4 ms·

Another question. How is this different or better than having a set of relational databases with a load balancer between them?

by rpedela 13y ago

biokoda 13y ago
Because it's a truly distributed SQL database. I presume you mean having a master-master setup? ActorDB does not limit you to the capabilities of a single machine. Master-master still means your dataset and query load needs to fit into 1 or 2 servers.
- rpedela 13y ago
  "Decoupled data. You can't run arbitrary queries over your data. But you can still have a full relational database within actors. So you need to organize and split your data model into actors. Read the query model and examples sections to understand how." When I saw that in the README, it said to me that I can have a distributed SQL database as long as I did not need JOIN or REFERENCES which are commonly used features of a relational database. Am I incorrect?
  - biokoda 13y ago
    You can have JOINs, but within individual actors. So for instance if this entire conversation tree was a single actor, you can have a full relational model to make queries with. But you can't do joins on comments over multiple threads. This is the sacrifice ActorDB makes to be distributed.
    - rpedela 13y ago
      Yeah so I see two use cases for this: 1. A NoSQL database but with SQL as the API and some support for relations. This is quite nice because I have often found NoSQL APIs to be lacking in many aspects. 2. A set of fully relational databases that need to be managed and/or load balanced. This is a use case I have. If the system administration is significantly easier than the tools natively provided by Postgres, MySQL, etc, then I can see this being a valid use case. The use of SQLite does not concern me since it has legitimate downsides [1][2]. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html [2] http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html

Another question. How is this different or better than having a set of relational databases with a load balancer between them?

by rpedela 13y ago

Another question. How is this different or better than having a set of relational databases with a load balancer between them?

biokoda 13y ago

Because it's a truly distributed SQL database. I presume you mean having a master-master setup? ActorDB does not limit you to the capabilities of a single machine. Master-master still means your dataset and query load needs to fit into 1 or 2 servers.

rpedela 13y ago
"Decoupled data. You can't run arbitrary queries over your data. But you can still have a full relational database within actors. So you need to organize and split your data model into actors. Read the query model and examples sections to understand how." When I saw that in the README, it said to me that I can have a distributed SQL database as long as I did not need JOIN or REFERENCES which are commonly used features of a relational database. Am I incorrect?
- biokoda 13y ago
  You can have JOINs, but within individual actors. So for instance if this entire conversation tree was a single actor, you can have a full relational model to make queries with. But you can't do joins on comments over multiple threads. This is the sacrifice ActorDB makes to be distributed.
  - rpedela 13y ago
    Yeah so I see two use cases for this: 1. A NoSQL database but with SQL as the API and some support for relations. This is quite nice because I have often found NoSQL APIs to be lacking in many aspects. 2. A set of fully relational databases that need to be managed and/or load balanced. This is a use case I have. If the system administration is significantly easier than the tools natively provided by Postgres, MySQL, etc, then I can see this being a valid use case. The use of SQLite does not concern me since it has legitimate downsides [1][2]. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html [2] http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html