

Is It Time For NoSQL 2.0? - zhiping
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/02/22/1732221/is-it-time-for-nosql-20

======
dasil003
> _they all provide a similar API that achieves high performance and
> scalability by limiting applications to simple operations like GET and PUT_

Seriously? Sounds like the PR firm didn't actually take a look at these other
DBs.

------
drats
People should stop complaining about Slashdot and marketing and look at the
Hyperdex paper, it's quite interesting
(<http://hyperdex.org/papers/hyperdex.pdf>). It also has quite an elegant
python API (<http://hyperdex.org/tutorial/>).

~~~
rescrv
Thanks for pointing out the paper. If the paper doesn't cover a question, I'm
happy to answer (primary dev/paper author here) it via email, or here on HN.

------
coenhyde
I've got no opinion on HyperDex but I could barely read that slashdot summary.
Just marketing goobly gook.

~~~
rescrv
The homepage (<http://hyperdex.org/>) has more information, although the best
source for technical information would be the technical report we've put
together (<http://hyperdex.org/papers/hyperdex.pdf>)

Edit: Link to paper and not out-dated slides.

------
antirez
Redis does not just provide the "simple operations like GET and PUT". The guy
who wrote the article is a PR guy for HyperDex IMHO.

~~~
willvarfar
It doesn't provide much scalability either?

Redis is in a class of its own; there are lots of niche technologies.

------
alexro
In every serious development the db architecture gets selected on the use
cases specific to the business, so without describing which use cases HyperDex
addresses there will be no real interest for it, name it 2.0 or "on steroids".

~~~
rescrv
HyperDex provides strongly consistent GET/PUT operations and fast searches
over data. It uses a new object placement technique to facilitate these
searches, and as a result, a search may contact a very small subset of hosts
in the system.

~~~
alecco
There's always a trade-off somewhere. Does it take 3x more RAM/storage? Does
it make record insertion extremely slow?

~~~
rescrv
To tolerate f failures, we need to have f+1 replicas of the data. This implies
increased storage, but the f parameter is entirely up to the application.

Record insertion affects all replicas of the data, so latency increases with
replication.

The first graph on the performance page (<http://hyperdex.org/performance/>)
shows that a 100% insertion workload will exhibit higher latency (and thus
lower throughput for a fixed number of synchronous clients). Write-mostly
workloads are slower, but I wouldn't say "extremely slow."

~~~
alexro
From what I gather skimming through the paper, you should be more concerned
comparing HyperDex to Riak, than to Cassandra or MongoDb. The potential use
cases seem to be quite different for the last mentioned.

------
Yarnage
Can we stop calling it NoSQL? Cassandra has a SQL now and there are other
"NoSQL" databases adopting this and the fact that they didn't use SQL wasn't a
huge point with how they worked anyway.

Instead of NoSQL 2.0 how about Key Value stores or Document Stores or
something else?

------
Maro
A real Brogrammer 2.0 uses a NoSQL 2.0 database!

------
opendomain
I completely agree that it is time for NoSQL 2.0 - there are more than 100
different NoSQL datatastores and usually developers choose based on MARKETING
- there are no good scientific comparisons on which one is better. This is why
I founded the NoSQL alliance at <http://NoSQL.org> \- to standardize and offer
unbiased advice of which database to use and why. This is an open source
project - please contact me if you would like to participate

