4 ms·

Yeah, memory-mapped files and journaling are standard OS primitives. I would say auto-sharding, replication, indexing, and complex schema-less querying are not.

by mcgwiz 13y ago

Yeah, memory-mapped files and journaling are standard OS primitives. I would say auto-sharding, replication, indexing, and complex schema-less querying are not. In my experience, MongoDB arrived with NoSQL/BigTable to fill a different set of needs than RDBMS's. Relational databases are great but not all applications need full ACID or transactions. Sometimes applications require greater data modeling flexibility. Other times, pain-free scaling/distribution are important. MySQL is great when those features are required, but even when you put SSDs under MySQL, it's still MySQL.

jacques_chester 13y ago
> I would say auto-sharding, replication, indexing, and complex schema-less querying are not. Agreed; that was part of my point. Distributed KV stores are a genuine novelty over classic RDBMSes and open an important line of attack for some classes of problems. > Relational databases are great but not all applications need full ACID or transactions. Also agreed. As a relational bigot, however, I only begrudgingly give up those guarantees. My point about MongoDB striking at a very particular moment is important: if SSDs had been widespread in 2005, I believe NoSQL alternatives simply would not have anything like the momentum they do now. Very fast random access is a seismic shift in the algo-economics of database systems. > even when you put SSDs under MySQL, it's still MySQL. One of my pet peeves is that many people take the limits of MySQL for the limits of RDBMSes. It's a bit like taking the limits of small cars as the limits of all wheeled vehicles. It so happens that I am working a project where the central model is a graph; so even an arch relational pom-pom waver like me is considering picking a NoSQL solution for it.
- mcgwiz 13y ago
  Cheers. And didn't mean to trigger a pet peeve, I was just continuing the example. The point was more "even when you put SSDs under an RDBMS, it's still an RDBMS".

by mcgwiz 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago

> I would say auto-sharding, replication, indexing, and complex schema-less querying are not. Agreed; that was part of my point. Distributed KV stores are a genuine novelty over classic RDBMSes and open an important line of attack for some classes of problems. > Relational databases are great but not all applications need full ACID or transactions. Also agreed. As a relational bigot, however, I only begrudgingly give up those guarantees. My point about MongoDB striking at a very particular moment is important: if SSDs had been widespread in 2005, I believe NoSQL alternatives simply would not have anything like the momentum they do now. Very fast random access is a seismic shift in the algo-economics of database systems. > even when you put SSDs under MySQL, it's still MySQL. One of my pet peeves is that many people take the limits of MySQL for the limits of RDBMSes. It's a bit like taking the limits of small cars as the limits of all wheeled vehicles. It so happens that I am working a project where the central model is a graph; so even an arch relational pom-pom waver like me is considering picking a NoSQL solution for it.

mcgwiz 13y ago
Cheers. And didn't mean to trigger a pet peeve, I was just continuing the example. The point was more "even when you put SSDs under an RDBMS, it's still an RDBMS".