Re:Why some NoSQL DBs only let you perform transactions on a...
by radicalbyte on Friday October 30, 2015 @08:40AM
(#10477416)
Plus it scales well and doesn't randomly lose data. Oh, and the project leaders are professionals who are honest and transparent about the capabilities of their product.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why some NoSQL DBs only let you perform transactions on a...
by Rezo on Friday October 30, 2015 @08:59AM
(#10477492)
It scales, to a point. In my opinion however, any type of sharding/clustering is still a total mess in PostgreSQL. Most projects will however probably never need to.
Re:Why some NoSQL DBs only let you perform transactions on a...
by Roboprog on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:07PM
(#10478637)
How DARE you, sir, imply that we are not the next "Amazon"!
Kidding aside, I suspect with a little discipline, one could design a PG DB that could be ported to Oracle (Exadata???) should the need, and budget ($$$$$), for that sort of scaling arise. Cheap and safe now, Expensive and safe later (if needed)
Re:Why some NoSQL DBs only let you perform transactions on a...
by Roboprog on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:10PM
(#10478653)
Also, I seem to recall that PG scales up on multiprocessor hardware fairly well (vs say MySQL), so one can explore exhausting that limit first before more drastic measures are taken.