HartleySan Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 As per a discussion I had with Matt (a fellow poster on this forum) last night, it looks like a lot of companies are looking past the relational database these days for high-end, highly scalable systems. The following article talked about the possible successor to the relational database, and I thought it worth sharing here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php Would love to hear all your comments. I will hold back on sharing my own comments until some other people post their own comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 That's a pretty good article, discussing the developments, pros, and cons, well. In a newsletter a couple back, I posted about MongoDB, which is another non-relational database (I don't think the article uses the term "NoSQL", which is for the best as it's a misnomer). I think the key is that non-relational databases scale better than relational ones but there's a higher risk of data corruption. In my experience, and this may sound blasphemous, most sites don't need to worry about scaling at all. In 12 years, I've worked on maybe one project that I really had to develop with scaling in mind. Only maybe 1-2% of all Web sites will ever see the traffic where not being scaled properly will impact them. I'm not saying developers should be indifferent to this criteria, but it's like buying a car because it can go 140 MPH instead of 120: it's not likely to matter. The New York Times, for example, is using MongoDB for part of their site, but the NYT is probably a top 100 or top 300 site. Conversely, data integrity is an issue for every site. I would be very, very hesitant to compromise data integrity for any reason. I'm not saying that these non-relational databases aren't useful, and I do think they're worth watching and perhaps learning about, but I'd think carefully, about 20 times over, before embracing a non-relational database over a relational one. Good article. And thanks for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HartleySan Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 Thanks for commenting, Larry. And that's exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking, well, it makes sense for the big boys, like Google and Apple, to use this technology, but for the average developer, does it matter? No, not really. And really, I think you'd need to be the likes of Google and Apple (with some really awesome developers on staff) to ensure that the integrity of data is always, always preserved properly. Anyway, thanks as always for your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathon Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I understand the argument but how many sites can really warrant the use of databases that scale to that kind of level. Yes there are some, like Facebook etc. But most of the millions of websites online just wouldn't warrant that kind of need. However I do feel that NoSQL has become such a buzzword much like web 2.0 was. I have even seen a few adverts for websites to be built using the MongoDB etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HartleySan Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 Yeah, I'm in agreement with you Jonathon. I think for people like us, we can understand when it's appropriate to employ such technologies (which is rare), and when to stick with standard relational databases. However, for the IT managers of the world that don't understand the technology and are easily swayed by buzzwords, I'm sure they'll quickly jump on board with this "new" technology, which guarantees "faster" performance. Honestly, though, the headaches cause by going through all the checks to guarantee the integrity of the data seem to far overweight the benefits in all but the most extreme of cases (e.g., Facebook). Nevertheless, I found the article to be interesting. More than anything, I don't see this as a new technology or idea, but rather something that has become more relevant as disk space is no longer at a premium, and the time needed for a developer to deal with the interface between the application and the database is more valuable than possible integrity issues. But again, I don't really buy the latter argument so much, as interacting between a database and an application is so common these days, I don't think most developers have issues with that, and the new issues that will arise with developers having to deal with data integrity issues they have never experienced before will be mind-boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuflasky Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Nice article HartleySan. It sound very interesting. I would like to tell you that as a beginner, for me is a little confusing because i'm in the process of mastering the data relation even though this type of database sound much more easier then relational database. Thanks for sharing HartleySan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HartleySan Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think you're right, Jorge, in that conceptually, it does sound easier to use than a relational database. That is an advantage, as it saves time for even the most seasoned developers. Basically, it just uses object notation to store everything, so your data is always ready to go. I still think it'll introduce a whole slew (of perhaps not yet known) headaches in regards to data integrity though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts