Beta
×

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!

First Look: Oracle NoSQL Database

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the sneak-peek dept.

Oracle 117

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner takes a first look at Oracle NoSQL Database, the company's take on the distributed key-value data store for the enterprise. 'There are dozens of small ways in which the tool is more thorough and sophisticated than the simpler NoSQL projects. You get a number of different options for increasing the durability in the face of a node crash or trading that durability for speed,' Wayner writes. 'Oracle NoSQL might not offer the heady fun and "just build it" experimentation of many of the pure open source NoSQL projects, but that's not really its role. Oracle borrowed the best ideas from these groups and built something that will deliver good performance to the sweet spot of the enterprise market.'"

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hah, talk about nonstarter (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38077982)

3 minutes and no comments :)

Re:hah, talk about nonstarter (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078170)

Slashdot uses the NoComment database. Comments are passe.

Re:hah, talk about nonstarter (2)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078908)

This just made my day.

Oracle = pain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078040)

Oracle NoSQL might not offer the heady fun and "just build it" experimentation of many of the pure open source NoSQL projects

Oracle databases aren’t about fun, they are about pain. Severe pain. The kind of pain where you scream so loud in your mind at night that it wakes you up. Pain which you only endure if you need the power they offer over all the much more palatable alternatives available, or need support and/or the perception of not using “some freeware database” in the case of large bureaucratic enterprise.

All that said, this actually sounds like a good idea, and from what the article describes, it sounds like a good product. It will of course be painful to use, but I can see this catching on in the “serious performance/reliability” and “large enterprise with compulsive need to spend” groups, especially as NoSQL becomes a buzzword.

Re:Oracle = pain (2, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078104)

No, Oracle databases are about performance and features that other database solutions don't offer. They have always been. "There are dozens of small ways in which the tool is more thorough and sophisticated than the simpler NoSQL projects." not only holds true for this Oracle product, it's true for all their products. Yes, they cost a lot, but also offer things anyone else don't. Your website project will probably be ok with MySQL, but enterprises have different needs.

Re:Oracle = pain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078154)

> but enterprises have different needs

Yes, like PostgreSQL

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

mla_anderson (578539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078204)

Exactly

Re:Oracle = pain (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078456)

That's less like Enterprise and more like Galileo.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

amon (24507) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079178)

Nope. Postgres still requires that the developer and DBA actually talk to each other every once in a while, whereas Oracle does not. That's its primary value.

Re:Oracle = pain (2)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079424)

You haven't used Oracle RAC & ASM then haven't you?

Re:Oracle = pain (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080762)

Yeah, I'm not sure where you get that idea from about dbas and devs not being required to communicate... That's way off...

What kind of world do you think you're living in?

Re:Oracle = pain (3, Informative)

durdur (252098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081364)

Oracle is not "plug and play" for developers, far from it. But it is true that recent versions do a lot of auto-tuning, and you can get reasonable performance with not a lot of work (but that assumes you don't have a truly dumb design, and really high performance requires a DBA, for sure). Oracle's superior locking model also in my experience produces less developer pain that many of the alternatives.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

dave87656 (1179347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082756)

Oracle's superior locking model also in my experience produces less developer pain that many of the alternatives.

What is Oracle's superior locking model?

Re:Oracle = pain (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083042)

Vendor lock-in(g) :)

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083118)

Must be something with how it transforms your nice distributed multithreaded application into a one-thread at-a-time-please nightmare...

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083334)

What is Oracle's superior locking model?

They patent the methods used to store your data, thus preventing anyone else from implementing a compatible data storage system.

Oh. Sorry. Thought you said lock-in.

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084210)

They lock you into insane licensing fees?

Re:Oracle = pain (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081944)

Postgres still requires that the developer and DBA actually talk to each other every once in a while, whereas Oracle does not.

s/requires/allows/, because as far as I can tell Oracle legally obligates the two parties to communicate through layers of upper management before the DBA can so much as add an index the developer needs.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083956)

Postgres still requires that the developer and DBA actually talk to each other every once in a while, whereas Oracle does not.

Oracle requires that the developer and DBA actually talk to each other all of the time. It's not like Postgres.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

dave87656 (1179347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082750)

> but enterprises have different needs

Yes, like PostgreSQL

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

Re:Oracle = pain (5, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078246)

The problem is that PHB's buy Oracle thinking because it's "top of the line" it will just be great out of the box. Instead, it requires skillful tuning and fiddling to use effectively, but the PHB's don't want to pay for that aspect.

