Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MySQL is a Better NoSQL

engineering.wix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#31

Post by aidos »

hoodoof wrote: post #19
jhall1468 wrote: post #16

I'm going to question your knowledge of the domain immediately when your solution to a problem is to take away all of the advantages of SQL without any of the benefits that Cassandra or Redis provide. To me this is akin to saying we don't need Haskell because Java now has lambda expressions.

I know nothing about Cassandra. I question however the ability of Redis to index JSON fields and store/retrieve the JSON document in a way that is easy to program and reason about. I'm not an expert though so can you please correct me?

The JSON field isn't being indexed or reasoned about - it's just a text blob. This is a pure KV model.

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#34

Post by sitharus »

nfirvine wrote: post #33

"Do not perform table alter commands. Table alter commands introduce locks and downtimes. Instead, use live migrations." You know what avoids alter? Going schemaless.

Or using a more appropriate RDBMS that allows for online and transactional ALTER commands?

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#35

Post by austinsharp »

chad_walters wrote: post #29

MySQL may work well for this small data set (200GB). Start working with 10s of TBs of data and you will start to understand why NoSQL stores were built.

My thought exactly. This is just a scale that can be solved either way; when you really can't fit your data on even a handful of machines with acceptable performance, then Cassandra can start to shine.

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#36

Post by morgo »

bowersbros wrote: post #9
JonahBraun wrote: post #4

Interesting that he advocates MySQL. PostgreSQL can index and interact with the JSON stored in it's columns, which make it a better choice as a NoSQL replacement. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/datatype-json.html

I believe that MySQL 5.7 comes with JSON data types too. https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/json.html

Indeed. To expand a little: it has a Json type, functions & virtual columns.

So you can extract part of a Json document and index it. The optimizer can also match Json expressions to indexes

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#38

Post by frankthedog »

hoodoof wrote: post #14

I did an extensive survey of NoSQL databases recently and for my particular requirements Postgres ended up being the best choice. I examined MySQL too in this particular survey. Can't remember why but its JSON handling didn't meet my needs. Every time I consider alternative databases -and I've done so several times in the past ten years - I do a thorough examination and the answer always seems to come back to Postgre…

Care to share an overview of what requirements swayed you?

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#39

Post by parent5446 »

cortesoft wrote: post #27

I really hate any post that says "you don't really need this tool, this one does that job just fine for us" You don't know my workload. You don't know my requirements. It is ok to make a post saying that a specific tool is wrong for these use cases, or that you believe that many people using a tool don't need it or would be better off with a different tool..... But don't act like you know my workload.

Did you read the article? It isn't saying that at all.

Even the introduction clearly explains that it is addressing a trend of developers using NoSQL because of hype rather than actually evaluating their use cases, and that the remainder of the article is how Wix found MySQL better for their specific scenario. They even give tips on when to know if MySQL is good for you for this use case.

It does not attempt to make sweeping statements about NoSQL or MySQL, nor does it prescribe a solution for every workload.

Re: MySQL is a Better NoSQL

#40

Post by baudehlo »

namelezz wrote: post #28
hoodoof wrote: post #14

I did an extensive survey of NoSQL databases recently and for my particular requirements Postgres ended up being the best choice. I examined MySQL too in this particular survey. Can't remember why but its JSON handling didn't meet my needs. Every time I consider alternative databases -and I've done so several times in the past ten years - I do a thorough examination and the answer always seems to come back to Postgre…

When and how did you evaluate PostgreSQL? Can you comment on PostgreSQL's horizontal scale?

There are benchmarks out there doing hundreds of thousands of queries per second with Pg. I've had it do about 200k myself. Do you need more?
Post reply on HN