* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] NoSQL?
2010-03-02 17:07 ` [gentoo-user] " walt
@ 2010-03-02 17:29 ` Andrés Becerra Sandoval
2010-03-02 19:33 ` Alan McKinnon
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andrés Becerra Sandoval @ 2010-03-02 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 04:23 AM, Arttu V. wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/10, walt<w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This article was a big surprise to me. Am I the last one to hear about
>>> this
>>> stuff?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10461670-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>>
>> If you're expecting a discussion then perhaps you'd care to narrow it
>> down a bit: which part of the article are we expected to feel
>> surprised about?
>
> I was surprised that three major social networking sites have dumped
> MySQL (but now the article says only two sites). I've also not heard
> of the "NoSQL" movement before, and I'm curious to know what's motivating
> it. Maybe nobody trusts Oracle?
>
>
>
The motivation is response times. Non relational systems, specialized
for its task, can give speed ups of about one order of magnitud.
--
Andrés
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] NoSQL?
2010-03-02 17:07 ` [gentoo-user] " walt
2010-03-02 17:29 ` Andrés Becerra Sandoval
@ 2010-03-02 19:33 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-02 20:24 ` Albert W. Hopkins
2010-03-03 12:33 ` Stroller
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2010-03-02 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 19:07:21 walt wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 04:23 AM, Arttu V. wrote:
> > On 3/2/10, walt<w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This article was a big surprise to me. Am I the last one to hear about
> >> this stuff?
> >>
> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10461670-16.html?part=rss&subj=new
> >> s&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
> >
> > If you're expecting a discussion then perhaps you'd care to narrow it
> > down a bit: which part of the article are we expected to feel
> > surprised about?
>
> I was surprised that three major social networking sites have dumped
> MySQL (but now the article says only two sites). I've also not heard
> of the "NoSQL" movement before, and I'm curious to know what's motivating
> it. Maybe nobody trusts Oracle?
Because Codd's relational database model, as implemented by Oracle, Sybase,
PostgreSQL, MSSQl and a slew of others, is not the only way to model a data
storage system (aka database). In much the same way that a bakkie with a
canopy is not the only way to transport workers, as buses do exist.
Relational databases are demonstrably mathematically correct, but like all
things they have their limits to how far they can scale. More often than not,
this limit is imposed by how fast the db engine can access and identify data
using the hardware upon which it is built. Traditional RDBMSes don't even
vaguely scale to the levels Facebook runs at.
The NoSQL movement is nothing more than an effort to find other ways of
extracting data having consciously ditched SQL for the job. By way of example
(this is not NoSQL per se, it illustrates the point), Google's data extraction
methods are not even remotely SQL. Heck, they aren't even completely correct,
they are merely "good enough". See what happens when you dump the old mind-set
and look at fresh new ideas? Oftentimes you get something that works better
than the old way. Google does not care that their search results are not 100%
spot on, they are good enough for your query. If other stuff that they missed
deserves to be higher in the ratings, it will climb higher over time till it
does show. Considering the size of Google, this is a very workable approach.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] NoSQL?
2010-03-02 17:07 ` [gentoo-user] " walt
2010-03-02 17:29 ` Andrés Becerra Sandoval
2010-03-02 19:33 ` Alan McKinnon
@ 2010-03-02 20:24 ` Albert W. Hopkins
2010-03-03 12:33 ` Stroller
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Albert W. Hopkins @ 2010-03-02 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 09:07 -0800, walt wrote:
> I've also not heard of the "NoSQL" movement before
The "NoSQL" movement is long-lasting and continuous. It just changes
names every few years :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] NoSQL?
2010-03-02 17:07 ` [gentoo-user] " walt
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-03-02 20:24 ` Albert W. Hopkins
@ 2010-03-03 12:33 ` Stroller
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Stroller @ 2010-03-03 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 2 Mar 2010, at 17:07, walt wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 04:23 AM, Arttu V. wrote:
>> On 3/2/10, walt<w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This article was a big surprise to me. Am I the last one to hear
>>> about this
>>> stuff?
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10461670-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>>
>> If you're expecting a discussion then perhaps you'd care to narrow it
>> down a bit: which part of the article are we expected to feel
>> surprised about?
>
> I was surprised that three major social networking sites have dumped
> MySQL (but now the article says only two sites). I've also not heard
> of the "NoSQL" movement before, and I'm curious to know what's
> motivating
> it. Maybe nobody trusts Oracle?
I read the other day that Facebook have NOT dropped MySQL - they
remain committed to it - but that they use NoSQL technologies for some
of their queries as it is more scalable. This seems to concur with an
update to the article, which not everyone may have seen.
Unless they are using closed-source modules to MySQL (do these exist?)
the Oracle situation probably would not worry such large companies are
Facebook & Twatter. They are big enough to support OSS MySQL on their
own.
Stroller.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread