3 ms·
Wikipedia seems like the perfect system for a document store like CouchDB. I would be curious to know if they examined it and, if so, found it lacking.
by revscat 14y ago
Wikipedia seems like the perfect system for a document store like CouchDB. I would be curious to know if they examined it and, if so, found it lacking.
- stingraycharles 14y agoMy guess is that they have been using MySQL for a long, long time (possibly since the beginning)m, and see no need to migrate to something different. MariaDB is API-compatible with MySQL, so this migration will not involve much changes at the client side; it's mostly thorough testing that needs to be done.
- notatoad 14y agoMariaDB is a (almost) drop-in replacement for MySQL, CouchDB is a totally different concept that would require nearly a complete re-write of their backend. I doubt they considered it.
- neilk 14y agoMediaWiki uses a fairly typical mostly-normalized relational design. You couldn't easily port it to a document store. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/MediaWiki_database_schema_1-19_%28r102798%29.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/MediaWiki... Also, most MediaWiki installs use plugins, and those plugins often create their own database tables. So RDBMS is pretty much baked into the MediaWiki culture. However, MediaWiki is fairly well abstracted from any particular RDBMS implementation. Everything from creating tables to making a join is done through an API.
- tommorris 14y agoSo, there's some legacy here. 10 years ago, there wasn't anything really like CouchDB.
- nikcub 14y agoDocument DB's aren't an invention of the past 10 years. SAS was invented in the 60's, Lotus Notes in the 80's. XML Databases were all the rage during the dotcom bubble. The difference today is that open source projects have made document stores and 'nosql' technologies more accessible.