4 ms·
What I meant was a data-size that was too large for a machine. Adding arbitrarily large JSON to your table could expand the data-size to be too big for one mach
by mikegioia 12y ago
What I meant was a data-size that was too large for a machine. Adding arbitrarily large JSON to your table could expand the data-size to be too big for one machine, or even too big for block storage. Plus you might not want it all in block storage. My point is that an RDBMS can be better served storing the relational data alone with a separate DB Engine for the potentially massive JSON data.
- yangyang 12y agoWhy does the format the data is stored in matter more than the data itself? JSON or columns in rows - it's not fundamentally different.
- mikegioia 12y agoIt has nothing to do with the format. I'm using JSON as an example of something that could be large. I'm only talking about separating the "could become massive" columns/data/whatever from the "small, relational data".
- rpedela 12y agoHow many use cases really exceed a single, multi-terabyte machine? Your argument is true for any data type and format not just JSON. If you have more than a few terabytes then you have "big data" and most solutions, including Mongo, probably won't work.
- vertex-four 12y agoYou're storing exactly the same data whatever you're storing it in. The point is that there's rather few use cases where your primary database is going to be more than a few terabytes, which is usually easy to handle with a single machine + some caching. I pointed to Stack Overflow as an example of a large site which still manages to keep its entire database on one machine.