×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Create Database-Hadoop Hybrid

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the try-this-at-home dept.

Databases 122

ericatcw writes "'NoSQL' alternatives such as Hadoop and MapReduce may be uber-cheap and scalable, but they remain slower and clumsier to use than relational databases, say some. Now, researchers at Yale University have created a database-Hadoop hybrid that they say offers the best of both worlds: fast performance and the ability to scale out near-indefinitely. HadoopDB was built using PostGreSQL, though MySQL has also successfully been swapped in, according to Yale computer science professor Daniel Abadi, whose students built this prototype."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

122 comments

Please stop (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773339)

Uber-cheap is not a word, and it doesn't even make sense because you're saying it's "above cheap". Stop making up stupid shit.

Re:Please stop (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773421)

German prepositions do not have direct english equivalents. I suppose being an "Ubermensch" would be talking about the HATS that people wear, since that's what's Over the Mensch (person). Stop getting your panties in a twist over things you're wrong about.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773529)

Oh, hey, nice straw man. "Superior to average cheap" doesn't really make any more sense.

Re:Please stop (4, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773659)

Considering that "Ubermensch" was translatable to "Superman" then "Ubercheap" would be "Supercheap"

It's called a prefix. We use them in the English language. This one has recently been adopted into our language. Pick up the pace or shut up about things you don't know.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773849)

So throwing any mal-adapted prefix on any word is cool by you? Okie dokie. How about: "Double-plus-cheap"? Needlessly tacking on dated modifiers onto words looks mighty lame, doesn't reflect well upon the speaker, and tends to color the listener's perception of the message.

But feel free to keep being a jerk.

Re:Please stop (2, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773883)

Considering that "Ubermensch" was translatable to "Superman" then "Ubercheap" would be "Supercheap"

No, it wouldn't. It would be word soup that any German would find to be awkward. To say something is "super cheap" they would say something like "superpreiswertes" which would literally translate as "super inexpensive". They wouldn't use über in such a situation.

Re:Please stop (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774155)

Word soup? Have you *HEARD* German lately? Most of their speech is made up of huge conglomerations of words and prefixes and suffixes.

For example, the word for CPR in german? Herzkreislaufwiederbelebung (heart-circle-run-again-enlivenment).

Re:Please stop (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774255)

Of sure, German is an extremely over verbose language at times, but the fact of the matter is that CorporateSuit, despite all his blusterings, is about as clueless in German as he tries to claim others are.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774469)

And an asshole, to boot.

Re:Please stop (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774919)

the fact of the matter is that CorporateSuit, despite all his blusterings, is about as clueless in German as he tries to claim others are.

I suppose that all comes from living in Germany for several years, speaking nothing but German with around 1,000 people a week, face to face. I suppose anyone who had gone through such rigors would end up being "clueless" in German as well. All sarcasm aside, perhaps you are more right than you think. Some Germans don't consider Koelsch or Hessisch (the dialects I ended up speaking) to be real German at all (Although they are more understandable than Bayerisch or Frankfurterisch - which is like Hessisch on crack). "Ich bin am lesen", while correct in some dialects, is unacceptible grammar in others.

And adding to the other ways to say "cheap" would be "Ueberaus Billig", "T.I.P." or "sehr guenstig"

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774377)

Well, it's more like heart-bloodcircuit-reanimation. You're purposely splitting things into pieces that are too fine there.

Re:Please stop (2, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#28779893)

Compounds parse easier with correct parantheses: (herz)(kreislauf)(wiederbelebung) or (heart)(circle-run)(re-activation), where each of the bracketed words is itself a common compound. FWIW, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation has more characters than the German term. German and English aren't very different, in fact, in terms of compounds; English also has a huge number of compound words, even though they are often not spelled as a single word: circuit breaker, for instance. As English compounds get increasingly entrenched, the compounds tend to get hyphenated, and eventually they are written as a single word.

Re:Please stop (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774257)

We've been co-opting other language's words into English for a long, long time now. To a growing number US citizens prefixing anything with "uber" is the same as saying "ultra" or "super". You know the saying "it's all over except for the shouting"? Yeah, that's pretty much where this is.

Feel free to mod this entire thread, including the parent, uber off-topic.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774339)

The or Sehr Billig!

Re:Please stop (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#28779911)

You're right that ueber would not conventionally be used as a prefix in this situation, but we weren't talking about the German prefix ueber, but about the English prefix uber, which was adopted from German. The fact that you wouldn't say ueberbillig in German doesn't mean that it's improper to use ubercheap. It makes you sound a bit like an ass, but I would argue that it's in line with other conventional uses of the "uber" in English. To put this in a different perspective, English probably uses the Latin prefix super in situations in which it would not have been used in Latin; or at least if it did, nobody would care.

