4 ms·
"till it reached some kind of moderate scale where I realized it was a terrible choice going with a NoSQL db (Sometimes, I'd have to duplicate data because ther
by jshen 13y ago
"till it reached some kind of moderate scale where I realized it was a terrible choice going with a NoSQL db (Sometimes, I'd have to duplicate data because there were no Joins, etc)"
That statement doesn't make sense to me. One of the first things you do with a sql database when you reach moderate scale is denormalize data so you don't have to do joins, or shard which prevents a lot of joins. Joins are super convenient, but they don't scale.
- marcosdumay 13y agoYou denormalize SOME joins. On nearly all of the cases, they are very usefull, but once in a while one of them gets too slow, so you make a bit more of work enforcing the consistence by hand, accepts a bit more of risk, and denormalize it. Throwing all of them away because a few may create problems later is a bit of an over reaction.
- jshen 13y agoHow many joins do you think this page uses? A denormalized version that doesn't scale probably uses 25-50. I'll bet the scalable implementation uses close to zero.