
SQL vs. noSQL – the right solution - andrewhodel
<p><pre><code>    SQL bitches because of this situation; imagine that 2 users were accessing the database and while one was reading a list of id&#x27;s in one table and joining them to a list of names with corresponding id&#x27;s in another table another user was modifying the list of corresponding names to id&#x27;s in the other table.

    so nosql tries to solve this by basically using only the locks of update and read per &quot;table&quot; or &quot;collection&quot; call (meaning they have no JOINS and they have plenty of hard drive space) they do this by storing the &quot;oh I need to look up the _id to get that name&quot; directly in the first table or collection. nosql basically says let&#x27;s fragment everything up into tiny databases and handle the locks at a higher level, like at the API between 2 or more parties so that 50 people aren&#x27;t accessing something at once anyway. you have to admit that does seem prone to error

    the issue is that then if you have a table with a million rows storing the same data there&#x27;s no point in using the relational part of a database

    what I do not understand, is why can&#x27;t they just pass along a function allowing the user to lock and unlock their own database? Then the user just needs find, update and delete and if they wan&#x27;t to join in any crazy way they can dream up, they just do it in the data loops (they can store it locally in a big loop while locking)

    that is why db.lock() and db.unlock() exist in sdb, you only need to use them if this type of situation were to arise
</code></pre>
https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;andrewhodel&#x2F;sdb
======
kstenerud
OMG check out the crazy license:
[https://github.com/andrewhodel/sdb/blob/master/AH-
LICENSE-V1](https://github.com/andrewhodel/sdb/blob/master/AH-LICENSE-V1)

Good luck with that.

~~~
danieka
I am gonna go read the "content" right now. Who knows what I'm going to use it
for :D

