3 ms·

> (If someone had told me 10 years ago, for example, that relational databases were soon to fall out of vogue for hierarchical/document databases or key-value s

> (If someone had told me 10 years ago, for example, that relational databases were soon to fall out of vogue for hierarchical/document databases or key-value stores, I would have said history seemed to be against them, but here we are.) I promise you this is some sort of bias you have. Relational databases are still used way more frequently than NoSQL databases, probably to the tune of 1000-10000 times more.

dpark 12y ago
Relational databases are a more general-purpose solution, so have received far more attention historically and have already matured far beyond the NoSQL alternatives. NoSQL gets press because it's different from the mature alternative and so it's interesting, but it's also very niche in comparison.
- possibilistic 12y ago
  Both solve entirely different classes of problem. There are functional overlaps for small problem domains, but as your infrastructure tries to do more, you may find a need to run several distinct lightweight services backed by a variety of datastores serving focused requests. Many of you have already seen Kovacs' comparison of nosql stores. Just throw a SQL DBMS into the decision matrix. Consider how several might work together. http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis Fowler's microservice post is a decent introduction to the microservice architecture, which is more or less what I'm describing. http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html Granted, this probably isn't how to get the MVP out the door. But once you grow, this architecture can prevent the formation of monoliths of pain.
ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
Pretty much everyone who uses Postgres or MySQL uses Redis, so that comparison is not going to work.
- rubiquity 12y ago
  Another crazy bias.

dpark 12y ago

Relational databases are a more general-purpose solution, so have received far more attention historically and have already matured far beyond the NoSQL alternatives. NoSQL gets press because it's different from the mature alternative and so it's interesting, but it's also very niche in comparison.

possibilistic 12y ago
Both solve entirely different classes of problem. There are functional overlaps for small problem domains, but as your infrastructure tries to do more, you may find a need to run several distinct lightweight services backed by a variety of datastores serving focused requests. Many of you have already seen Kovacs' comparison of nosql stores. Just throw a SQL DBMS into the decision matrix. Consider how several might work together. http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis Fowler's microservice post is a decent introduction to the microservice architecture, which is more or less what I'm describing. http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html Granted, this probably isn't how to get the MVP out the door. But once you grow, this architecture can prevent the formation of monoliths of pain.

ulisesrmzroche 12y ago

Pretty much everyone who uses Postgres or MySQL uses Redis, so that comparison is not going to work.

rubiquity 12y ago
Another crazy bias.