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

NoSQL No More

technosophos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: NoSQL No More

#41

Post by acjohnson55 »

frik wrote: post #33
danbruc wrote: post #6

The NoSQL data model - please read as document oriented - is fundamentally flawed because it forces you into denormalization without good reasons like performance optimization but with all the disadvantages. The only good reason not to use a relational database is that they suck at modeling complex entities and their relationships. Shattering nice entities into small relations to get them normalized, adding join tabl…

In HTML5 we are stuck with NoSQL (IndexedDB), Mozilla refused to implement WebSQL. Safari, Chrome and Opera implement WebSQL using the public domain SQLite library. This means WebSQL is available on almost all smartphones/tablets and on the majority of PCs. Btw. Mozilla implemented their "NoSQL" IndexedDB on top of SQLite in the first place. Various features like bookmarks are also stored in a SQLite database. As wel…

Serious question -- why do you need SQL in the web browser? It seems like for the amount of data a person is likely to store locally, it's not worth it. But I'm open to being proven otherwise.

Re: NoSQL No More

#42

Post by danbruc »

delluminatus wrote: post #13
danbruc wrote: post #6

The NoSQL data model - please read as document oriented - is fundamentally flawed because it forces you into denormalization without good reasons like performance optimization but with all the disadvantages. The only good reason not to use a relational database is that they suck at modeling complex entities and their relationships. Shattering nice entities into small relations to get them normalized, adding join tabl…

I wouldn't say the model is fundamentally flawed. Looking at the roots of NoSQL (which I believe was first popularized by Google's BigTable), the original intent of a NoSQL database is to allow redundant storage of a lot of data on a DFS. They're meant for situations where you have data that doesn't fit well into a relational database model, and you need to run BIG queries (think PageRank) over the entire data in a f…

That was bad and sensationalistic wording from my side. I should have said more clearly that I meant this in the context of modeling common business domains, not for specialized tasks that don't fit a relation model efficiently.

Re: NoSQL No More

#43

Post by jeffdavis »

fidotron wrote: post #32
jeffdavis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give examples? I assume you're talking about hadoop-related tech, but you left it vague.

A lot of the Hadoop users are in the right ballpark. Not necessarily that stack, but that approach to things, and the problems they are attacking, especially graph based data. My broader point is that if your project fits into pgSQL then you need another unique selling point and the data functions are just an implementation detail of some other aspect of your offering, whereas for many of the people not using that ki…

I'm trying to follow this reasoning. I guess the idea is that if a system has a smaller market share, then it's less likely to be used by your competitors, and can therefore offer a competitive advantage. Is that right?

That doesn't make sense to me because it only really applies when there is a high likelihood of competitors using one product but not the other. Although postgres is doing great, in most markets it's still far more likely that your competitors are using oracle or sql server. So any advantage postgres has -- and I believe there are many -- offers a potential competitive advantage.

For instance, you could argue that data systems are a critical selling point of Heroku, and they use postgres.

I think your point ultimately boils down to: "postgres is not quite at the forefront of certain analytic use cases", which I agree with. It is at the forefront of many other use cases though.

Re: NoSQL No More

#44

Post by SchizoDuckie »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #41
frik wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In HTML5 we are stuck with NoSQL (IndexedDB), Mozilla refused to implement WebSQL. Safari, Chrome and Opera implement WebSQL using the public domain SQLite library. This means WebSQL is available on almost all smartphones/tablets and on the majority of PCs. Btw. Mozilla implemented their "NoSQL" IndexedDB on top of SQLite in the first place. Various features like bookmarks are also stored in a SQLite database. As wel…

Serious question -- why do you need SQL in the web browser? It seems like for the amount of data a person is likely to store locally, it's not worth it. But I'm open to being proven otherwise.

http://schizoduckie.github.io/DuckieTV/

My user's Databases regularly exceed 3 MB.

It's relational data : Serie -> Seasons -> Episodes (sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands)

Here's a 5MB example: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44645464/DuckieTV.sqlite

The project is still in beta, so the database will most likely grow with more tables, easily linking into the existing episodes table with an actors table, for instance.

Re: NoSQL No More

#46

Post by SchizoDuckie »

climatewarrior2 wrote: post #34
danbruc wrote: post #6

The NoSQL data model - please read as document oriented - is fundamentally flawed because it forces you into denormalization without good reasons like performance optimization but with all the disadvantages. The only good reason not to use a relational database is that they suck at modeling complex entities and their relationships. Shattering nice entities into small relations to get them normalized, adding join tabl…

I think there is another very good reason to not use a relational database. You want to build a prototype really, really fast and your data model and organization is gonna be changing constantly. In my experience I have been able to prototype applications much faster using NoSQL solutions. I think a good approach is to "sketch" your app with NoSQL and once things start to stabilize move to an RDBMS.

This is what tooling is for: Define your entities, and generate a wrapper around a datastructure is for, just like you would do with Doctrine and PHP.

Change your entity? Regenerate the wrapper and generate a migration.

