On 8/2/2012 10:57 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
going. They eventually gave up when Ameritrade wouldn't commit to
replacing the entire cluster with bigger servers.
Ahhh Bingo! We have the problem.
Yes. Relational databases don't scale. You just keep throwing bigger
and bigger hardware at them. That's not scaling.
You are arguing semantics.
I'm arguing storage and retrieval mechanisms. It's ultimately just bits
on some kind of media. What differentiates relational databases from
object databases is what the two design philosophies say to do with
those bits.
Then why bother with a relational database at all?
Who's bothering?
You are.
This is No-SQL nonsense. The strength of an RDBMS is the man-centuries
of work and science embodied in retrieving data. The relational
capability is a very powerful tool, sure, but in the end the real
science is finding the data you want.
Just because there are man-centuries of work in the field doesn't make
it the best way to do things.
At this point I don't think there's any point to trying to continue
this. We're not debating; we're running around in circles.
--
Rich P.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
