13 ms·
I'm used to reading inaccurate descriptions of Google and Googlers in the press, so I wasn't surprised by this from the article: "... be usable as a single dat
by stuckagain 10y ago
I'm used to reading inaccurate descriptions of Google and Googlers in the press, so I wasn't surprised by this from the article:
"... be usable as a single database for Google’s developers, who could care less about how a database or datastore is architected and implemented so long as it gets closer and closer to the SQL-based relational database that is the foundation of enterprise computing."
I don't think I've ever heard a less accurate description of Google engineers. The idea of implementing anything at Google scale on top of an enterprise-style SQL database would be vociferously shouted down by the vast majority of Googlers.
And the rest of the article is pretty much a mess without a discernible point.
- duskwuff 10y ago> "... be usable as a single database for Google’s developers, who could care less about how a database or datastore is architected and implemented so long as it gets closer and closer to the SQL-based relational database that is the foundation of enterprise computing." There's more than that worse with this quote. The whole thing is predicated on the concept that a "SQL-based relational database" is some sort of Platonic ideal of databases, and that all worthwhile databases must be an approximation of that ideal. This could hardly be farther from the truth -- there are plenty of successful NoSQL databases out there already, and one gets the sense that Spanner's SQL support is largely a compatibility layer on top of a very different underlying database.
- vonklaus 10y agoNot even close to Google caliber engineer and I was also struck by that mis-characterization