Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What I meant was that, as far as I have seen, the tools that try to replace SQL by some OO intermediary, give you poorer abstractions that limit what you can do. SQL seems clunky, but I think the core is quite well done considering when it comes from.

OTOH a relational relational database doesn't fit all needs. They scale pretty well, but when you get to gigantic data sets, they don't do so well and things like map reduce do a better job. Or cases where you are streaming massive amounts of data and you need performance, not ACID transaction reliability. Actually, we are more in agreement than disagreement.




They scale pretty well, but when you get to gigantic data sets, they don't do so well and things like map reduce do a better job.

I don't think the evidence supports that. See the recent MR vs. parallel DB comparison, for example: http://database.cs.brown.edu/sigmod09/

There isn't a good massively parallel open source SQL implementation right now, but that is just a matter of engineering -- SQL databases have been shown to scale to massive data volumes (e.g. Fox Interactive have ~200 TB of user data in Greenplum, which is a parallel DB based on Postgres).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: