In that case David, please do send the code you have :)
On Feb 13, 6:31 am, Alan Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > David I am curious as to why you think OpenBD (or any other high level > system) isn't up to the job. > > Amazon DynamoDB is more than just a bigger SimpleDB. Size of your > dataset has very little to do it. The key difference with DynamoDB and > SimpleDB is that for any large cross-document queries you wish to do, > you really have to jump into MapReduce algorithms to get any sort of > performance from it. The other key advantage over SimpleDB is a > guaranteed level of service, that is what you are paying for. SimpleDB > isn't the most reliable at times, with API calls timing out and > disappearing at times. > > If however you are managing user-profiles for example, where you will > for the 90% of the time never be querying across documents then DynamoDB > is going to be your fellow, and OpenBD is a perfectly client tool for > that job. > > On 13/02/2012 03:51, David Mulder wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have worked with it for a few days... and if you really need the > > scalability and size of dynamoDB (it only has advantages if you expect > > your data sets to grow bigger than 10 gb and you're willing to create > > all your indexes yourself) than I doubt openBD or any high level > > system is up for the job. Either way, I really advise you to recheck > > whether you're sure simpleDB isn't more appropriate for the job than > > dynamoDB (we chose initially for dynamoDB because it seemed to be the > > 'next' version of simpleDB, but it's an entirely different product we > > realized over time). If you're sure you want to use dynamoDB I might > > have a half working java cfscript component lying around. > > David -- online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en Join us @ http://www.OpenCFsummit.org/ Dallas, Feb 2012
