11 ms·
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
by 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 agoAdd 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 agoCassandra 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 agoIt 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.