It's almost like giving a Stradivarius violin to your neighbor's newbie kid and thinking that "because it's a Strad, it will make the kid sound good."

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078438)

Exactly, the boss doesn't pay $10/hr an hour for the CS grad who can't find a job elsewhere to tune it to handle 10 petabytes by the end of the business day for nothing.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

jimmydigital (267697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078560)

It's almost like giving a Stradivarius violin to your neighbor's newbie kid and thinking that "because it's a Strad, it will make the kid sound good."

I like how you describe this... it makes perfect sense in a way that even a PHB can understand. But can I get that in a car analogy?

Re:Oracle = pain (2)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078786)

Even if you give an Lamborghini to an uncool guy, it doesn't get him woman or make him cool.. oh wait

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083608)

Actually, in psychology, there is quite a lot of evidence to show that people perform better when told that a tool was used by someone famous for doing so.

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078272)

Pretty much my point.

if you need the power they offer over all the much more palatable alternatives available

Oracle is the "serious business" database. Postgres has narrowed the gap.. but the gap is still there and still large.

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078698)

Oh hi Larry, how do you like it here?

Re:Oracle = pain (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079198)

In what world do you live? Oracle DB is the only great product they have, the rest is complete and utter crap, and they don't even know how to maintain them. We've been trying for months now to get someone from Oracle to explain us why our OSB does not work as it should, and even the guy from engineering that they shipped over half the world was just as clueless as we are.Siebel has been going downhill ever since they purchased it. BRM has never worked in a large deployment. Fusion is still just a dream that doesn't really work, the list goes on...

And you know what, it's because all the good engineers don't want to work at Oracle. Over the course of my current project, we've had three different consultants, the first two quit because they said the atmosphere is just awful and noone has a clue what's going on. And they are trying hard to hide that they have people leaving the company in droves, leaving people with very little experience maintaining software that they have no clue about.

Re:Oracle = pain (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080624)

That doesn't match the Oracle that i work at.

Re:Oracle = pain (4, Interesting)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079412)

They are also about selling training course. The syntax for half of the commands is appalling. RMAN for example with its "copy control file from path1 to path2 whilst patting your head and then write home to your gran" attempt at plain english language is far too obtuse for what it actually does, which isn't much. It copies a control file and then does autobackup. Wow. Didn't need a paragraph of shakespeare.

It's the same throughout. Then they can't even install the software without running a massive java app (I really don't want to go into too much detail about how much time it took to automate Oracle installs...)

And before you ask - we're running the 6th busiest Oracle database in Europe - according to Oracle themselves - running across 4*128 SSD drive arrays at a cost of millions.. and for the 3 or 4 features we need to justify the licenses instead or designing our way out of the same problem, at times I really wonder about the hassle, especially when our data is so important and locked up into such a bloated closed up mess.

Re:Oracle = pain (4, Insightful)

hey hey hey (659173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080412)

And before you ask - we're running the 6th busiest Oracle database in Europe - according to Oracle themselves - running across 4*128 SSD drive arrays at a cost of millions.. and for the 3 or 4 features we need to justify the licenses instead or designing our way out of the same problem, at times I really wonder about the hassle, especially when our data is so important and locked up into such a bloated closed up mess.

You might think such things as a fun fantasy, but you would be insane to actually do it. When it (say) turns out your home grown solution corrupts records spanning odd page boundaries, you will be quite sad as you and the one other guy who has a clue how your "clever hack" functions gets to work 24hour days trying to debug the problem, determine the extent of the damage, and try and figure out a solution. It is times like that when having thousands of consultants, and a major corporation with teams of dedicated programmers ready to jump on your problem (for a price, certainly for a price) is the only sane option. If you are really as big as you say, your data is WAY to valuable.

I may not be fond of Oracle either as a corporation or as a product, but there are reasons it rules in the enterprise DB niche.

Oracle vs Postgres (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083172)

There is more than one way to skin a cat - a sad truth for cats the world over. Postgres combined with commodity hardware and database joining extensions like dblink allow you to partition data across dozens (or hundreds) of commodity servers, allowing you to provide massively parallel access to massively large datasets without compromising performance. The cost is developer competence.

The trick is to have a decent abstraction layer and technologies that commoditize cross-database querying, something my company has spent considerable time developing, with rather striking success.