Comic books won't substitute for reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774149)

Considering that "Ubermensch" was translatable to "Superman" then "Ubercheap" would be "Supercheap"

Considering that you like to talk out your ass, your name would be "shit for brains".

Uber and Super both mean "above", knucklehead. Same proto-indo-european root, in fact.

Re:Comic books won't substitute for reality (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775307)

Uber and Super both mean "above", knucklehead. Same proto-indo-european root, in fact.

Today may just be the day that you learn that a word may have more than one definition. In fact, the word you use "root" refers not just to a word's origin, but it can also refer to a very important part of plants. Do not squander this opportunity. It will open an entire new world of linguistics. I have nothing but hope for the grand future that awaits you and your once-tunneled view of the English language.

Re:Comic books won't substitute for reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28779329)

hang on - how can you use the "words can have more than one meaning" argument to refute his argument without destroying your own in the process?

Re:Please stop (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774305)

Pushing a translation into colloquial English does not make it a model for translation. When I'd first come across ubermensch reading Nietzsche it was described to mean 'overman' [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Please stop (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774441)

"Overcheap" would work, although it would have to be read somewhat ironically since "over" usually has a negative connotation. Anyway the Germans call cell phones "Handys", and really shouldn't complain about what we borrow from their language.

Re:Please stop (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28776835)

If I could tag comments I'd tag 'lol'. We should be able to tag comments, and those comments could be called /twits, in memory of some other service.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773481)

Can you commemt on this system's uber scalability?

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773583)

I'm not sure what is worse. All the fatasses running (hobbling, waddling) around or their attitude of blaming their fatass-ness on everyone and everything but themselves.

Re:Please stop (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773707)

Uber-cheap is not a word, and it doesn't even make sense because you're saying it's "above cheap".

You remind me of my English teachers. Every year they kept saying that "ain't" isn't a word because it's not in the dictionary. Then one day I looked in the dictionary and it was there. The lesson I learned was that humans create words and "rules" of language aren't really rules at all. They are merely traditions. I suppose you think the French are just speaking bad Latin? No, languages change. From Old English to Middle English to Modern English it changed. I bet all along the way there was some know-it-all jackass pedant saying "thither isn't a word!"

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774103)

Uber-cheap is not a word, and it doesn't even make sense because you're saying it's "above cheap".

You remind me of my English teachers. Every year they kept saying that "ain't" isn't a word because it's not in the dictionary. Then one day I looked in the dictionary and it was there. The lesson I learned was that humans create words and "rules" of language aren't really rules at all. They are merely traditions. I suppose you think the French are just speaking bad Latin? No, languages change. From Old English to Middle English to Modern English it changed. I bet all along the way there was some know-it-all jackass pedant saying "thither isn't a word!"

So in other words, a teacher's use of faulty reasoning influenced your views towards language. It sounds like that teacher stuck with literature and grammar because logic was not her strong suit.

What she should have told you is that "ain't" is slang and has a wide reputation for being used by some rather backwards, unsophisticated, uneducated, functionally illiterate people. It is reminiscent of the classic "redneck" stereotype and often goes with it. She should have explained that whether it is right or wrong, people will judge you negatively when you use forms of language that have such associations. That's because when you adopt the speech and/or mannerisms of a group, you are identifying yourself as a member of that group whether or not this was your intention. This might not matter when you're ordering a cheeseburger but could seriously hurt your chances at something like a job interview. That would have been a meaningful explanation that actually communicates the problem she had with your use of this word. It would have been much better than the trivially-falsified faulty reasoning that she gave you.

So-called "ebonics" has similar problems. If the changes to English displayed in this "dialect" did anything to decrease the ambiguity or to increase the expressive power of the language, then I'd have no problem with it. Unfortunatley ebonics does none of these things. It's just a bastardization of an existing language by a group of people who desperately want to stand out and be different, and so is nothing like the "French are not just speaking bad Latin" example that you gave. It's just poor English that is the product of an uneducated socio-economic underclass and there's nothing wrong with saying so, except that saying so doesn't make you want to celebrate it. This is compounded by "political correctness" which means that anyone who points this out, or rejects this and all other forms of insanity and/or stupidity for the sake of preserving a cultural identity that refuses to assimilate, is branded a "racist" no matter how well-founded his objection may be. This institutionalized madness goes as far as "teaching ebonics" as a "second language" in public schools.

