3 ms·

http://code.google.com/p/redis/ http://code.google.com/p/redis/ "Redis - A persistent key-value database" http://redis.io/ http://redis.io/ "Redis is an open

http://code.google.com/p/redis/ http://code.google.com/p/redis/ "Redis - A persistent key-value database" http://redis.io/ http://redis.io/ "Redis is an open source, advanced key-value store" I'm not sure what sort of extended commentary you expected about Redis - it isn't quite as important of a project as you seem to think it is (seriously, are you always commenting on HN?) EDIT: In case this wasn't already painfully clear, Antirez has an annoying habit of constantly moving the goal lines, making it virtually impossible to discuss Redis in any context unless it is pure, unbridled awe and praise. Then again, Antirez is a HN "celebrity" so expect nonsense like the above to be voted up by the proles.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
antirez 16y ago
1) one thing is communication, one thing is math. For communication we need to write in the project home page that Redis is a key-value store, as people see this outer shell when they still don't know the project. But it is easy to realize that inside every of the supported values types lives another, nested, data model. 2) I'm not making any assumption on the importance of Redis. The fact is, the article mentions it, then draws conclusions not applicable to Redis. 3) I don't see how I move the goal lines, please if you have any kind of intellectual honor, let's discuss why exactly my statement is not true: Redis was listed in the article, than a pure key-value model (a map between a constant value and another constant value) is analyzed, even if Redis does not fit. Moreover the article has no real point as even with a simple model like the key value one I can model any complex data model (I can use every key-val pair as a node for a B-Tree and build an SQL DB on top of that), what this means, that all the databases are equivalent? It is clear to most people that the new databases are mainly a new set of compromises between consistency, complexity of operations, implementation tradeoffs. The fact that mathematically is the same is no sense. Are all the turing-complete languages the same? Edit: I see you created your account 9 hours ago. In Sicily you fit perfectly in a category called "cowards".
- bogomips 16y ago
  In Sicily you fit perfectly in a category called "cowards" Weak. I read HN occasionally but haven't contributed in many months. I do pay attention to database theory / NoSQL stories, and I have noticed that you always appear always moving the goalposts around, in a manner that I think actually diminishes productive conversation. To your core point, the author isn't saying they're all "the same". They're pointing out that the underlying premise is more alike than many -- who perhaps don't spend as much time on the nuances -- might not realize.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

antirez 16y ago

1) one thing is communication, one thing is math. For communication we need to write in the project home page that Redis is a key-value store, as people see this outer shell when they still don't know the project. But it is easy to realize that inside every of the supported values types lives another, nested, data model. 2) I'm not making any assumption on the importance of Redis. The fact is, the article mentions it, then draws conclusions not applicable to Redis. 3) I don't see how I move the goal lines, please if you have any kind of intellectual honor, let's discuss why exactly my statement is not true: Redis was listed in the article, than a pure key-value model (a map between a constant value and another constant value) is analyzed, even if Redis does not fit. Moreover the article has no real point as even with a simple model like the key value one I can model any complex data model (I can use every key-val pair as a node for a B-Tree and build an SQL DB on top of that), what this means, that all the databases are equivalent? It is clear to most people that the new databases are mainly a new set of compromises between consistency, complexity of operations, implementation tradeoffs. The fact that mathematically is the same is no sense. Are all the turing-complete languages the same? Edit: I see you created your account 9 hours ago. In Sicily you fit perfectly in a category called "cowards".

bogomips 16y ago
In Sicily you fit perfectly in a category called "cowards" Weak. I read HN occasionally but haven't contributed in many months. I do pay attention to database theory / NoSQL stories, and I have noticed that you always appear always moving the goalposts around, in a manner that I think actually diminishes productive conversation. To your core point, the author isn't saying they're all "the same". They're pointing out that the underlying premise is more alike than many -- who perhaps don't spend as much time on the nuances -- might not realize.