Postgres is an amazingly capable software system and its performance in the Enterprise space is really only limited by the quality of the developers using it. The difference between Postgres and Oracle seems to be on focus: Oracle seems to seek limits to the damage caused by idiot developers, while Postgres (seems to) seek to maximize the capabilities of competent developers. It's an exercise to you to decide which approach is more productive in the long haul.

PS: I'm in the PostgreSQL camp.

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080942)

It is quite obvious you haven't had much experience with Oracle installs across multiple platforms. In my opinion Oracle installation via the GUI or automated is one of the best case example of using Java across platforms. Don't have X or is not allowed to have it on production boxes - use the silent install method. The time it took to automate your installs clearly shows your (or your teams) understanding of the runInstaller capabilities. For anyone interested in a quick automated install guide - see here: http://www.pythian.com/news/1035/oracle-silent-mode-part-110-installation-of-102-and-111-databases/ [pythian.com] In my organization (Forbes T10) we do click button installs right from web gui (custom deployment app for the whole stack OS, WebLogic, Oracle etc) - A database sw install, DB creation and OEM registration takes no more than 45 minutes. Don't blame your incompetence on the product.

Re:Oracle = pain (4, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078796)

Most of all they're about lock-in => $$$ => Larry's yachts.

Re:Oracle = pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082000)

Oracle NoSQL maybe belongs to youths only.

Oracle is just to piss you off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078090)

It might perform well but holy shit you will spend all your time using it being annoyed that it's lacking basic things other databases do without issue.

Re:Oracle is just to piss you off. (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078136)

But that's when you turn back to Oracle to buy a real database. They know what they're doing.

Re:Oracle is just to piss you off. (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078310)

And they're going to call you every other day to make sure that you do too, while they try to pitch every service that they sell and weasel to other people within your group or company to do the exact same thing.

Oracle makes a pretty spiffy database, but they have been about the worst company that I have ever dealt with.

Re:Oracle is just to piss you off. (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080392)

Fortunately they mostly skip the techies and harass the executives instead (who don't ask thorough questions).

Re:Oracle is just to piss you off. (1)

Lokitoth (1069508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078242)

lacking basic things other databases do without issue.

Then you should probably not be using NoSQL

Press releases (3, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078130)

I know that a lot of submissions are inevitably going to be based on press releases (it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak), but do they have to be so blatantly biased? Could we have some sort of editorial? The last sentence of this post make me want to vomit.

Re:Press releases (5, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078814)

It could be worse - it could be an article about Agile.

Re:Press releases (0, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079638)

Or EXTREME programming! It's fucking EXTREME motherfucker!!!

Re:Press releases (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081390)

I don't know what extreme programming is, but that really makes me want to buy some doritos and mountain dew.

Google Patents? (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078198)

Anybody know how broad Google's map/reduce patents are?

It's been said that the whole reason Oracle bought Sun was to clobber Google with the Java patents so they could cross-license the map/reduce patents and get back to an Oracle database that could scale.

Regardless, corporations should just release their software and fight it out in court later (sorry, real people, you can't play) but now that this is out, things might get more interesting in the patent wars.

Re:Google Patents? (2)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078256)

It is my understanding, based on stuff ( sorry for the lack of specifics here ), that map/reduce was not in fact invented by google, by predates google by 30 or 40 years, and was simply re-discovered by google, according to some article I read sometime in the past that unfortunately, I cannot recall now. I dont think this has been challenged at all, however, and googles patent could still indeed be valid, depending on details.

Re:Google Patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078622)

Map and reduce have been fundamentals of functional programming, and list processing in particular, since at least 1972.

The Brilliance of 'MapReduce' Is Overblown (4, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080742)

I cannot understand why MapReduce has been turned into such a holy creation. The idea could not be simpler: you have a big dataset? Break it apart into pieces that are free of external dependencies, process the pieces in parallel and then aggregate the matches from the processed pieces.
This is not Hadoop, with its elaborate application plumbing or CouchDB with its curious use of MapReduce as part of its querying system.
MapReduce is too simple for all acclaim. It's too obvious.

Re:The Brilliance of 'MapReduce' Is Overblown (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081120)

MapReduce is too simple for all acclaim. It's too obvious.

Yeah, we did these in first-year algorithms class - they called them scatter/gather at the time. Google's insight seems to have been doing this with key/value pairs and making it an n-stage operation for application-independent parallelization.

Which, of course, the USPTO threw a patent at. So, here were are, stuck with it until 2024. Yay, government.

