3 ms·
Not if you factor in the amount of code necessary for ACID transactions, etc. If you make an informed decision that you don't need that level of consistency, su
by silentbicycle 17y ago
Not if you factor in the amount of code necessary for ACID transactions, etc. If you make an informed decision that you don't need that level of consistency, sure, but it's probably reasonable to be overly cautious with data by default.
(If you're going to the database and back for every page view, you could probably be using caching more effectively, e.g. memcached.)
- gnaritas 17y agoACID transactions have nothing to do with RDBMS, non relational db's can be and are ACID compliant as well. Look at any object database, you'll generally find MVCC and ACID compliance. The issue is whether your data fits well into tables and rows, or not, and whether it's worth cramming it into tables and rows and continually reconstructing it to get the benefits relational db's generally provide over the alternatives... which are enforced data integrity, language neutrality, and a generic fixed structure capable of allowing flexible querying. To get those, you trade speed and ease of development.
- silentbicycle 17y agoI think we fundamentally agree, but we've been a bit loose with terminology along the way, and have been arguing with misreadings of each others' points. Have a nice weekend.