3 ms·
SQL databases are fundamentally non-scalable, and there is no magical pixie dust that we, or anyone, can sprinkle on them to suddenly make them scale. I find t
by bayareaguy 17y ago
SQL databases are fundamentally non-scalable, and there is no magical pixie dust that we, or anyone, can sprinkle on them to suddenly make them scale.
I find this claim laughable. If the databases Mr. Wiggins chooses to work with fail to meet his scalability requirements, perhaps he should consider different databases. Scalable SQL databases have been around for over 3 decades.
- qhoxie 17y agoYour comment would hold more weight if you elaborated some more. Are you referring to scaling by his standards? Please explain.
- bayareaguy 17y agoMr. Wiggins would have us think in terms of "true scalability" which conflates the following concerns: more servers creates more capacity (the classic definition of scalability), the business logic of the app is separated from concerns of scaling server resources (this is not possible past whatever limit you set and so has no classic definition) and no single point of failure (more classically formalized as availability). Companies such as Teradata have long offered SQL systems which meet the classic definitions of scalability and availability. I think TimothyFitz's reply above was accurate. Mr. Wiggins article would be better titled something like "ACID databases have scalability problems, especially cheap ones startups use" but then, like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=690653 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=690653 , it wouldn't get much response.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]