4 ms·

Right there with you. The excuses I hear for not wanting to use a good 'ole RDBMS just does not make sense to me sometimes. CREATE TABLE too hard? Time consumin

Right there with you. The excuses I hear for not wanting to use a good 'ole RDBMS just does not make sense to me sometimes. CREATE TABLE too hard? Time consuming? Difficult? Those who do not study the history of databases are doomed to repeat it. Soon we'll add back row-level write locks, transaction logging, schemas, multiple indexes and one day they wake up with MongoSQL.

hello_moto 15y ago
Well, mostly the migration part that Devs don't want to deal with. Most modern languages have migration utilities (Flyway for Java, Rails migration for Ruby, Python should have their de-facto migration for Django by now or else they fail hard, and JS... well.. let's wait until Node.js users decided to use RDBMS).
- stevelosh 15y ago
  Python should have their de-facto migration for Django by now or else they fail hard Yep: http://south.aeracode.org/ http://south.aeracode.org/
mnutt 15y ago
You say that like it's a failure on the devs' part, but that's kind of like blaming regular users for not switching to Linux because they don't like editing network configuration files.* It's masking the problem that there are real developer-friendliness issues with the existing databases. And taunting users will not get them to switch back. * but then Linux distros get network autoconfiguration and suddenly it's obvious that it was the right solution all along.
- ehthere 15y ago
  Every major RDBMS has both command-line and GUI interfaces to create and change schemas. What exactly is missing in the dev-friendlyness department?
  - LeafStorm 15y ago
    The effort required to get something like Postgres running in the first place. With Redis and CouchDB, it's juts `sudo pacman -S redis|couchdb`, maybe edit the config file, `sudo rc.d start redis|couchdb`. With Postgres you have to create databases, users, etc. etc. While all this stuff is critical in production, it's really not something that you should have to do to just code some stuff.
    - nakkiel 15y ago
      Well, this is completely bogus. Setting up a new user on PostgreSQL takes me roughly 30 seconds. Now if you use the stock system-db user mapping for dev environment, it's something you do only when you install your system. Mine has been installed for 3 years now.
      - mnutt 15y ago
        The parent is referring to a new user trying to set up postgres. And in the above Linux networking example, this response is analogous to the person who says "But I wrote my own scripts to fix my ethernet configuration, I don't see what the big deal is!" Edit: That came off a bit harsh. I just don't think the fact that it's not a hassle for us means it's not a hassle for other people. And I don't think that mongo's easy configuration means that it should be used over postgres in all cases, just that postgres should take notice that people like mongo's easy configuration and step up their game in that department.
        einhverfr 15y ago
        yum install postgresql-server service postgresql initdb service postgresql start sudo -u postgres psql ..... postgres=#..... If all you are doing is writing code, that's sufficient on an rpm based platform. On Debian, use apt-get instead. On Windows use the 1 click installer. PostgreSQL comes with a default user and a default database, so the criticism on this thread is a bit..... incorrect. Now it is true you have to set up a system user if you are compiling PostgreSQL from source. However, that's really optional in most cases unless the code you are writing is, well, a patch to PostgreSQL.......
- absconditus 15y ago
  This is exactly why I do not believe that what we do is engineering. Engineers do not refuse to use proven techniques and technologies because they are "too hard" and instead use easier methods that have serious shortcomings.
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    How about the freedom/need to experiment? If MongoDB is popular, it's because it has some compelling features/arguments (I'm not sure of which ones exactly). But classical RDBMS seem to be trying to close the gap.
  - Detrus 15y ago
    If you're taking your time to design some important large scale system, using proven technologies is easier overall with higher up front costs. Prototypes are another story. You'd optimize against mental overhead.
einhverfr 15y ago
First of all, RDBMS's are not perfect for all jobs. They have serious shortcomings in some areas (semi-structured and unstructured data for example) A lot of other stuff can be stored in an RDBMS but isn't really optimal for it. Ideally hierarchical directory servers LDAP don't run directly off a relational db. So there are places for other forms of stores, from BDB to XML, but these cannot and should not replace RDBMS's for most critical tasks. (Also there is room for real improvement in certain areas of relational constraints in RDBMS's today, but NoSQL moves the wrong direction there.)

