>>>MongoDB stores it data in BSON or binary JSON and is schema-less. There is a JSON Schema Internet draft underway - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema-03
And, here is an IBM developerWorks article that approaches it - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/cloud/library/cl-json-verification/ Nagesh On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/10/2013 11:51 AM, Ze'ev Atlas wrote: > >> Since NoSQL seems to be reigning supreme, I decided to study MongoDB >> which was both recommended by a friend (a PM who is managing an actual >> project with that stuff) and is the most popular NoSQL engine out there >> according to >> http://db-engines.com/en/**ranking<http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>(they >> don't count Hadoop since they considered it to be a file system.) >> As usual, I acquired the book (O'Reilly - mongodb the definitive guide) >> and began to read... >> >> And here is why I post it here, I have the sense of deja vu all over >> again! >> >> Forget about the fancy terminology of storing "Documents" rather then >> rows or records. In the end it is the same. They have all the CRUD >> actions (i.e. Create, Remove, Update and Delete) which are done via some >> API functions rather then SQL statements. They can index and access stuff >> fast. They can partition the database over many servers and thus scale >> out... all is good. >> >> But here is the real scoop! No Joins and if you want to store some >> row... er... document of different structure that relate to the current >> one, you'd rather store it as a sub document (i.e. a different structure >> that is part of your current row (i.e. hierarchical) or in a different >> collection that you should navigate into in the application side. >> >> Mmm, have I just used the words navigate, hierarchical, etc. No wonder >> that all those younger people are so excited about NoSQL, they have never >> seen it before. But we, veterans of IMS, IDMS, ADABAS and the like, our >> old skills are new again! >> > > We had a conversation on linkedin wrt comparing IMS to MongoDB > http://tinyurl.com/mk95nrq. I fail to see any similarity between the two > other than they are both data bases, have keys and values. > MongoDB stores it data in BSON or binary JSON and is schema-less. That's a > good thing for some applications, think CMS, and companies that release > software continuously. The guardian replaced Oracle > with MongoDB and it was the right tool for the job > http://www.slideshare.net/**tackers/why-we-chose-mongodb-** > for-guardiancouk#<http://www.slideshare.net/tackers/why-we-chose-mongodb-for-guardiancouk#>!. > It is not, however, a drop in replacement for traditional transactional > data bases. > > > Welcome back to the future. >> >> ---------------- >> BTW, I do not bad mouth the technology, it is very useful (as were IMS >> and IDMS) and I can see replacing all warehouses and Star Schemas with that >> stuff, it is more natural, faster and more scalable then the current SQL >> based warehouse technologies. >> >> ZA >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >> ---------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
