4 ms·
I also don't mean to put down the creators of this product, it probably has its use cases. But every time I see something like "SQL with the scalability of KV"
by sbt 13y ago
I also don't mean to put down the creators of this product, it probably has its use cases. But every time I see something like "SQL with the scalability of KV" (which happens a lot these days), it's like someone promising a perpetual energy source. In other words, there is usually some kind of catch involved.
In this case it's that JOINs are still expensive. Well, this is actually a pretty big deal, because JOINs are typically the reason I settle for either a NoSQL or a SQL store.
Again, I'm sure this has other merits that may distinguish itself from the rest of everyone and their grandma building a database these days.
- biokoda 13y agoOnly JOINs across actors are sacrificed. Most problem sets fit quite well into the actor model and you can keep JOINs where it matters most (inside an actor).