4 ms·
Why would you bother with a relational database at that point? That sounds like it’s not normalized. I haven’t read the post... maybe I’m missing something.
by swiley 7y ago
Why would you bother with a relational database at that point? That sounds like it’s not normalized.
I haven’t read the post... maybe I’m missing something.
- pcr0 7y agoFor ACID guarantees?
- jfindley 7y agoACID guarantees have nothing to do with relational vs non-relational. FoundationDB is one example of a non-relational key value store that none the less provides ACID guarantees.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Why would you bother with a relational database at that point? That sounds like it’s not normalized. It's non-1NF, though they sometimes (based on expected cardinality) normalize that aspect via a trigger, using the application-accessed table as, in effect, something of a write-through denormalized materialized view. It's not an entirely unreasonablev way to use an RDBMS in and of itself.
- teddyuk 7y agoexcept they used sql server and sql server performance with this is awful, oracle would have been able to handle it much better
- tfehring 7y agoIt’s much better now since SQL Server 2017 added a new string split function. But I actually had to do basically the same thing in an earlier version of SQL Server (in my case, it was because I was interacting with a legacy application that spits out pipe-delimited strings) and the string parsing increased the execution time by several orders of magnitude.
- teddyuk 7y agobecause they didn't know what they were doing - I can say this as this is what the blog shows, they don't understand databases and customers (including me) have suffered this
- jcadam 7y agoI've learned much too late in my career that competent software engineering is completely orthogonal to creating a successful(from a market perspective) software product.
- swiley 7y agoWell yeah most of it’s just CRUD and that’s pretty straightforward even at a large scale (ex stack overflow.)