Problem still is: Nobody is writing tooling for WebSQL. Everybody just seems to automatically grab NoSQL, throwing away 30 years of built up software developing knowledge, including the golden rules of Database Normalisation: Don't duplicate your data, and compartmentalize.

Re: NoSQL No More

#47

Post by frik »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #41
frik wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In HTML5 we are stuck with NoSQL (IndexedDB), Mozilla refused to implement WebSQL. Safari, Chrome and Opera implement WebSQL using the public domain SQLite library. This means WebSQL is available on almost all smartphones/tablets and on the majority of PCs. Btw. Mozilla implemented their "NoSQL" IndexedDB on top of SQLite in the first place. Various features like bookmarks are also stored in a SQLite database. As wel…

Serious question -- why do you need SQL in the web browser? It seems like for the amount of data a person is likely to store locally, it's not worth it. But I'm open to being proven otherwise.

Short: WebSQL enables more powerful web applications. It allows some online features to be used offline.

It's not about SQL it's about a proper relational database with tables, indexes, ACID, etc.

You may remember Google Gears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears ), even back in 2007 one could use the Google Mail (GMail) web interface during a flight, train ride, etc. to read mails, write mails, edit drafts, etc. As soon as the connection had reestablished the data synced between client and server. Later Google rewrote it to HTML5.

There was a trend to move everything to the "cloud". But with the arise of peer-to-peer web applications (WebRTC, etc) and thanks to the bad NSA news we need good client side cache and data storage APIs.

I haven't seen a SQL library as shim on top of IndexedDB. It would be pervert anyway as IndexedDB is implemented on top of SQLite in Firefox.

I would like to ask Mozilla to finally implement WebSQL. With a relational database, more powerful web applications with optional offline support would be possible.

Re: NoSQL No More

#48

Post by rogerbinns »

SchizoDuckie wrote: post #30
visarga wrote: post #8

I'm sorry but all I need can be handled by simple key/value stores, and I prefer the simplicity of JSON data structures, without predefined fields.

That is all perfect until your project has matured into 2, 3, or 5 years old and you need to do patches and migrations. Or how about you have to transfer your project to another developer? I bet he/she'll be happy not having a spec of what's in where, when!

Those can just as easily be screwed up in relational databases. For example getting the schema wrong, or only updating it by accretion (adding new tables).

A developer being below average (as half of all developers are), using the wrong tool for the job, not understanding things etc will make a mess. A claim that developers can screw things up is uninteresting (and true).

A claim that there is no scenario in which a "NoSQL" database is the better solution is a lot more interesting, and requires more than "some developers could screw it up" to substantiate.

Re: NoSQL No More

#49

Post by SchizoDuckie »

frik wrote: post #47
acjohnson55 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question -- why do you need SQL in the web browser? It seems like for the amount of data a person is likely to store locally, it's not worth it. But I'm open to being proven otherwise.

Short: WebSQL enables more powerful web applications. It allows some online features to be used offline. It's not about SQL it's about a proper relational database with tables, indexes, ACID, etc. You may remember Google Gears ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears ), even back in 2007 one could use the Google Mail (GMail) web interface during a flight, train ride, etc. to read mails, write mails, edit drafts, e…

I would immediately support this. This conversation needs to be started again. I'm gonna ping some people on twitter.

I've just searched for a WebSQL on IndexedDB adapter yesterday and it's certainly possible, but it's a nightmare from the perspective of any sane person. This polyfill I found runs SQLite compiled with CLANG to javascript, which means running 2MB of javascript to support something that they already support 'under the hood'. I refuse to work with that.

https://github.com/Philzen/WebSQL-Polyfill

Re: NoSQL No More

#50

Post by fidotron »

jeffdavis wrote: post #43
fidotron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the Hadoop users are in the right ballpark. Not necessarily that stack, but that approach to things, and the problems they are attacking, especially graph based data. My broader point is that if your project fits into pgSQL then you need another unique selling point and the data functions are just an implementation detail of some other aspect of your offering, whereas for many of the people not using that ki…

I'm trying to follow this reasoning. I guess the idea is that if a system has a smaller market share, then it's less likely to be used by your competitors, and can therefore offer a competitive advantage. Is that right? That doesn't make sense to me because it only really applies when there is a high likelihood of competitors using one product but not the other. Although postgres is doing great, in most markets it's…

That's not quite my reasoning, so I'll try again!

pgSQL does what it does easily enough that it reduces the barriers to entry to such a level for traditional RDBMS workloads (which there are plenty of) that such workloads are simply not economically worth pursuing (especially for startups) except as small components in larger systems where the value add is elsewhere. The "other" world of big data/time series/graphs/nosql is hard to get right, and so is worth more, as if you crack it someone else copying you is decidedly non-trivial, meaning that it alone can form the core of a successful business.

This is a bit like what the web people are trying to do in mobile, where if HTML5 was magically the best cross platform mobile deployment option when we wake up tomorrow the value of mobile developers will collapse, and the web people will then cease to be remotely excited about mobile.

Post reply on HN