Right now mainstream "black America" regards itself as living in a "white country" and resents it. It therefore wants to have its own counter-culture that flies in the face of the prevailing culture. It then gets surprised and angry when this results in opposition, and demands that its counterculture be accepted unopposed and that only a racist would not wish to do so. The easiest way to help black-white race relations would be for the majority of black people to realize that America was supposed to be a melting-pot, and that they can assimilate into America the same way that the Scottish, Irish, French, British, Chinese and others have done (nothing racial about it). You know what all of those other groups have in common? They can all come to this country "fresh off the boat" and within one generation their children can speak perfect English and otherwise cannot be distinguished from other Americans except for their physical appearance. That's because they understand that it's silly to live in America when you don't want to be an American.

What we're doing right now is making us become Balkanized. For some reason, people are surprised when this contributes greatly to racial tensions, perhaps because they have this fluffy-bunny Carebear "can't we all just get along" worldview that completely ignores those things that help or hinder people to actually get along. Unfortunately the mainstream "Conservative" mind is afraid to touch this subject, while the mainstream "Liberal" mind can't get over its childish PC Carebear worldview long enough to understand the problem.

Re:Please stop (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775037)

The way I see it, the real question should be "does it increase the ambiguity of the language or decrease it's expressive power?". As long as someone understands what is being said (with slang like "ain't" that has been in use long enough so it is widely known) then I don't see a problem with it. We may become, somewhat Balkanized in the short-term, but, hopefully, this will serve to get those conservatives used to living in a pluralistic society and will wear down some of their xenophobia. I see the real problem as being the mindset of fearing anyone that talks differently from you. Sure, a little of it is natural but we have been way past that point for a long time and it's something that the US, as a culture, should train itself away from.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28777929)

The way I see it, the real question should be "does it increase the ambiguity of the language or decrease it's expressive power?". As long as someone understands what is being said (with slang like "ain't" that has been in use long enough so it is widely known) then I don't see a problem with it. We may become, somewhat Balkanized in the short-term, but, hopefully, this will serve to get those conservatives used to living in a pluralistic society and will wear down some of their xenophobia. I see the real problem as being the mindset of fearing anyone that talks differently from you. Sure, a little of it is natural but we have been way past that point for a long time and it's something that the US, as a culture, should train itself away from.

There's a difference though between a culture that really does have its own independent traditions and its own unique ways, and a culture that is merely an uneducated bastardization of an existing one born of a desperate need to maintain a separate identity based on people who look like you do. Right now, too many American blacks have bought into that second category. Meanwhile, everybody thinks this is about race and they don't seem to understand it's about culture.

Re:Please stop (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773725)

Since a high price is above a low price, "above cheap" means "expensive".

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773891)

That's only true if you order by price desc.

Re:Please stop (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#28776659)

Uber doesn't mean 'above' in popular parlance, its an absolute measure of greatness. Therefore 'uber' cheap would refer to more cheapness.

Re:Please stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28777371)

Leopold, is that you?

PostGreSQL (4, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773349)

It's PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] ... but I sympathize with the mixed case confusion and refer you to this Postgres vs PostgreSQL permathread [postgresql.org] .

Re:PostGreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28776205)

Raspberries to the PostgreSQL project for settling on a name with a pronunciation that's counterintuitive and difficult. For the life of me, I want to say post-gray-sequel every time I see it, not post-gress-cue-ell.

If it works as described it will be VERY important (2, Interesting)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773371)

If both the performance and scalability is as good as described I can safely say that this is the most important thing of the decade and not only for DBMS.
Handling large portions of data would get cheaper by an order of magnitude at least and scaling out would be way cheaper than now as well. I do hope it's true.

Re:If it works as described it will be VERY import (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773417)

It won't deliver. In the mean time for those of us living and working in the real world, hard-drives will be bigger and faster, file systems will get better, and SSDs will start to shit all over spinning platters.

Re:If it works as described it will be VERY import (1)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773497)

It it will deliver it will change much. Not for your average blogger with a $10 hosting, wordpress and all his 100 readers but for all the folks that have sites successful enough to go beyond that a single DB server can deliver. Now you have to work really, really hard to make it all work with replication as pretty much no free CMS offers data sharding. Now you won't have to. Just get a DB cluster (as a service) that works out of the box with none/very little modification to the software you are using. The wall that they currently hit at the point they have to invest loads of money to continue growth will be gone.

Re:If it works as described it will be VERY import (3, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773795)

I can't say I'm looking forward to bigger, faster, shit-covered platters...but hey. Who am I to stand in the way of progress?

