3 ms·
> This simplicity enables Datomic to do more than any relational DB or KV storage can ever afford > Datomic does not manage persistence itself, instead, it out
by twic 6y ago
> This simplicity enables Datomic to do more than any relational DB or KV storage can ever afford
> Datomic does not manage persistence itself, instead, it outsources storage problems to databases implemented by other people. Data can be kept, at your expense, in DynamoDB, Riak, Infinispan, Couchbase or SQL database.
These things can't both be true.
- reilly3000 6y agoI think in this context "do more" refers to querying capabilities than the costs of running the system.
- adamkl 6y agoWhy not? It really depends on the definition of “do more”. From what I understand, Datomic’s model is far more flexible than many other databases, and has built in time travelling capability due to its accretion of immutable data. It’s architecture does, in fact, allow you to choose the storage provider, and it’s considered an external concern. Those are very compelling reasons to use it, but part of the trade off is write-scalability, and potentially, raw performance. So maybe it’s “do more” within certain limitations (which is up to you to decide if those limitations are a deal breaker). Here’s a great talk about Datomic’s architecture for more details: https://youtu.be/9TYfcyvSpEQ https://youtu.be/9TYfcyvSpEQ
- tnisonoff 6y agoIf the argument is Datomic can't be simpler than a relational DB because it can utilize it for persistence, then you'd have to argue that a relational DB can't be simpler than directly using a hard drive for your storage solution.
- jayd16 6y ago"This simplicity enables a relation DB to do more than any hard drive can ever afford." That also seems debatable for the exact same reasons. I don't think this would convince anyone that needs convincing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jayd16 6y agoYes, use of the word ever is a bit hyperbolic. Change it to "easily afford" and no one would bat an eye.