NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
brooker.co.za
NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#2Structure is important, that's where NoSQL fails from the get go. We should stop investing so much time into NoSQL and look more into combining SQL and Graphs
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#3You would think after all these years people would stop using the term NoSQL. They are just databases.
Many of the so-called NoSQL ones like MongoDB or Cassandra can support schemas, transactions, strong consistency, joins, secondary indexes etc. And SQL databases like PostgreSQL support schema-less data structures.
And with Presto, Spark SQL etc you can use SQL with almost any data store.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#4Sure SQL DBs can have all the advantages of NoSQL DBs and then some... but they will never have a lower price tag. And that's because NoSQL DBs use very, very little CPU. All that's needed is giving up reliance on SQL. Design your NoSQL "schema" with this in mind, and you're golden
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#5I don't like NoSQL databases. "NoSQL" should be manna from heaven. It may be impossible to create a less pleasant language than SQL. It isn't composable, it isn't internally consistent, it isn't easy to parse, it claims to be declarative but the ordering of the clauses is completely rigid, it fights every attempt at writing testable or maintainable code. It is hard to read. It is hard to programatically generate. Everyone seems to be trying to develop systems that mean they don't have to write SQL code.
Add all that up and NoSQL should be fine. But then the actual NoSQL databases let people throw out all the concepts that make SQL so sticky. Schemaless databases are in the same class as goto statements - there are people I trust to use them to do amazing things. The projects I inherit to maintain are never written by those people. Transactions and consistency guarantees are necessary to get a group of programmers together writing a reliable application. The relational model is the best idea to come out of database research.
I wish NoSQL was a postgres extension. Instead we get MongoDB advocates. Bless them, but PostgreNoSQL would be so much better for all the use cases I have than MongoBD.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#6I don't like NoSQL databases. "NoSQL" should be manna from heaven. It may be impossible to create a less pleasant language than SQL. It isn't composable, it isn't internally consistent, it isn't easy to parse, it claims to be declarative but the ordering of the clauses is completely rigid, it fights every attempt at writing testable or maintainable code. It is hard to read. It is hard to programatically generate. Eve…
I think the right way to think about NoSQL databases is you have an application where traffic is expected to be heavy enough that it's worth throwing out what SQL gives you for free and having a highly optimized solution where you deal with those problems yourself. Of course, it was a big enough trend that many people jumped on it without having a practical use for it.
Arguably psql does offer a NoSQL-like experience with JSON columns.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#7Structure is important, that's where NoSQL fails from the get go. We should stop investing so much time into NoSQL and look more into combining SQL and Graphs
That seems a little like saying there's no reason for anyone to use a language without GC. Sure, for most applications it is fine.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#8I don't like NoSQL databases. "NoSQL" should be manna from heaven. It may be impossible to create a less pleasant language than SQL. It isn't composable, it isn't internally consistent, it isn't easy to parse, it claims to be declarative but the ordering of the clauses is completely rigid, it fights every attempt at writing testable or maintainable code. It is hard to read. It is hard to programatically generate. Eve…
NoSQL really means NoRDMS. The SQL language, or lack there of, has little to do with it.
The unfortunate naming leads to this kind of confusion. Probably a technology should never be named for what it is not.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#9I don't like NoSQL databases. "NoSQL" should be manna from heaven. It may be impossible to create a less pleasant language than SQL. It isn't composable, it isn't internally consistent, it isn't easy to parse, it claims to be declarative but the ordering of the clauses is completely rigid, it fights every attempt at writing testable or maintainable code. It is hard to read. It is hard to programatically generate. Eve…
> Bless them, but PostgreNoSQL would be so much better for all the use cases I have than MongoBD
And for some of us MongoDB is a better option than PostgreSQL.
Many of us simply can't rely on scalability and high availability being something that isn't part of the core product.
Re: NoSQL: The Baby and the Bathwater
#10You would think after all these years people would stop using the term NoSQL. They are just databases. Many of the so-called NoSQL ones like MongoDB or Cassandra can support schemas, transactions, strong consistency, joins, secondary indexes etc. And SQL databases like PostgreSQL support schema-less data structures. And with Presto, Spark SQL etc you can use SQL with almost any data store.
Just because they support those things does it mean it’s straight forward to use them
Our team had a lot of trouble trying to map highly relational data to a noSQL database (mongo)
It could have been a failing of our team, but I also think it just made our lives way harder. We’re on Postgres now and a lot of issues have faded away.