Please (-1, Offtopic)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078216)

Just die already.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

acjacinto (1170951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078218)

We're looking for Oracle NoSQL DBAs with 10 years of experience --recruiter

Re:Obligatory (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078282)

Just your lucky day! I happen to have experience in NoTruth.

Re:Obligatory (1)

CodeReign (2426810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078486)

I'm just your man, I came back from the future where it is now used like glue.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078700)

I'm your man. I have 15 years of Oracle experience with no SQL (I'm still trying to configure this f***ing DB and haven't been able to run a single request yet)

Re:Obligatory (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078736)

Pffft. I got 15 years of Oracle NoSQL, even 12 years of interfacing it with HTML5.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078764)

Oh, those are my favorite.

Also prefer 5-7 yrs experience with HTML 5.

Re:Obligatory (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078988)

Perfect; I myself have no SQL experience, neither with Oracle's products or anyone else's.

Re:Obligatory (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079108)

I have 10 years experience with NoSQL Oracle DBMs as well as 7 years of HTML 5 experience with IE 6

Re:Obligatory (1)

Detaer (562863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079542)

I actually know a guy who wrote a nosql distributed datastore 10 years ago.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Rolman (120909) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079562)

That's why you write your résumé like this. [typepad.com]

Re:Obligatory (1)

luk3Z (1009143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083628)

It is job for me I don't know how SQL works, so no SQL is my advantage. I'm also no PHP and no Java.

Opinion: Complete failure of Oracle security respo (3, Interesting)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078248)

So Sayeth Litchfield:
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2005/Oct/56 [seclists.org]

'nuff said

Re:Opinion: Complete failure of Oracle security re (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079744)

Is there anything more recent than 6 years ago to look at? Most NoSQL DB's haven't even existed that long, so I fail to see the correlation. To assume that a bad (or good) support and maintenance never changes quality is ridiculous. How are their products that I'm actually buying today?

Berkeley DB (1)

genjix (959457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078278)

How does this differ to the key-value Berkeley DB key-value store which is around 10 years old, free software, widely used and tested, full ACID compliance AND it's owned by Oracle.

Re:Berkeley DB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078434)

When was the last time you build a Berkeley DB cluster and then read and wrote to it via. it's native REST API?

Re:Berkeley DB (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078490)

At a minimum it probably costs a lot more.

Also maybe it was the subversion side and not the Berkeley DB side, but from my experience using Berkeley DB with subversion, I don't think I'd want to use it for anything else.

Re:Berkeley DB (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078762)

BerkeleyDB is an embedded database (doesn't run as a server on your network unless you write your own server for it), and it's not particularly fast.

Re:Berkeley DB (4, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079336)

BDB is an in-process key-value store. It's limited to being accessed by a single process, and has much more limited replication ability.

This is a server based product ; your client communicates with servers using a driver. It's "eventually consistent", meaning that changes take time to propagate across the replication axis, so not all clients see the same picture (although with this one, you can influence the ACID-ity of atoms of data by grouping them on "major" keys).

The advantage is mostly scalability. You can throw more servers at it to provide more capacity, and the software will do a lot of the work to ensure that this works. If you want more capacity on BDB, you need to throw a bigger chunk of iron at it.

The other major difference ; the open-source license (Sleepycat [wikipedia.org] ) for BerkeleyDB is copyleft. Despite the name, it's not released under a Berkely Software Distribution style license - Oracle dual license it and you have to pay a commercial license fee to distribute products based on it without releasing your own sources.

The Community Editor license file for Oracle NoSQL from the distribution lists a number of licenses, all of them BSD-style - new BSD and Apache 2.0 ; in certain quarters this will be greeted with a great deal more enthusiasm. The only difference between the Community and paid editions is the support.

Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078368)

I thought the driver behind NoSQL databases was not that projects can't be implemented with classic database.. Its that NoSQL style implementations can do it far more cheaply.

Oracle is not a name one usually associates with "Low Cost"

Re:Missing the point (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078508)

No. I thought this was about performance and how the relational model can't handle every problem well.

Sometimes you need something that's not an RDBMS. Perhaps you really need to use something that predates the RDBMS but is now just being rediscovered again.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078594)

Well yeah, the issue is scalability. Less infrastructure needed to solve the same problem.

Cheaper.

Re:Missing the point (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079770)

Pfft, multivalue(PICK) was never lost. Just requires you to be leet.

Re:Missing the point (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079988)

At fucking last someone who knows something.

