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

Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

blog.timescale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 310 posts

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#111

Post by 6nf »

jjirsa wrote: post #93
6nf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> damn near impossible for most MySQL users. MySQL? Nobody, and I mean NOBOBY is saying you should use MySQL. All of the things you mention is trivial using a decent SQL solution like PostgreSQL.

Except the person to whom I replied said to use traditional SQL databases: > Traditional SQL databases end up being many times simpler in practice, and because of their inherent scaling limitations, much easier to manage. And most importantly: their implementations aren't buggy.

They mean traditional SQL databases like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, DB2, Oracle etc.

Not MySQL. MySQL has almost none of the important features of a real SQL database management system. Nobody should be using MySQL for anything.

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#112

Post by jjirsa »

6nf wrote: post #111
jjirsa wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the person to whom I replied said to use traditional SQL databases: > Traditional SQL databases end up being many times simpler in practice, and because of their inherent scaling limitations, much easier to manage. And most importantly: their implementations aren't buggy.

They mean traditional SQL databases like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, DB2, Oracle etc. Not MySQL. MySQL has almost none of the important features of a real SQL database management system. Nobody should be using MySQL for anything.

Quick, tell YouTube and Facebook they’ve been doing it wrong all along

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#113

Post by [deleted] »

jjirsa wrote: post #95
6nf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like many people are using petabyte scale databases. This is not even close to true. ESPECIALLY when you're just starting out. Most new projects will start with almost no data at all and the vast majority of projects will never ever get to the petabyte scales.

Many people ARE using petabyte scale databases. They don't start out that way, but they will be if they're successful, and if they're not they probably shouldn't be running their own databases anyway (go RDS it up or something).

[deleted]

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#114

Post by 6nf »

jjirsa wrote: post #112
6nf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean traditional SQL databases like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, DB2, Oracle etc. Not MySQL. MySQL has almost none of the important features of a real SQL database management system. Nobody should be using MySQL for anything.

Quick, tell YouTube and Facebook they’ve been doing it wrong all along

They are NOT using stock-standard MySQL and haven't done so for many years. If you are big enough to make your own programming languages the normal rules do not apply.

And if you ask the Youtube team for a recommendation for your project, they will not point you to MySQL.

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#115

Post by yenwel »

labster wrote: post #109

If SQL is to databases as Javascript is to browsers — ubiquitous and largely standard across the market — are there any languages that transpile to SQL? People in this thread have commented that SQL is clunky, and JS definitely fit that description for a while. So I'm wondering if there are any alternatives that would prove SQL's clunkiness to me.

LINQ?

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#117

Post by evv555 »

labster wrote: post #109

If SQL is to databases as Javascript is to browsers — ubiquitous and largely standard across the market — are there any languages that transpile to SQL? People in this thread have commented that SQL is clunky, and JS definitely fit that description for a while. So I'm wondering if there are any alternatives that would prove SQL's clunkiness to me.

Ecto for Elixir might fit that description. Queries are composable unlike SQL.

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#118

Post by amirouche »

labster wrote: post #109

If SQL is to databases as Javascript is to browsers — ubiquitous and largely standard across the market — are there any languages that transpile to SQL? People in this thread have commented that SQL is clunky, and JS definitely fit that description for a while. So I'm wondering if there are any alternatives that would prove SQL's clunkiness to me.

ORMs transpile to SQL.

Just like JavaScript is not perfect, SQL is not perfect. I would rather have a general purpose programming language like Scheme to run queries against my database.

Re: Why SQL is beating NoSQL, and what this means for the future of data

#119

Post by eberkund »

jjirsa wrote: post #95
6nf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like many people are using petabyte scale databases. This is not even close to true. ESPECIALLY when you're just starting out. Most new projects will start with almost no data at all and the vast majority of projects will never ever get to the petabyte scales.

Many people ARE using petabyte scale databases. They don't start out that way, but they will be if they're successful, and if they're not they probably shouldn't be running their own databases anyway (go RDS it up or something).

Unless the amount of data you are collecting is increasing at a vastly unsustainable rate, you will be making megabucks and be able to afford a team of engineers to undertake a major redesign for version 2. But picking technologies based on scale at the onset is going to make getting to that point all the more unlikely.
Post reply on HN