On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Jeffrey Jose <jeffjosej...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Its kinda true that noSQL started as 'death to everything that's SQL'. As > things got matured people realized noSQL is not a replacement but another > tool in developers toolbox to solve problems. > > And that's the reason some people dont ever use the term 'noSQL' because it > sounds like 'No SQL' and if they must they say 'noSQL' stands for 'not only > SQL' and not what it sounds. > > /jeff > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <nou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 12 2011, Santosh Rajan wrote: > > > > > My 2 cents before you jump into the nosql bandwagon. > > > > > > 1) If sql works for you, stick with it. RDBMS's like postgeSQL, MySQL > > > will not wake you up in the middle of the night with a crash. > > > 2) If you have scaling problems, add some horse power to you hardware, > > > battery backed RAID, and solid state hard drives are good for you. > > > (Prices have come down in the last year or two). > > > 3) Disk space is cheap. Avoid joins while using sql as far as > > > possible. Create additional table to do your indexing and grouping. > > > 4) And if you still think you need nosql, god help you. > > > > [...] > > > > One of the things mentioned during the event was collecting logs from > > remote sites that have only access to the net for a short while every > > day. A data store like couch which works by appending documents is ideal > > for collecting log output. You keep dumping logs into it (over a local > > connection) and when you have access to the internet, you replicate all > > the local databases to a master couch database. I liked the idea and > > think it's an interesting way to approach the problem of synchronising > > logs. > > > > NoSQL databases are interesting and while RDBMs have their own > > applications, a lot of possiblities open up with document stores. To > > view them *purely* as alternatives to relational databases is, in my > > opinion, missing the point. > > > > >From your last point, I take it that you feel that one shouldn't even > > consider noSQL databases and somehow spend money and time squeezing > > performance out of relational databases. That reminds me of people who > > refuse to try out new languages and technologies and make engineering > > decisions and stick to, say, COBOL. > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > BangPypers mailing list > > BangPypers@python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > > > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > Thought I will pick your brains on this. We are archiving a lot of information, some message format very similar to email in structure, through its not an RFC complaint format. Presently we are storing some basic seachable details in a data base, and the physical file is in a SAN box, with the location of file also in the database. It's fine now, but we are expecting the client to generate a few TB of information over the next 2 years. Does this make a good case of using NoSQL. Also I remember someone saying that NOSQL stuff like MongoDB does a miss a document once in a while. -- Ramdas S +91 9342 583 065 _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
