4 ms·
I'm curious how services like Amazon's RDS will change this perception. A SQL database may be difficult to scale, but it is something that can be largely encap
by rmorrison 17y ago
I'm curious how services like Amazon's RDS will change this perception.
A SQL database may be difficult to scale, but it is something that can be largely encapsulated and outsourced. If Amazon RDS, or some other product, handles the hardware and software configuration, then the developers can just focus on the application portion of it.
This isn't to say that scalability is guaranteed, it's still important to optimize queries and the data structure. Also, there are problems where NoSQL is simply the better and/or cheaper option.
But if these services can encapsulate a lot of the difficult part of scaling SQL, it still makes SQL a very attractive and powerful option for most(?) problems.
- jbellis 17y ago> I'm curious how services like Amazon's RDS will change this perception. It won't. It's just hosted MySQL.
- wmf 17y agoRDS doesn't scale at all. The performance of RDS won't exceed that of MySQL running on a "Quadruple Extra Large" instance (because that's what RDS is).
- rmorrison 17y agoOk, but how about a service taking whatever scalable SQL systems the financial or pharmaceutical industry use, even Oracle, Postgres, or Microsoft SQL server, and then selling it as a service similar to RDS? My point is, I think there is an opportunity providing enterprise-level SQL scalability on a per-use basis. It won't replace NoSQL systems, because there are some problems where they're clearly better, but it could be done and provide relatively-affordable, scalable SQL access to startups.