What about Essbase? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773383)

I thought Essbase was supposed to be one of the best databases for managing too much information. Is this supposed to be an alternative, or act as something in-between using Essbase and a mysql server?

Re:What about Essbase? (1)

hemp (36945) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775085)

Transaction speed has never been high point of Essbase, nor storing anything but numerical data.

Changes to the data are not reflected immediately except in the lowest level members until it is re-calculated. It is not unusual to find calc scripts that run for 8+ hours.

Can it scale to hold Obama's broken promises? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773437)

Gitmo review delayed 6 months [washingtontimes.com]

Yep, Obama's letting his promise to close down the Gitmo camp slide.

Just like he's following George W. Bush's same schedule to withdraw from Iraq.

HOPE AND CHANGE!!!

Typical (1)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773439)

The grad students do all the work, and the professor takes all the credit. Anyone can come up with ideas, the real work is in actually getting things done. This is the reason I stopped grad school with my MS even though I LOVE computer science, more than anyone i've ever met.

Re:Typical (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773847)

I hate to disagree with you ... but ....

Anyone can come up with ideas is true, HOWEVER not all ideas are GOOD ones. The problem with coming up with GOOD ideas is often people don't have a basic understanding of the problem or the implications of various ways of implementing an idea.

Getting people to do the work is often not quite as easy as it seems. First you have to have qualified people. They have to be motivated to actually complete the work given.

As for degree programs at schools and such, a MS is nothing more than a piece of paper ascribing practical and theoretical knowledge of a certain level. MS (MA) degree shows an extra two years of mastery that a BS does not. Employers like MS degrees over BS degrees because they also take extra initiative (goal setting) that a regular BS degree doesn't.

I'm not sure what good a MS degree is after say 5 or 10 years in a career, other than being a feather in a cap.

I take a look at what I know, verses what I knew graduating college, and I know substantially more, and more practical knowledge, things that no MS piece of paper can show. However, I cannot quantify or qualify my knowledge other than my work experience.

I recently had a week of training that was completely useless for me. I already either knew, or didn't need to know to do my job, and the material I didn't know I could have learned on my own, should the need arise.

That being said, I am going to go get that MS paper now (25 years after college), so that if and when I need to look for job, I have that feather in my cap. It seems fairly important to those people doing hiring.

 

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774603)

They're fucking Yale students. Getting them to produce quality work is like getting the sun to rise in the morning. You just sit back and watch it happen.

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28775451)

They're fucking Yale students. Getting them to produce quality work is like getting the sun to rise in the morning. You just sit back and watch it happen.

Damn right, just like George W. Bush!
Mission accomplished.

Re:Typical (1)

grepya (67436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775721)

I take a look at what I know, verses what I knew graduating college, and I know substantially more, and more practical knowledge, things that no MS piece of paper can show.

Does your extensive post-collegiage learning include constructing a multi-clause sentence in the English language (..and I wouldn't even mention the spelling error) ? Ordinarily I wouldn't be an asshole about this except you screwed up the exact sentence where you're bragging about your amazing skills, acquired over a long professional career. And whatever that career might be, writing a readable sentence in your main language is a basic skill (and I know you're an American from your other posts).

Re:Typical (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778043)

Can't spell worth shit, doesn't negate my intelligence. I know idiots who spell perfectly. I know very intelligent people who spell well, and idiots who can't spell like me. Spelling is NOT a sign of intelligence nor education level.

And I didn't know I was going to be "graded" on a spur of the moment post to a web log. Had I known you were a lurking grammar nazi, I would have proofread my post more carefully. Perhaps even hiring someone to draft(write) it for me to post as my own.

Knowing my weaknesses (spelling) is a strength. That, and I don't become a grammar nazi, who misses the point while nitpicking.

I seem to have made it through college without much of a hassle with either issue you seem to point out. I wonder what that says about the college system or even the "American" Education system?

The SQL language is also an issue (4, Insightful)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773465)

Scalability is one thing, but what we appreciate in SQL-free databases is also that they don't require SQL.

When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement, and way cheaper than using an ORM.

The Tokyo Cabinet API is absolutely excellent in this regard. And there's no need to learn yet another domain-specific language like SQL, just use the language you use for the rest of the app.

Now, SQL-zealots would troll "but how would you do with ?".
And yes, for complex requests as in data mining, SQL and XPath make sense. For people who aren't developpers, SQL makes sense as well. For interoperability with 3rd-party apps, SQL is also useful, just as FAT is still useful today in order to share filesystems between operating systems.

