[Discuss] No-SQL Database Recommendation?

[markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)]

> On 1/10/2015 5:39 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> Using a free database like PostgreSQL will EASILY handle what you want
>> to do.
>
> Indeed. There are only two technical reasons for rejecting relational
> databases out of hand. Neither of them are in the listed requirements.
>
> The first is that your data doesn't fit neatly into table rows. Hospital
> patient records are my go-to example. Relational databases suck at
> storing and retrieving this kind of data. Trying to make the data fit
> into tables anyway is a recipe for disaster.

This is so uninformed.  There is *no* difference between a table with
key/value in a sql database and a no-sql database. Almost every SQL
database out there has, and has had for several years, JSON, XML, and
other compound data types.

>
> The second is that you need to scale beyond the capacity of the
> underlying hardware to handle relational queries. This means very large
> data sets and very complex queries. Relational database performance
> drops in proportion to data size and query complexity.

Ahh "scale." What can you say about scale? Almost all people get it wrong
if they have never done it, and if they have done it they know that any
arbitrary technology is only a tool to build something that gets it right.

>
> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>