3 ms·

Let's take the Rails approach: you don't need a non-relational database. If you're smart enough to know why this isn't true in your case, and you need to step

Let's take the Rails approach: you don't need a non-relational database. If you're smart enough to know why this isn't true in your case, and you need to step outside the recommended framework, great. Your application is in the unusual 0.1% (but are you sure you're not in the 1% of the 99.9% that's just made a mistake?) The problem is, all the big names like to name-drop interesting projects, and people assume that Amazon is built on SimpleDB, or Google is built on BigTable, or LinkedIn is built on Voldemort, or Facebook is built on Cassandra, when in reality none of them really are. Odds are, you're not an Amazon, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, and the odds are even more against you being in that sliver of functionality where they're using this cool tech.

wheels 18y ago
I feel like you're arguing with a straw-man here. I've not said that most sites should avoid relational databases. I've said that there exist applications where RDBMSes are less than ideal and graph / key-value systems seem to be a better fit. We seem to agree there. We can argue over how large that slice is, but since we'd both be making numbers up, it seems rather pointless. Your business seems to be invested in pushing out commodity RDBMSes. Mine is focused on applications that need super fast graph traversal. It's no shocker that we have a different take on this. :-)
- justinsb 18y ago
  Just read your profile & followed the link to your company. I like the product you guys are building, and certainly understand where you're coming from now. I just take exception to the name-dropping of big-companies as examples of companies that have decided against relational databases, when they've only done so in incredibly narrow niches of very large systems. It would be more accurate to say they've decided against traditional filesystems, yet we don't see articles proclaiming the death of the filesystem. This is the real straw man argument, I'd suggest. I'm sure there are applications out there for whom graph databases are ideal; the only way to get real numbers is to try to bring a product to market, so I wish you well!

wheels 18y ago

I feel like you're arguing with a straw-man here. I've not said that most sites should avoid relational databases. I've said that there exist applications where RDBMSes are less than ideal and graph / key-value systems seem to be a better fit. We seem to agree there. We can argue over how large that slice is, but since we'd both be making numbers up, it seems rather pointless. Your business seems to be invested in pushing out commodity RDBMSes. Mine is focused on applications that need super fast graph traversal. It's no shocker that we have a different take on this. :-)

justinsb 18y ago
Just read your profile & followed the link to your company. I like the product you guys are building, and certainly understand where you're coming from now. I just take exception to the name-dropping of big-companies as examples of companies that have decided against relational databases, when they've only done so in incredibly narrow niches of very large systems. It would be more accurate to say they've decided against traditional filesystems, yet we don't see articles proclaiming the death of the filesystem. This is the real straw man argument, I'd suggest. I'm sure there are applications out there for whom graph databases are ideal; the only way to get real numbers is to try to bring a product to market, so I wish you well!