But for the rest of us, SQL is cumbersome. Databases like MongoDB make you achieve similar results in a more natural way instead of forcing you to learn SQL and to rethink everything in a tabular way.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773589)

Is there something terribly dangerous about parameterized queries?

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773679)

That they normally take two RTs?

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773683)

When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement, and way cheaper than using an ORM.

"Cheaper" in what sense? You can't mean cost, as I'm not aware of ORMs introducing any cost overhead. So presumably you mean the cost of marshaling the data between SQL and your object model.

So, how, pray tell, do these new magical DBs convert the stored data to/from objects that your software can consume? Do they not marshal at some level? And if so, how is it that they're any cheaper than an ORM layer built over a relational database?

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778923)

Marschaling is still required, but you don't need to think about being restricted to a schema, columns, types, to define identifiers for everything, to do explicit joins, etc. Just store your objects as they are in memory.
Look at MongoDB: http://www.mongodb.org/ [mongodb.org]

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773709)

I would argue that all solutions that currently exist for databases are ideal for some specific set of problems AND some specific set of users for each problem within that initial set.

There is no "perfect" solution that will work for all types of data, be it a flatfile structure, a hierarchical structure, a relational structure, object-oriented or some combination of those. (The star-structure of OLAP databases is a hybrid, for example.)

What would be good is if there was a suitable metalanguage in which you could define an abstract idea of the search and have a source-to-source compiler turn that into a suitable specific solution for the type of database in use, or even the specific database engine itself.

(There are some nice tools for producing specific database SQL queries out of an abstract definition, but I know of nothing that can cross database design methodologies.)

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

Underfoot (1344699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773907)

I would just like to state for the record, that IMHO SQL is a beautiful thing. Its ease of interoperability (both between languages and backends) has saved my butt on numerous occasions (not to mention the ease with which you can go from very simple to very complex depending on the need of your application) ...
 
...and you can get rid of it and replace it with OOP when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

SQL is legacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774729)

Take a look at Intersystems Cache

Fastest object database in existence

Fastest SQL database in existence

Learn how it works and you will see how SQL is nothing more than a mighty kludge

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28778757)

Yes, SQL is a beautiful thing. It's Microsoft Excel without any UI.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774047)

When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement, and way cheaper than using an ORM.

Yes, I'm an SQL troll, but ... if using SQL to get a row by a unique ID is too hard for you and too insecure, there is no amount of code which is going to fix your problem, which is that you are a shitty developer who is far too lazy to make a function or macro to wrap around the simple sql request.

There are PLENTY of reasons to not like SQL, but your example is so simplistic that it just makes me think the problem you have is you, not what the database backend is or how its used.

As far as being forced to think of your data in a tabulare way due to using SQL, you think this is a bad thing. It isn't. Its retarded that you're going to use an SQL backend anyway, and then try to think of the data in some other form. Adding some silly layer on top to make it easier for you to understand just indicates you're too lazy to understand your own data and how to use it efficiently.

I hate when people make stupid posts like yours. I end up sounding like an SQL fanboy and I don't even fucking like it.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774191)

When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement

What's so hard about building a wrapper function for the times you want simple:

function getRecord(int id) {
  return(query("select * from foo where id=%", id));
}

And you'd still have SQL for the times you want fancier stuff.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778937)

"id" is MP3 data. How do I find the title of the song? Will your 3 liners do the trick?
In a document-oriented database id wouldn't be an issue. No need for any wrapper.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (4, Insightful)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774475)

"a record, calling get(id)"

So you're relating "id" to "a record." I assume that the record in question is a blob of potentially binary data that your program parses however it wants. So you want to relate unique identifiers to blobs. You can do that quite easily with SQL. Looking up a given unique identifier quickly is something your average relational database is very good at. And writing the wrapper function to implement your hypothetical get() function is trivial in most languages. I'm completely at a loss for what your SQL-free database is offering me in this case. It's saving you from the horror of writing 10 lines of code, once, to implement get(in)? 60 minutes with a good SQL tutorial will teach you everything you need to know. Sure, there is a lot more you can learn, but for the simple case you're describing you can understand SQL at only the most simple level.

Or are you handwaving the "a record" is actually automatically squeezed into one or more variables or objects in your code? You say get("ChaosDiscord") and out pops the UserObject populated with the relevant information. Of course, at this point you need to start teaching you database, or at least your database wrapper, how your objects are structured, and how to serialize them. This is admittedly a bit of a nuisance, but an SQL-free database doesn't magically make the problem go away. Sure, an SQL-free database can provide a layer to simplify or automate it, but so can a layer on an SQL database (Ruby on Rails is perhaps the best known). Sure, you'll need to tell it that username is a string, userid is an integer, and so on, but you only have to say it once in SQL instead of in your program. The total work hasn't gone up.

