3 ms·
> * Key Value Stores Redis / Memcache > * No-SQL land: MongoDB/Cassandra etc. > * “Traditional” Schema’d SQL: Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/Amazon RDS Etc. > * Hoste
by bradhe 11y ago
> * Key Value Stores Redis / Memcache
> * No-SQL land: MongoDB/Cassandra etc.
> * “Traditional” Schema’d SQL: Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/Amazon RDS Etc.
> * Hosted DBs: AWS RDS / DynamoDB / AppEngine Datastore
> * Heavy lifting: Amazon MR / Hadoop (Hive/Pig) / Cloudera / Google Big Query
> * Batshit crazy stuff: Erlang’s Mnesia, iOS’s Core Data
Cringeworthy to be sure.
- zgoldberg 11y agoDo you disagree with the point?
- bradhe 11y ago1. "No-SQL land" - Most of those things are NoSQL databases? 2. ""Traditional" Schema'd SQL" - Amazon RDS isn't a database, and those are relational databases. 3. DynamoDB has effectively the same data model as Cassandra. 4. "Hadoop" isn't a database. Cloudera is a database vendor. EMR (what you call Amazon MR?) is Hadoop as a Service. 5. I don't even know what to say about the "batship crazy" thing. Every data store has a model. Typically we classify them based on their model.
- zgoldberg 11y agoah, ok, I understand your complaint. I actually agree with you, I was definitely playing fast and loose with classifications there. That said, my point wasn't about how to classify data storage systems, so much as to emphasize the fact that there are many options and that the architect should be thinking really hard about existing options before rolling their own.