hello_moto 15y ago

Well, mostly the migration part that Devs don't want to deal with. Most modern languages have migration utilities (Flyway for Java, Rails migration for Ruby, Python should have their de-facto migration for Django by now or else they fail hard, and JS... well.. let's wait until Node.js users decided to use RDBMS).

stevelosh 15y ago
Python should have their de-facto migration for Django by now or else they fail hard Yep: http://south.aeracode.org/ http://south.aeracode.org/

mnutt 15y ago

You say that like it's a failure on the devs' part, but that's kind of like blaming regular users for not switching to Linux because they don't like editing network configuration files.* It's masking the problem that there are real developer-friendliness issues with the existing databases. And taunting users will not get them to switch back. * but then Linux distros get network autoconfiguration and suddenly it's obvious that it was the right solution all along.

ehthere 15y ago
Every major RDBMS has both command-line and GUI interfaces to create and change schemas. What exactly is missing in the dev-friendlyness department?
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  The effort required to get something like Postgres running in the first place. With Redis and CouchDB, it's juts `sudo pacman -S redis|couchdb`, maybe edit the config file, `sudo rc.d start redis|couchdb`. With Postgres you have to create databases, users, etc. etc. While all this stuff is critical in production, it's really not something that you should have to do to just code some stuff.
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    Well, this is completely bogus. Setting up a new user on PostgreSQL takes me roughly 30 seconds. Now if you use the stock system-db user mapping for dev environment, it's something you do only when you install your system. Mine has been installed for 3 years now.
    - mnutt 15y ago
      The parent is referring to a new user trying to set up postgres. And in the above Linux networking example, this response is analogous to the person who says "But I wrote my own scripts to fix my ethernet configuration, I don't see what the big deal is!" Edit: That came off a bit harsh. I just don't think the fact that it's not a hassle for us means it's not a hassle for other people. And I don't think that mongo's easy configuration means that it should be used over postgres in all cases, just that postgres should take notice that people like mongo's easy configuration and step up their game in that department.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        yum install postgresql-server service postgresql initdb service postgresql start sudo -u postgres psql ..... postgres=#..... If all you are doing is writing code, that's sufficient on an rpm based platform. On Debian, use apt-get instead. On Windows use the 1 click installer. PostgreSQL comes with a default user and a default database, so the criticism on this thread is a bit..... incorrect. Now it is true you have to set up a system user if you are compiling PostgreSQL from source. However, that's really optional in most cases unless the code you are writing is, well, a patch to PostgreSQL.......
absconditus 15y ago
This is exactly why I do not believe that what we do is engineering. Engineers do not refuse to use proven techniques and technologies because they are "too hard" and instead use easier methods that have serious shortcomings.
- nakkiel 15y ago
  How about the freedom/need to experiment? If MongoDB is popular, it's because it has some compelling features/arguments (I'm not sure of which ones exactly). But classical RDBMS seem to be trying to close the gap.
- Detrus 15y ago
  If you're taking your time to design some important large scale system, using proven technologies is easier overall with higher up front costs. Prototypes are another story. You'd optimize against mental overhead.

einhverfr 15y ago

First of all, RDBMS's are not perfect for all jobs. They have serious shortcomings in some areas (semi-structured and unstructured data for example) A lot of other stuff can be stored in an RDBMS but isn't really optimal for it. Ideally hierarchical directory servers LDAP don't run directly off a relational db. So there are places for other forms of stores, from BDB to XML, but these cannot and should not replace RDBMS's for most critical tasks. (Also there is room for real improvement in certain areas of relational constraints in RDBMS's today, but NoSQL moves the wrong direction there.)