Ultimately, you appear to be complaining that SQL is too powerful (and thus complex) for your needs. But you can easily learn and use a subset of SQL that corresponds to what you claim you're looking for in an SQL-free database! You might as well complain that Java is too powerful it has thousands of classes you don't need. The time to learn the relatively minor amount of SQL you need is insignificant compared to the time to develop any non-trivial application. If even that hour is too much, you can outsource the work to a geeky college student for some pizza and soda.

There are some compelling reasons to look at SQL-free databases, but "SQL is too powerful" isn't one.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778727)

Some people are able to grasp new concepts and others cant???

I'll get off your lawn now.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774811)

You are opposed to SQL because you aren't used to it. It isn't cumbersome for those of us who are used to it. One person's burden is easy for another.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28776005)

When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement, and way cheaper than using an ORM.

So you write your app, as programmers do, and you treated the DB like a filing cabinet, as programmers do. Then when the product has been in production use for a while, the boss rings you and says: "We need to know the daily distribution of payments since the new system came on-line. When can you get that for us?" And *you* say, "No problem! I'll just write a Java/Ruby/Whatever program to trawl through every record in our database, do the calculations procedurally and print the result. It'll only take a couple of weeks to do that. Oh, but we'll have to run it over the weekend because it'll kill the server."

Then your *boss* will say, "You're fired." And you'll deserve it, because you failed to realise that in almost all serious applications, the data you work with is the reason the application exists - not the other way around

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28778795)

Looks like you never dealt with denormalized and sharded data.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778881)

Actually it's quite the opposite. For any complex task, writing a script for MongoDB, CouchDB or TC/TT is way easier and faster than an unbearable 100-lines SQL statement, that even you are unable to understand the day after. Plus it's able to get things that just can't be written as an SQL query.
And your "we'll have to run it over the weekend because it'll kill the server" is also why when you need to extract stuff out of a large dataset, you write a script to process data in chunks, not a single SQL statement. If SQL is so wonderful and the answer to everything, why do stored procedures exist?

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (2, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#28776673)

I understand putting another API above SQL to make it simpler to use, but avoiding using SQL because its powerful makes no sense.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chez69 (135760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28777021)

Not to be a troll, but this sure sounds a lot like IMS. Write a program to analyze the data.

some mainframers would be laughing their asses off.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778241)

And there's no need to learn yet another domain-specific language like SQL,

SQL, "domain specific"? Wow. I am taken aback. Over 30 years of coding, I think SQL is singlehandedly the most productive addition to the development environment I can think of since the compiler. There are a lot of reasons that using a SQL database might not make sense (small platform, single user, low cost, small required footprint, etc) but domain specificity isn't on my list. I can't think of a less domain specific development technology out there.

If you are working with piles of data, SQL is much easier, and generally much faster in both development time and execution time than what you'd cobble up in code. It hides the details of storage from your app, which is usually a Pretty Good Thing. Apps that use SQL can be readily written to scale from small to quite large environments, without significant code changes. I don't know why you'd want to give these benefits up.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28778635)

I can not agree more. I started working with RDBMS on dBaseII in the early 80's. While everything else has changed the principals of relational database management have remained consistently relevant and true. ref: Edgar F. Codd [wikipedia.org]

 

"For people who aren't developpers, SQL makes sense as well."

WTF! I think that ranks as one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on slashdot!

Howewver, it probably explains all the D3v31opr#s who write incredible underperforming and insecure PHP websites because they don't bother to learn some basic SQL.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778965)

> WTF! I think that ranks as one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on slashdot!

Tons of people aren't exactly writing PHP websites, but are still able to install vbulletin, phpbb, phpnuke, joomla, wordpress on mutualised hosting. And then they fire phpmyadmin in order to remove bogus users, to count the number of posts or visits, etc. SQL perfectly makes sense for this.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28778735)

Talked about "records" and "id" because people familiar with SQL might not be familiar with other kind of databases, but you took it the wrong way.

Now, ask Google. How many critical vulnerabilities were due to SQL injections? How many similar vulnerabilities were found in SQL-free databases?

I agree with you that workarounds do exist, and that developpers are to blame instead of SQL, but in the real world, SQL is how a lot of services are compromised by kiddies.

