3 ms·

You wouldn’t but in any decent sized organization you will have to. If it is an organization that needs to exist there will be some common set of critical data.

webo 3y ago
In my experience, isolated (repeated) data storage paradigm is even more common at large organizations. They share data via services, ETLs, event buses, etc.
dalyons 3y ago
That’s just not true though, I’ve worked at decent sized companies without shared RDBMs, so you don’t have to. You DO have to share data in other ways, usually datawarehouse or services, but that is not the same thing.
- eduction 3y ago
  To me this is semantics. So it’s a data warehouse rather than a database. Ok. Or we share data from a common source via “services” - ok but that’s another word for a database and a client (using http to do the talking doesn’t really change anything). I’m not saying literally every source of data has to be shared and centrally managed. I’m also not saying “rdbms accessed via traditional client and queried via sql” when I say database. I’m just saying a shared database of some shape is inevitable.
  - dalyons 3y ago
    Ok, but the OP and the article are talking specifically about a directly shared rdbms scenario, not some nebulous concept of shared data. Also, operationally it’s not “semantics” at all. You don’t get into (many) operational problems with analysts sharing a datawarehouse. You absolutely do with online apps sharing a rdbms, they aren’t the same thing.
    - eduction 3y ago
      No, neither the article nor the post I originally replied to specify anything more specific than “database”. Database != RDBMS. A data warehouse is a type of database and is does need to be managed. Your assertion that it is easier to manage is orthogonal to my assertion that there will always be a central database to manage in an organization of decent size.

webo 3y ago

In my experience, isolated (repeated) data storage paradigm is even more common at large organizations. They share data via services, ETLs, event buses, etc.

dalyons 3y ago

That’s just not true though, I’ve worked at decent sized companies without shared RDBMs, so you don’t have to. You DO have to share data in other ways, usually datawarehouse or services, but that is not the same thing.

eduction 3y ago
To me this is semantics. So it’s a data warehouse rather than a database. Ok. Or we share data from a common source via “services” - ok but that’s another word for a database and a client (using http to do the talking doesn’t really change anything). I’m not saying literally every source of data has to be shared and centrally managed. I’m also not saying “rdbms accessed via traditional client and queried via sql” when I say database. I’m just saying a shared database of some shape is inevitable.
- dalyons 3y ago
  Ok, but the OP and the article are talking specifically about a directly shared rdbms scenario, not some nebulous concept of shared data. Also, operationally it’s not “semantics” at all. You don’t get into (many) operational problems with analysts sharing a datawarehouse. You absolutely do with online apps sharing a rdbms, they aren’t the same thing.
  - eduction 3y ago
    No, neither the article nor the post I originally replied to specify anything more specific than “database”. Database != RDBMS. A data warehouse is a type of database and is does need to be managed. Your assertion that it is easier to manage is orthogonal to my assertion that there will always be a central database to manage in an organization of decent size.