On Feb 3, 4:22 pm, rtweed <[email protected]> wrote: > You may find this helpful to answer many of your questions about > Globals: > > http://gradvs1.mgateway.com/docs/nosql_in_globals.pdf > > This is a more specific version of a paper that George James and I > wrote a couple of years before, which is applicable to Cache, Globals > and GT.M: > > http://www.mgateway.com/docs/universalNoSQL.pdf >
The papers do provide some more information about Globals, thanks. The papers above are saying that you can model the other kinds of NoSQL database in GlobalsDB. I suspect that since essentially all NoSQL database use some kind of B-Tree or hash internally, and GlobalsDB can be used in place of a plain B-Tree or Hash, this almost goes without saying. However, one's own implementation of a given NoSQL paradigm on top of Globals is unlikely to be as reliable as Globals itself. So when you are saying Globals gives you "NoSQL capabilities combined with the reliability and maturity needed for business-critical applications" I feel like this isn't a true story because you have to handcraft this new immature layer of NoSQL on top of Globals. My document store built on top of Globals is probably not as good as CouchDB, for example. I'm not trying to nay-say against GlobalsDB at all - I just want to point out that it should be evaluated as what it is and not what you can build with it. I can build all kinds of NoSQL databases using the highly mature, been there forever, runs like a speed demon "fs" module, too. It doesn't mean that the "fs" module is itself a NoSQL database of any kind. > The only reason that Map/Reduce isn't available is because nobody has > implemented it yet. There's no technical limitation. I (and others) > have pushed InterSystems on this for some time (for Cache, though for > Globals would be nice too), since it's a common feature of many/most > modern NoSQL databases, unfortunately to no avail. Sure, the same could be said for sharing, automatic indexing, reporting, even an SQL query engine. But if an when some sort of indexing, sharding, map/reduce, query engine etc. system shows up built using Globals it will lack the track record and performance of Globals itself. It may in fact turn out to be inferior to something already built. > That may be true of other 30-year old products, but hasn't been true > of Cache, GT.M or Globals which have been continually able to embrace, > adapt to, and benefit from most of the major changes in the IT > landscape over their lifetime. Sounds cool. Realizing that Globals is actually quite low-level I think it would be useful for caching data and web session storage. Since it's not a network service it doesn't actually replace redis or memcached out of the box but you could wrap it with your own node.js server to provide a shared web cache or session storage, which is a typical use for memcached. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
