Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: ORMs comparisons/complaints. Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <%JGtu.29103$Wm1.26832@fx17.iad> <52b75900$0$9519$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <52c2d520$0$6552$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <52c7786e$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <52c864f6$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <52c9c5d4$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e5160e2be48f1ea550cf61512446f525"; logging-data="6323"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nUNVWiXpr4SsE2qjyuHkAnsZoh6Mh2G0=" User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YS+R2X8ZdfPvLIuUSR6/Cre78wg= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:27243 On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 15:51:33 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > NewSQL is really relational based on the same technologies as NoSQL. > But, if the API is standards-compliant SQL and it is (preferably) ACID then do we give a stuff what the underlying storage mechanism is? I'd be happy to regard anything that fits this slot as an SQL DBMS. > And no surprise that non-X databases are more diverse than X databases. > Yes. > Oracle, DB2, ASE, SQLServer, PostgreSQL, MySQL etc. was not designed to > run in massive parallel configurations (most of them can not even run 2 > node active-active). > But some RDBMS are designed to do this. Remember the Red Brick Data Warehouse which appeared around 15 years ago? That could make a pretty good stab at this. It offered the ability to partition large tables and, when required, would run a query per partition in parallel before combining the results into a single result set (we partitioned the date by date so we could hold old and seldom accessed partitions on a nearline tape library). All its tables, indexes, and table partitions were mapped onto standard UNIX files, so does this count as NewSQL in your proposed terminology? Bear in mind that it was ACID compliant. I only saw it do this on a single server with a large (for the time) filestore but its an approach that could easily be generalised to support a distributed DB. > Different problems lead to different solutions. > Yes. >(like Google Spanner) > When you consider how long ago the RedBrick Data Warehouse did this sort of thing, is Spanner really cutting edge? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |