Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

MongoDB is Web Scale

235 views
Skip to first unread message

rh

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 7:19:09 AM10/19/12
to
SQL vs noSQL ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdnDXsqiPYo

Roy Hann

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 8:02:37 AM10/19/12
to
rh wrote:

> SQL vs noSQL ...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdnDXsqiPYo

So what?

Being digital is not the same as being data.

There is no point comparing SQL and NoSQL. You might as well compare
geometry and singing .

--
Roy


rh

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 4:12:12 AM10/21/12
to
Oh, I agree.

You didn't actually watch the video, did you?


Roy Hann

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 3:19:36 PM10/22/12
to
I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
be had.

--
Roy



Jan Hidders

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 10:55:25 AM10/25/12
to
Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is raging right now in both academia and industry. Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.

-- Jan Hidders

Eric

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 6:36:39 PM10/25/12
to
On 2012-10-25, Jan Hidders <hid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
>> rh wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 19, 2012 1:02:40 PM UTC+1, Roy Hann wrote:
>>
>> >> There is no point comparing SQL and NoSQL. You might as well compare
>> >> geometry and singing .
>>
>>> Oh, I agree.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
>>
>> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
>> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
>> be had.

(=> Roy)
I do not think you have interpreted it properly. I took it to be
pointing out that there was no real debate because one side had no
arguments and all the other side could do was become more and more
exasperated.

> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and
> it is raging right now in both academia and industry. Unless the
> relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their
> usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims
> of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.

Of course I cannot claim that any group is entirely free of arrogance,
but I suspect that much of what you call arrogance is actually just
exasperation, as seen in the video. I also suspect that much of the
"raging discussion" is about as sensible as the argument in the video.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

James K. Lowden

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 7:04:01 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Jan Hidders <hid...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
> > counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate
> > even to be had.
>
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is
> raging right now in both academia and industry.

In academia? Et tu, Brute?

I am curious to know: What do you consider the very strongest argument
by the no-SQL folks? I have never seen one that didn't exhibit perfect
innocence of reational theory.

> Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to
> contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful
> about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.

Well. The relationalists have been losing the argument for 30 years.
Ignorance outpaces knowledge in every generation, and the ratio of
programmers to DBAs is at least 10:1, assuring who'll win the voice
vote.

The only thing that's kept the RM afloat in this stormy sea is that its
sturdy construction allows it to continue to work, no matter how abused
or perverted.

--jkl

paul c

unread,
Oct 26, 2012, 12:21:25 AM10/26/12
to
The RM ( whether Codd's, Date's, Darwen's, Pascal's, McGoveran's or some
other authors whose names I can't remember) has for many years been
over-complicated by many of the same people who now push "nosql",
probably misunderstood too by most of them, with an industrial theory
that is yet not fully formed.

This seems very ironic to me because the nosql movement seems to be very
concerned with simplicity of implementation. The logical simplicity of
the RM as I understand it remains not well understood at all and some of
the famous popular thinkers and writers acknowledge this every so often.
They also get pilloried, wrongly, from time to time for miss-steps. I
suspect the difficulty of explaining it to people with an existing
computer science heritage makes it seem bigger than it really is.
Whereas I imagine that 10 year-old children without that baggage could
learn it easier if it were only shown to them, minus cosmetics such as
html. The right comparison is hardly between programmers and dba's.
The cruel fact is that people of both those ilks will be known far in
the future as a lost generation.

And, as is common, here we have 'sql' being conflated with 'relational'.
I think you are right about the 'sturdy construction'. I'd like to
see a coherent description of a 'logical nosql model'.

Roy Hann

unread,
Oct 26, 2012, 4:26:48 AM10/26/12
to
Jan Hidders wrote:

> Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
>> > You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
>>
>>
>>
>> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
>>
>> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
>>
>> be had.
>
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it
> is raging right now in both academia and industry.

I must have expressed myself badly.

My point was that geometry and singing are fine things of their sort but
they are in no way comparable or interchangeable. They simply have
nothing to do with each other.

The "discussion" that you say is raging is no such thing, no matter
much eager chatter there is from the NoSQL enthusiasts. They're just
excited to realize they've been banging the wrong shaped peg into their
hole. It remains to be seen whether NoSQL is the right shaped peg but
I have no interest in their holes so I don't care.

> Unless the
> relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their
> usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims
> of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.

Good grief! Does "lose the debate" mean NoSQL displaces SQL? You can't
possibly imagine that NoSQL is going to totally displace SQL in
industry? (Not that SQL has much to do with the RM.)

You know what? I'm willing to sit back and let it--if it can. No
debating; it can just show me. I'm not going to waste any energy
fighting the SQL corner.

--
Roy


Erwin

unread,
Jan 21, 2013, 10:56:18 AM1/21/13
to
Op donderdag 25 oktober 2012 16:55:25 UTC+2 schreef Jan Hidders het volgende:
It might have helped seriousness if this was illustrated with at least one concrete example of a "claim of the RM" that has been made too carelessly and too unrealistically, in the past, by one of them "arrogant" fierce relationalists.

At any rate, relationalists really have gotten used to "losing the debate". And have learned not to mind. And the RM is still alive and kicking and there are still new kids coming round the block doing an ever better job of implementing the RM properly.
0 new messages