PIC is just insanely fast at what it does and it does what it does in ways no one has picked up on.

Last version of the PIC OS I worked on was OEM'd by the now defunct Ultimate Computer Corp.

Re:Missing the point (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082176)

I'm going to start dickering around with OpenQM.. hopefully somewhat comparable

Re:Missing the point (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078580)

Since when was that EVER the point? You're the first one I've ever heard use that reason.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079086)

No really. Some guy from Google was saying just that.

You present the problem "I've got biblical fucktons of data to deal with,and lots more coming" to your RDBMS expert and by the time he's done describing what you'll need in your implementation, you've already got your NoSQL up and running and doing what you need. Time is money.

You also get to skip the step where you Oracle rep sodomizes you, while filling out the blank checks you handed him as you were bending over.

False dichotomy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078400)

Is it just me or does this article present a false dichotomy? I enjoy using NoSQL, but I'm not running out and replacing every SQL db with Mongo. NoSQL is just another tool available to me, and I leverage it when it makes sense.

Re:False dichotomy (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079592)

You sir do not webscale [youtube.com]

look everyone (0)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078518)

we are still relevant! Just sign here in blood...

what other ways to do this (0)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078578)

There's these nosql things. I am not familiar with them at all. They seem nifty - some of you are way smarter than me, maybe you can correct me. It's like a giant bag with stuff in it, and there are keys tied to all of them hanging out the top of the bag. You just yank on the key and get your thing out. It's massively parallel and redundant, so maybe given enough leeway that bag can span continents, and we can each grab a key marked "file1.blah" and get it reasonably fast. It's got nothing to do with file systems. Am I right so far?

But so then, what I wanna figure out is, how can I set up a thing where I can basically have a file system be mounted locally on a few boxes, and have all that data get replicated on the other boxes as close to realtime as is reasonable... latency, resource sharing, all that. I'd basically like it so that me and my friends can each have the same data locally. We have tons of space, tons of bandwidth (it's local, after all), and we are willing to trade these to each have fully local copies. But what should we use? Lustre? Gluster? There seems like quite a few options. Lustre looks hard and Gluster looks expensive.

Chime in fellow slashdotters. You're all that make this place interesting anymore.

Re:what other ways to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079504)

rsync

nothing new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078592)

So basically they did not do anything new - it's another "me too" from Oracle. They start saying how other NoSQL stores cannot guarantee consistency, but they themselves can't either - of course, ACID is in the garbage once you start partitioning (due to the CAP theorem). And transactions are handled by atomic operations in other stores.

There really is nothing new here... just more hype from Oracle on a product that's no better than what's already there (others are better supported due to their large _open_ development communities)

If the tables were turned (0)

UdoKeir (239957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078612)

"Oracle stole the intellectual property from these groups"

Re:If the tables were turned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079610)

You got that right, and they have plenty of patent suits to back their hypocrisy.

Is Oracle NoSQL Web Scale? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38078800)

Because I heard MongoDB is web scale [youtube.com] [NSFW].

hey, did they rip me off??? (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#38078820)

sounds like they ripped off my "write-only" algorithms from college. no SQL, indeed,.

Practically ACID (4, Interesting)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079402)

The serious part of Oracle NoSQL is a practical approximation of ACID compliance, the standard that SQL databases like to offer.

If this claim holds up, then its easy to see where Oracle could come out ahead of other NoSQL databases. TFA mentions that this practical approximation is dealt with by arranging the cluster machines in two axes: the replication axis and the sharding axis. Along the sharding axis, each major key is guaranteed to be tied to a single machine. Since there is only one record to be updated, there is no "eventual consistency" problem. The replication axis is responsible for making multiple copies of that data. If full ACID compliance is desired, even along the replication axis, there are plenty of options for ensuring that the write is complete before calling the transaction complete: the master node is updated, a majority of replicated nodes are updated, or all replicated nodes are updated.

This approach seems to take the best of both worlds in the NoSQL arena: sharding, which is the approach used by MySQL cluster, and replication, as used by pretty much every other NoSQL store available. Of course, if you have a fuck-ton of data, you'll also need a fuck-ton of machines. This is not a server you will be testing without considerable resources at your disposal.

Re:Practically ACID (2)

Lord_Naikon (1837226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082964)

No sharding solution can guarantee consistency in the event of node failures, unless you completely block writes or reads until the nodes are back up. It's great that they bind a key to a particular server, but I can think of several other NoSQL solutions which do the same thing. Basically everything that uses hashrings and do lookups based on that. Oracle NoSQL is hardly unique in that respect.

