That is my issue. 
I can see what Mark is saying, if you're actually just essentially searching 
key value pairs, then a RDBMS isn't the best choice, I should look at document 
storage for that.

But if I'm storing referential data, say a 
User :has_and_belong_to_many :images
&&
Image :has_and_belongs_to_many :users

If I go to delete an image, I should know that a User still requires it, and by 
virtue of that, not be allowed to or at least informed that an issue will arise 
from this.
Is it simple a fact that this, is not the place to use document storage, or 
does document storage cater for this in some way that I'm just missing? 
Sounds to me like it's a matter of choosing the right tech for the job(wow 
imagine that :P)

Thanks for the interesting discussion by the way.

Cam



On 27/01/2010, at 1:21 PM, Julio Cesar Ody wrote:

> And then Joe Developer installs mongoid/mongomapper, which gives him a
> ActiveRecord-like DSL to interact with his data, so he can persist
> data to mongodb. Which in turn means his actual code will look very
> much like regular ActiveRecord (e.g.: author.books.create :blah, and
> by the way forget about doing things like author.books << Book.new for
> now).
> 
> Meaning at the end of the day, the fact is that that array of books,
> instead of being assembled by collecting records row by row from a
> relational database, it gets pulled from a native format from mongodb.
> The result is it performs better, right?
> 
> That's cool. It may be a valid concern for some cases. I personally
> think, in the context that I mentioned, that if you'll be looking at
> your data through an ORM, there's little to be gained from that
> switch.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Mark Wotton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not an excuse not to have a schema. Document based storage starts
>> becoming useful when the sort of queries you want to make are less
>> structured; if you want to be able to account for extensible,
>> searchable metadata, it's probably better to use something like mongo
>> which is designed for it, rather than shoehorning it into a key-value
>> table in your RDBMS.
>> 
>> mark
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Cameron Barrie
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Yup.
>>> I'd love to hear from people about there thoughts on all forms of 
>>> persistent storage.
>>> I've always had the thought that Document based storage lacked the 
>>> integrity of a RDBMS mainly with foreign keys etc(yes I do use foreign key 
>>> constraints in my rails projects).
>>> However I think I'm just uninformed.
>>> 
>>> Please please inform me, because I'm very interested in this whole topic.
>>> 
>>> Cam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27/01/2010, at 12:15 PM, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Anyone want to branch this conversation out to Couch / Mongo DB?
>>>> 
>>>> Jonathan
>>>> 
>>>> 2010/1/27 David Lee <[email protected]>:
>>>>> My take: When you're choosing a database, do you want one that was built
>>>>> carefully and has been stable and consistent since its inception, or do 
>>>>> you
>>>>> want one where not silently hosing all your data is a recent feature? And 
>>>>> as
>>>>> Lachie said, even subselects are recent in MySQL.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is hardly an objective analysis, but PostgreSQL reminds me of BSD;
>>>>> MySQL reminds me of PHP ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>>> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a
>> black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a
>> quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who.
>>        -- Chris Maeda
>> 
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://crazyhollywood.org
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby 
or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.

Reply via email to