News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by gaius on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:54AM (#690951)
As others have pointed out, the "no SQL" crowd are invariably MySQL users who have run into the limitations of MySQL but for ideological reasons can't state that the problems they encounter are specific to MySQL.

DB2, Teradata and Oracle users regularly tackle problems 100x larger than MySQL can handle.

Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by TheXenocide on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @03:44PM (#692276)
I beg to differ; the company I'm at now had SAN representatives saying that they've never seen a non-SAN DB push as many IOPS as ours was before we started exploring scalability solutions and I'm still rather compelled by the potential of "no SQL" solutions, thanks. Oh, and no, we're not using MySQL or any other open source DB for that matter, so maybe it's you that has the prejudice here...
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by jmtulloss on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:17AM (#690981)
[citation needed]
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by gaius on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @02:41AM (#691047)
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by jmtulloss on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @02:56PM (#692166)
A press release isn't data. I'd be interested in seeing the comparative results of the trials CERN put Oracle through.

It's not that I don't believe that Oracle can scale better than MySQL, it's just that I haven't seen any convincing data that it can scale so much better that it's worth the cost. I'm no expert, so maybe the data exists. I just haven't seen it.

Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by trezor on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:50AM (#691006)
Agreed. I also fund it hard to sympathize with these startups having ambitions to scale to Google-like sizes, yet are unwilling to pony up cash for a proper database system like Oracle or SQL Server.

Seeing the amount of ugly hacks people are willing to come up with and employ and features they are willing to cut, just to handle trivial loads, kinda makes me think that MySQL can only be considered free if your time is worthless.

Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by gaius on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @03:47AM (#691106)
It's amusing that he thinks master-slave replication is MySQL's killer feature. Didn't IBM have it, umm, 30 years ago?

Also that he says SQL database and not relational database. The whole article reeks of inexperience.

Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by timwiseman on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:54PM (#691837)
I agree with you with a caveat. Everything you say is absolutely true, but remember that many startups are highly focused on conserving cash, and moreso than hacker time.

The retail price (I know discounts can be negotiated, but for a point of reference...) for MS SQL Server Standard edition is $5000, enterprise edition is $25000. I have never had to research Oracle prices but I understand they run even higher.

I worked as an MS SQL Server DBA for a while for a mid-sized company, and I wrote and employed some "ugly hacks" to emulate some of the Enterprise features because management at the time was unwilling/unable to pay for Enterprise Edition.

Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by gaius on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:23PM (#691896)
SQL Server and the rest of the Windows stack are effectively free under the BizSpark programme.
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by rythie on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @09:50AM (#691440)
It seems odd that startups should "pony up" for Oracle or SQL Server when the very company you mention - Google - does not use them to a significant degree. Nor do Yahoo, AOL, Facebook, Digg etc. AFAIK.
Re:SQL Databases Don't Scale by jacquesm on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:12AM (#691183)
yes, because we all know google runs on a 'proper' database system like Oracle or SQL server.

Google is one of those excellent examples of a non-sql datastore that works just fine and seems to blow the socks of anything the competition has come up with to date.