Why do we need to invent wrappers?
Why do tools like GreenSQL exist?
Why do we need ORMs?
Why does a stock PHP have 5 different APIs just to issue basic MySQL queries?
Why are there hundreds of third-party PHP abstraction layers and ORMs?
How come every PHP project reinvents yet another SQL abstraction layer?
How come, even though both are using the same SQL database server, it's a real hell to merge code of a PHP application with another PHP application, because they invented their own abstraction layers?
Why do people want to hide SQL at the first place (even Apple in newer iPhone SDKs)?

Maybe just because there's something wrong with the SQL language itself.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (1)

growse (928427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28779249)

SQL injection vulnerabilities don't exist because of the database, they exist because of the crappy programmer who doesn't know how to use the database being let loose writing production code. It's a bit like saying "Lets blame the internet for Cross-site scripting vulnerabilities!".

And there's nothing wrong with SQL. There's a lot wrong with people who think SQL will solve every single problem under the sun. Unfortunately, those people seem to be employed writing 3rd-party abstraction layers and ORMs.

Re:The SQL language is also an issue (2, Insightful)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 4 years ago | (#28779385)

The answers to those questions will say a whole lot about why PHP sucks, but very little about SQL.

in particular:

Why does a stock PHP have 5 different APIs just to issue basic MySQL queries?

Because the PHP developers have re-invented the wheel five times and still haven't figured out it's not supposed to have sharp corners. Nothing to do with SQL. Perl's DBI is a good example of a database abstraction layer done right.

Unobligatory Monty Python Reference (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 4 years ago | (#28779187)

And yes, for complex requests as in data mining, SQL and XPath make sense. For people who aren't developpers, SQL makes sense as well. For interoperability with 3rd-party apps, SQL is also useful, just as FAT is still useful today in order to share filesystems between operating systems.

But for the rest of us....

Sorry, but could not help thinking but to this line from "Life of Brian":

But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

More seriously, if the main example of the trouble with SQL is that you want to be able to find a record by id with less keystrokes, I do not see how this can be so much of a problem.

Herpes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773649)

Herpes

MySQL? (3, Funny)

trisweb (690296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28773711)

No offense to the creators (well, maybe some offense) but why the heck would you want to put MySQL in where PostgreSQL already was? That's like taking out your star quarterback and putting in, well, me!

Re:MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28773831)

brett farve retired because he grew beyond his bones capacity.

you are fresh and squishy. here is your helmet.

Re:MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774139)

Actually, I was thinking the exact opposite: what a shame that the project was based on a failed platform with no market share and even less market relevance. I was excited about using 10 years' worth of mysql code in a cloud environment.

Re:MySQL? (3, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774363)

MySQL has its fan boys from circa 1994-2001. During this period, the MySQL license was much more permissive, and gained a certain momentum from PHP that carries it through to this day. At the same time, PostgreSQL was still using Cygwin on Windows, the INSTALL had a table of contents, and was lacking performance enhancements (particularly on Windows). Eventually Cygwin was dropped and the threading was happy on windows, and the performance enhancements were good. Along with this came a much shorter INSTALL file and all reason to use MySQL had disappeared. But once you know something, people like to keep on using it. Then MySQL got things like triggers, foreign key constraints and full ACID compliance. So in the end it ended being a wash. However, and not to start a flame war, it seems that PostgreSQL, having been feature-complete (ACID, foreign keys, etc) maintained a performance edge. But also to this day MySQL has a very fast table implementation, provided you don't need things like ACID compliance. For a variety of applications, this is "good enough" and the trade-offs of feature completeness vs performance are worth it. Disclaimer: I have used both extensively in the past. I prefer PostgreSQL, but now use neither. Now I only do SQLite (embedded tables) or Oracle (for hot replication).

Re:MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28777231)

MySQL has its fan boys from circa 1994-2001. During this period, the MySQL license was much more permissive, and gained a certain momentum from PHP that carries it through to this day. At the same time, PostgreSQL was still using Cygwin on Windows, the INSTALL had a table of contents, and was lacking performance enhancements (particularly on Windows). Eventually Cygwin was dropped and the threading was happy on windows, and the performance enhancements were good. Along with this came a much shorter INSTALL file and all reason to use MySQL had disappeared. But once you know something, people like to keep on using it. Then MySQL got things like triggers, foreign key constraints and full ACID compliance. So in the end it ended being a wash.

However, and not to start a flame war, it seems that PostgreSQL, having been feature-complete (ACID, foreign keys, etc) maintained a performance edge. But also to this day MySQL has a very fast table implementation, provided you don't need things like ACID compliance. For a variety of applications, this is "good enough" and the trade-offs of feature completeness vs performance are worth it.