NoSQL = Lotus Notes database (1)

kbg (241421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079448)

If I understand NoSQL correctly it looks to me like they just reinvented the Lotus Notes database concept.

Re:NoSQL = Lotus Notes database (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080358)

I think the guy that wrote CouchDB was a Notes developer.

Re:NoSQL = Lotus Notes database (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082536)

CouchDB, yes. It took a lot of its design ideas from Lotus Notes.

NoSQL databases in general, however, follow all different kinds of paradigms and designs. You can't make any blanket statements about them because they all were born out of the need to solve completely different problems.

Be afraid. Be very afraid... (1)

tigersha (151319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083484)

Yes. Yes.

And my 10 wasted years as a Notes admin trying to fix the !@#!@ that a PHB made us do in Notes instead of a relational database really makes me very wary of this whole noSQL boom.

NoSQL Databases are definitely good for some things (as is Notes) but it is certainly no Nirvana. There is a reason relational databases were invented in the first place: a schema forces you to be consistent with your design which helps with large projects. In Notes and noSQL things very quickly become a tangled mess, and when you need foreign keys, well, you need them.

Good design is always about LESS freedom. That lesson seems to be getting lost here.

And now back to my new job where the people upstairs want to introduce Lotus Notes!

Re:Be afraid. Be very afraid... (1)

kbg (241421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084206)

Yes Lotus Notes shines for some concepts like document work flows, for example it is possible to create a generic work flow application and add work flow to any other Lotus Notes application with a one line include. Imagine trying to add a generic work flow application to some random SQL database table, it would be a major problem. However for large databases, speed, data integrity and transactions then Lotus Notes doesn't fair well in comparison.

New enterprise project = stodgy by default? (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079518)

'Oracle NoSQL might not offer the heady fun and "just build it" experimentation of many of the pure open source NoSQL projects, but that's not really its role.

Restated: Oracle started a new project from scratch, but still managed to make the code look like it had been maintained by a megacorporation for a decade, like other long-term Oracle and Sun projects?

Re:New enterprise project = stodgy by default? (2)

ADRA (37398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079892)

How about: "Not suitable for High-school kids looking to write their first database application"
or
"Not for mere morons"
or
"Not suitable for enthusiasts"

It seems like of silly. For playing around with K/V based systems, on the low end, you can throw something together with bubblegum and gumption without much concern about reliability, concurrency, or scaling. If you are a large project with a non-trivial set of requirements, the learning curve on a solution should be far less important than the effective output of the system in production. Now I've never used Oracle's NoDB solution (or any NoSQL solutions for that matter) but I'd reserve judgement until its actually in your hands to see how it works with your development practices.

Personally, I was obsessed with the concept of NoSQL in development until I realized just how much heavy work systems like Oracle do for effectively free using relatively simple SQL expressions. Maybe if I ever work on huge volume or huge scale systems, my tone may change, but in my typical enterprise scale systems (tables under 10mil rows) I haven't seen the need for anything else.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079700)

"Oracle borrowed the best ideas from these groups and built something that will deliver good performance"

REALLY?

Now others' ideas can be borrowed in the clusterfuck of regulated UNnovation that the USA is? Great news!

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind Oracle in this thing of Borrowing Ideas, I think that's the only way to unstuck innovation, but I'm a little bit skeptical about Oracle playing nice if someone borrows their ideas.

TFA F'd in the Ass, Oracle Lied (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080616)

The person who wrote this article was an idiot. First of all, it describes several brilliant innovations Oracle brought to the table:

It's a key-value store I guess they have to steal that idea to join the category.
Consistency can be throttled so that a write does not complete until it has gone to one, a quorum or all replication nodes. Duh! For years that has been a feature on nearly every incumbent NoSQL DB such as CouchDB, MongoDB, Cassandra, and others.
It allows you to attach a version number to an object. Duh! again. Another common and central features in CouchDB.

Software Patents (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082466)

Oracle borrowed the best ideas from these groups and built something that will deliver good performance to the sweet spot of the enterprise market.

Whew, thankfully there's no such thing as software patents, which means we can have actual innovation and improvements... oh.. wait, software patents exist in this timeline.. damnit!

Hashtable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084842)

So, basically, a hashtable (key/object pair) on a permanent storage device.
Am I missing anything?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>