3 ms·

I think it’s the last paragraph I’m really disagreeing with. Many many application will do just fine with a single Postgres. If that is not enough even on a big

I think it’s the last paragraph I’m really disagreeing with. Many many application will do just fine with a single Postgres. If that is not enough even on a big box, they can scale out to a large master system like aurora. If that is not enough, it’s much easier to try and scale with something like Vitess or Cockroach that offers a lot more consistency and correctness out of the box. Scylla is great for specific workloads, but it’s a niche tool that makes sense for specific high volume workloads but I wouldn’t recommend it as a general purpose application development database. It will slow you down a lot and a lot of really simple features will be hard to implement. Also I’m not talking about ORMs. Writing SQL by hand in your application is 10-100x more productive for feature development than using something like Scyllas APIs directly IMO.

Nathanba 3y ago
CQL to me is just another SQL dialect, databases all have different, incompatible dialects. And on top of that, it's not like SQL is a highly productive programming language anyway, it's a pretty hard to use language for anything that's even slightly more complicated. I don't really see where this x10-x100 more productiveness would come from compared to scylla APIs which are just another form of SQL dialect so it isn't that different. Sure I can't write e.g (recursive)CTEs or repeating events in Scylladb but then: do I really want them anyway? wouldn't it be better anyway if I write everything as a set of simple queries? Wouldn't it be better anyway if instead of an event on an interval in SQL, I'd just run a simple SQL query in a background thread from my application on an interval?
- Mike_12345 3y ago
  > CQL to me is just another SQL dialect SQL is for relational databases. That's a different paradigm to CQL. The similarity is superficial. CQL is not a dialect of SQL. Not even close.

Nathanba 3y ago

CQL to me is just another SQL dialect, databases all have different, incompatible dialects. And on top of that, it's not like SQL is a highly productive programming language anyway, it's a pretty hard to use language for anything that's even slightly more complicated. I don't really see where this x10-x100 more productiveness would come from compared to scylla APIs which are just another form of SQL dialect so it isn't that different. Sure I can't write e.g (recursive)CTEs or repeating events in Scylladb but then: do I really want them anyway? wouldn't it be better anyway if I write everything as a set of simple queries? Wouldn't it be better anyway if instead of an event on an interval in SQL, I'd just run a simple SQL query in a background thread from my application on an interval?

Mike_12345 3y ago
> CQL to me is just another SQL dialect SQL is for relational databases. That's a different paradigm to CQL. The similarity is superficial. CQL is not a dialect of SQL. Not even close.