Disclaimer: I have used both extensively in the past. I prefer PostgreSQL, but now use neither. Now I only do SQLite (embedded tables) or Oracle (for hot replication).

Oh shit... I will never use a DB that makes me stop everything to do vacuum cleaning. NEVER!
When you do millions of writes everyday it's simply unuseable.

It's everyone blind? Or for some strange reason it's only me that the vacuum cleaning lasted like 2 hours everyday? My Hardisk have too many corners?
I tend to use SQL only when it's super necessary, ACID is an scholastic myth and foreign keys have only sense inside SQL (Or as a notation).
SO
If for having that I have to stand a DB is blocking my database 2hours each day, and going slower for anything else that uber coplex join select querys that only the people eligible to use haddoop will use, then sorry.
I choose MySQL

Bits of software are tools.. (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774915)

We might create the software intending it to do and be used in one way, but how it will actually be used is determined by the users. Postgre and MySQL don't carry any intrinsic values, only the values which their users discover and, well, use. Without users they have no good or bad features.

So why is it that people feel the need to rally around or defend them? After all, only the developers who have done the work are capable of understanding the snips and criticism leveled against them, and these are the people who have given their work away, to you and me.

MySQL excels at some things. Postgre also excels at some things. If users feel there is too much overlap then they can work to reproduce these features in a single tool, such as Postgre should they feel it has more utility. But to discount a tool many people find useful shows a core misunderstanding of what it is that determines the software's value.

Postgre can not be better then MySQL, it can only provide varying degrees of value. And that value is determined by the user.

Re:Bits of software are tools.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28775807)

fuck you and your balanced argumentation

Re:Bits of software are tools.. (1)

photon317 (208409) | more than 4 years ago | (#28776037)

I've used both pretty extensively in a wide variety of environments, and I don't take such a balanced view at all. IMHO, the best answer to most database-related problems is to use PostgreSQL or SQLite. MySQL sits somewhere between them in terms of reliability, scalability, ACIDity, etc, and kinda fails at being good at anything in particular. For that matter, even if you *like* where MySQL lies on those tradeoffs, compared to either of the other two mentioned products (especially Pg), the quality of the code and the development process both flat-out suck, and are very amateurish in places by comparison. The only reason I use it anymore is for applications that require it and haven't been ported to PostgreSQL or SQLite (as appropriate) yet.

And that was before all the fiasco in recent years with Oracle buying Innobase, then Oracle buying Sun which had bought MySQL, and the several emerging MySQL forks, etc... which doesn't leave me feeling great about the future of MySQL if I were starting a new project today.

This technology already exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28774617)

Intersystems Cache

"World's fastest Object Database"

Re:This technology already exists (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775919)

And how much more than "Free" does it cost?

Re:This technology already exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28777481)

Where does the word "free" appear in the above article?

Consider the value of the data and the value of software development effort when you throw around the word "free"

Re:This technology already exists (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28777771)

Not sure what you were talking about, but hadoop and postgres are open source. Unless they're stupid, they wouldn't make the resulting product closed source.

I'm not going to make the whole free software pitch here, but lets just say I believe in the superiority of the development process and the end product through my experiences developing and using software.

I have no confidence in Intersystems Cache's long term survival.

Yaaaaay (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 4 years ago | (#28774713)

(In my best Special Ed impersonation)

Yaaaaaay, now we can scale out Hadoop! Yaaaaay! Yaaaay Hadoop! Yaaaaay!

Give me their hands!!! (0, Offtopic)

eronysis (928181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28775089)

I firmly believe that any and all patents involving any naturally occurring human process or material should be abolished. Furthermore, some of those attorneys should be seeding our first body bank (nod to Niven and Pohl).

you fail It... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28776499)

You got there. Or Jesus up The Dim. If *BSD is declined in market

try cloudbase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28778277)

Taken from cloudbase's user doc (http://cloudbase.sourceforge.net/index.html#userDoc): CloudBase is a high-performance data warehouse system that scales horizontally on commodity hardware or a cloud computing network. It is developed by Business.com and released to open source community under GNU GPL licence 2.0 Built on top of a Hadoop's map-reduce architecture, CloudBase enables business analysts using ANSI SQL to directly query large-scale log files arising in web site, telecommunications or IT operations. But, unlike other map-reduce approaches, it does not create or require the use of a programming language on top of map-reduce.

ummm no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28778817)

for many reasons in many hadoop use cases schemas are not usable. saying but we need schemas for performance is fail. also this is not a fair comparison. vertica uses compression. others do not. this is biased beyond imagination.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...