4 ms·
> SQL is imperfect, but it's good enough to not be worth replacing. Great way to put it. > There's literally no reason to going with a lot of NoSQL databases
by flockonus 4y ago
> SQL is imperfect, but it's good enough to not be worth replacing.
Great way to put it.
> There's literally no reason to going with a lot of NoSQL databases over using a SQL database as a key-value store.
To be devil's advocate, the arguments I hear range more on ease of ops/scalability for noSQL, apparently some do it better than SQL implementations, and some drivers can make trivial operations easier as well. That said, I'd pick PostgreSQL for pretty much any new project I get to work on.
- blagie 4y agoIt turns out that most SQL databases, when used as a key-value store, shard better than most NoSQL databasing. You run into issues with things like JOINs across shards, but there's literally no upside even there to NoSQL versus using a SQL databased in a disciplined way. I've designed systems with the same type of infinitely horizontally scalable KVS-type storage for all the changing state in SQL. SQL also means you can do things like: - Do local joins (if e.g. all the data for a user is in the same shard) - Keeping a small set of relational data (not the stuff which needs to scale) and have one technology - Use read replicas to scale some of the stuff which doesn't fit in the "infinitely horizontally scalable KVS" model .... and so on. You can't not think about it, but if you do think about it, it's all upside and no downside.