect for dropping sql
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Cassandra actually has a strongly typed table schema for the most part if you are predominately using CQL. Also Hive requires a schema for querying data off HDFS. There really isn't any such thing as SQL/NoSQL any more.
  - ahachete 11y ago
    It still is "databases that do not do SQL". Having a SQL-esque query language is very far from the implications of "doing SQL": - Any external software that relies on SQL (not a similar language that looks like but it isn't) won't work. - Any tool which expects SQL and expects SQL-based drivers (like JDBC, for instance) won't neither work. - SQL is a huge standard with a significant number of features. This semi-SQL interfaces, at best, implement a tiny part of that used to be SQL 92, a standard by the Windows 3.1 era. So not a big deal if you compare with modern SQL implementations in databases like PostgreSQL. So I think they are still very bound by the definition that they don't do SQL.

> "MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis, or Hadoop" Adding Hadoop in the mix tells me he doesn't know what a NoSQL is.

by halayli 11y ago

> "MongoDB, Cassandra, Redis, or Hadoop" Adding Hadoop in the mix tells me he doesn't know what a NoSQL is.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. It seems very reasonable to me to consider a raw HDFS as a type of NoSQL data storage mechanism, with other components of the Hadoop framework acting on top of it as query languages and other utilities. Of course we can bikeshed all day and split hairs about the precise definitions, but in the spirit of pragmatism, I would absolutely put "Hadoop" as a form of NoSQL storage solution. In fact, I'd say the most distinct of the items mentioned is Redis, and Redis is the tool from this list that has use cases that tend to differ the most significantly from traditional RDBMSs (I'm thinking specifically cases where Redis is used as a buffering layer to help relieve congestion for a highly visited base data store). But even so, I still don't think it represents any sort of taxonomic error to put them all in the NoSQL category, at least for practical purposes.

halayli 11y ago
hadoop != HDFS is my point.

viraptor 11y ago

Does anyone have a real, globally accepted NoSQL definition yet?

yoava 11y ago
Well, it used to be databases that do not do SQL. But now, that Cassandra has SQL like query language, hadoop has SQL like hive and other NoSQLs implement semi-SQL interfaces, I believe a good definition is a database that is not one of 1. ACID 2. Strongly typed table schema.
- weddpros 11y ago
  Add sharding, rebalancing, replication and partition tolerance to the mix... I know some nosql dbs don't support that, but horizontal scalability is the benefit you should expect for dropping sql
- threeseed 11y ago
  Cassandra actually has a strongly typed table schema for the most part if you are predominately using CQL. Also Hive requires a schema for querying data off HDFS. There really isn't any such thing as SQL/NoSQL any more.
- ahachete 11y ago
  It still is "databases that do not do SQL". Having a SQL-esque query language is very far from the implications of "doing SQL": - Any external software that relies on SQL (not a similar language that looks like but it isn't) won't work. - Any tool which expects SQL and expects SQL-based drivers (like JDBC, for instance) won't neither work. - SQL is a huge standard with a significant number of features. This semi-SQL interfaces, at best, implement a tiny part of that used to be SQL 92, a standard by the Windows 3.1 era. So not a big deal if you compare with modern SQL implementations in databases like PostgreSQL. So I think they are still very bound by the definition that they don't do SQL.