3 ms·

if you think in SQL every project seems to require the "advantages" of an RDBMS. But the critics are forgetting that: a) when you use sharding your RDBMS loose

if you think in SQL every project seems to require the "advantages" of an RDBMS. But the critics are forgetting that: a) when you use sharding your RDBMS looses most of the advantages you seem to like so much b) SimpleDB and friends not only distribute your data but they allow you to parallelize your queries. think map/reduce c) as a programmer I would much rather solve summing and grouping in my code then learn the subtleties of properly configuring and managing a particular RDBMS (and re-learn everything when I switch vendors) I'll agree that SimpleDB is not appropriate for everything, but most of the perceived problems are really just a lack of creativity.

donw 19y ago
I'm not quite sure I understand what advantages are lost by sharding -- would you mind elaborating? As far as being able to write parallel queries, this is perhaps true, but you have to manage the parallelization, synchronization, and all other manner of nastiness. For data that doesn't require frequent updates (like Google), this may be a better route, but for systems where consistent data is important, I would much rather rely on years' worth of RDBMS research. It's not a matter of a lack of creativity; rather, I would prefer to spend my time solving problems as they are related to my application, not duplicating the bits of an RDBMS that aren't present in SimpleDB. I find point (c) to be a bit surprising -- SQL is based around the concepts of set theory, and works in a fairly straightforward fashion. While there are differences between implementations, you certainly don't have to 're-learn everything' when you switch vendors, and the basic tasks of database management are not terribly complicated. And yes, I regularly bounce between about three different SQL implementations (Postgres, MySQL, and SQLlite). Spent some time with Sybase as well, and I am not a DBA. There are differences, definitely, but it never took me more than a day or two to get up to speed, and I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination.

donw 19y ago

I'm not quite sure I understand what advantages are lost by sharding -- would you mind elaborating? As far as being able to write parallel queries, this is perhaps true, but you have to manage the parallelization, synchronization, and all other manner of nastiness. For data that doesn't require frequent updates (like Google), this may be a better route, but for systems where consistent data is important, I would much rather rely on years' worth of RDBMS research. It's not a matter of a lack of creativity; rather, I would prefer to spend my time solving problems as they are related to my application, not duplicating the bits of an RDBMS that aren't present in SimpleDB. I find point (c) to be a bit surprising -- SQL is based around the concepts of set theory, and works in a fairly straightforward fashion. While there are differences between implementations, you certainly don't have to 're-learn everything' when you switch vendors, and the basic tasks of database management are not terribly complicated. And yes, I regularly bounce between about three different SQL implementations (Postgres, MySQL, and SQLlite). Spent some time with Sybase as well, and I am not a DBA. There are differences, definitely, but it never took me more than a day or two to get up to speed, and I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination.