5 ms·
It is part of the drive to make Redis "more like your classic database," he said. In the future, support for natural language queries and enhanced vector and fe
by reconditerose 3y ago
It is part of the drive to make Redis "more like your classic database," he said. In the future, support for natural language queries and enhanced vector and feature store capabilities will be added.
Seems way off the mark for why people use Redis. Developers use it precisely because it's not like their classic databases.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dimgl 3y agoI don’t think that’s necessarily always true. I was recently looking into using Redis as a regular database. Unfortunately data is still kept in memory even if it’s persisted on disk, so it was a no-go. You’d be surprised what people want!
- ReflectedImage 3y agoPerhaps you are looking for LMDB?
- tayo42 3y agoWhat were you trying to accomplish? Curious about your use if you can share it
- super_scooper 3y ago>You’d be surprised what people want! If what you want is persistent k/v, then there are already tons databases that can do that. Redis has a different use case, so what are you trying to say? That you want to misuse tools?
- lmm 3y ago> If what you want is persistent k/v, then there are already tons databases that can do that. Are there? What's a good, mainstream, persistent k/v for cheap single-node instances? PostgreSQL's KV support isn't good enough, Cassandra and MongoDB expect to be set up as a cluster and have all the overhead of that, BikeshedDB is alpha and I won't touch their upstream for obvious reasons, CouchDB is pretty much unmaintained, ....
- chokolad 3y agoHow about LMDB ? It’s single writer/multiple reader, very fast and reliable.
- lmm 3y agoThis thread is my first time hearing of it, it doesn't seem particularly established/mature (e.g. I can't find cloud services offering managed instances, whereas there are plenty of those for Redis)
- ddorian43 3y agoYou didn't read enough what it actually is. Its embedded db like rocksdb.
- lmm 3y agoThen it's hardly a substitute for Redis.
- ddorian43 3y agoYou put redis on top of it.
- lmm 3y agoAre you suggesting that there's no need for Redis to integrate persistent-storage support because every user should download some library and patch the Redis source themselves? And that would somehow be better?
- ddorian43 3y agoI'm suggesting you haven't read enough before replying, just like I did on my first comment. See "Myrocks" as an example of what the first user meant with lmdb. Replace "mysql -> redis" and "rocksdb -> lmdb".
- reconditerose 3y agoI'll bite. I think with most relational and document databases, my view of the "classical world", you are often storing all of your data in tables or documents in a structured way. Normalizing the data where possible. You're then building indexes on that data to pull it out in a useful operational, optimizing for the most common operations. If a new use case comes up, you add some more tables, add some constraints, and create some new indexes. I think with Redis, you are starting knowing that your use case needs to be fast. You start with the access patterns and fit that into key/value lookups (or search with modules). You're typically denormalizing the data, duplicating it or aggregating it from other places, so that you can serve operational data fast. Otherwise, just use in-memory SQL.
- willsmith72 3y agoThe lines between data "stores" are blurring. I've seen it before where x team needs a fast key value store, so the obvious choice is redis. A year down the line, the product is evolving and the devs want to do some "classic" queries. Maybe it makes sense to keep it in redis based on their support for the queries you need, rather than migrating/replicating to a whole other system.