Queuing systems aren't really new or 'technofrippery'. In-memory FIFO stacks are ridiculously fast compared to transaction safe rdbms' for this simple purpose. Databases incur a lot of overhead for wonderful things that don't aid this cause.
This isn't magic, sometimes it's just the right tool for the job. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:04 PM, John Redford <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben Tilly emitted: > > > > Pro tip. I've seen both push based systems and pull based systems at > work. The > > push based systems tend to break whenever the thing that you're pushing > to > > has problems. Pull-based systems tend to be much more reliable in my > > experience. > [...] > > > > If you disregard this tip, then learn from experience and give thought in > > advance to how you're going to monitor the things that you're pushing to, > > notice their problems, and fix them when they break. > > (Rather than 2 weeks later when someone wonders why their data stopped > > updating.) > > Your writing is FUD. > > Pro tip. Learn to use a database. I know that it can be fun to play with > the latest piece of shiny technofrippery, like Redis, and to imagine that > because it is new, it somehow is better than anything that came before and > that it can solve problems that have never been solved before. It's not. > There's nothing specifically wrong with it, but it's not a silver bullet > and > parallelism is not a werewolf. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Boston-pm mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
