Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by TimJYoung on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14248159)
Schema changes, and how they affect up-time, are an implementation detail in relational databases. It's possible to design a relational database engine that doesn't require huge amounts of downtime to alter the schema of large tables. It's all in how the data is stored.
Of course, the reality of the situation is all that matters, and most database engines at that time did not offer such features. So, I don't necessarily fault people for trying to find solutions that simply worked for their needs.
Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by JustSomeNobody on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @10:27AM
(#14246593)
I think it's like everything else, developers see what the top companies are using and think, well, if it works for them it has to be the best (and you can search for "what's the best..." on any developer forum and see what I mean). So in that sense, it's hype driven.
I don't believe this is the best way to decide on a technology.
Many sites and apps found themselves in a situation where they would gladly trade strong consistency, for more performance and eventual consistency.
Further, schema changes for relational databases with billions of rows have to be very carefully orchestrated to avoid downtime. Databases with more flexible schemas allow schema changes more easily (though obviously the code most accommodate the fluid schemas).
Various NoSQL solutions were developed to fill these needs.
Sure, they were overused for a bit (though that fad has basically passed), but they definitely arose to fill a real need.