3 ms·
No, that does not seem correct. SQL Datastores are not "map-reduce underneath", they have optimized datastructures for efficient querying (i.e. indices). Map-re
by 988747 5y ago
No, that does not seem correct. SQL Datastores are not "map-reduce underneath", they have optimized datastructures for efficient querying (i.e. indices). Map-reduce is equivalent to those cases in SQL database where you have full table scan in your query plan - basically brute-forcing your way through the dataset.
- lmm 5y agoYou can (and often should) have indices in a map-reduce situation as well - you just build them in an explicit, visible way. But in most of the relevant use cases you're doing some kind of aggregation over the whole table, so indices don't help any.
- tremon 5y agoAnd if your primary use-case is column-wise aggregation over the whole table, in SQL you'd use a (compressed) column store rather than a row store as your table storage method.
- 988747 5y agoTo be fair, Parquet, which is commonly used in Big Data solutions is a column store format. So, once you normalize your data and save it as Parquet you can have efficient column-wise aggregation - but that assumes some preprocessing step.