The widely accepted problem with MySQL is that it wasn’t built for webscale applications [snip]
In Stonebraker’s opinion, “old SQL (as he calls it) is good for nothing” and needs to be “sent to the home for retired software.” After all, he explained, SQL was created decades ago before the web, mobile devices and sensors forever changed how and how often databases are accessed.
However, it was quickly discovered that while NoSQL might be faster and scale better, it did so at the expense of ACID consistency.
This is ridiculous. He's making claims about a whole group of software that's only definition is a feature or attribute that they don't have. And it's flat out false. Look at Riak (a key/value store) and how it allows you to tune these parameters on each query or write.
The whole article is genuinely a massive trolling piece.
He lost me here.
An awesome problem I'm still waiting to have.
It’s called NewSQL [..] Pushed by companies such as Xeround, Clustrix, NimbusDB, GenieDB and Stonebraker’s own VoltDB,
It would be easy to accuse Stonebraker of tooting his own horn, but NewSQL vendors have been garnering lots of attention, investment and customers over the past year.
Does Facebook run and make money? Are users happy? Is it fast?
In general if those three things are good, then why do a rewrite or a massive switch?
Facebook has very smart developers and if they though they could go out and swap out database vendors and get a big gain, I bet they would, but they don't. Why? because I bet the gain isn't as big as advertised.
VoldDB is in-memory so it's fast? Cool, but FB already uses memcached, so you aren't going to get any huge perf wins there. Maybe it would be simpler and maybe if FB started today they might use it, but the cost to swap out their proven architecture for something new and shiny probably doesn't provide a big enough user benefit for it to be worth their time.
At the end of the day, very few companies truly understand what it is like to have half a billion people logging into your website on any given day to chat, send messages, upload photos, play games, and so on. Any platform is going to have problems at that load, swapping databases doesn't solve that at all.
Also, architecturally there's no reason to do a massive re-write of any software all at once, and it usually ends in tears. They can do it piece by piece and they should be making those investments now if they hope to last another half decade.
I clicked through a bit to get more information... here's a potential definition:
“NewSQL” is our shorthand for the various new scalable/high performance SQL database vendors. We have previously referred to these products as ‘ScalableSQL’ to differentiate them from the incumbent relational database products. Since this implies horizontal scalability, which is not necessarily a feature of all the products, we adopted the term ‘NewSQL’ in the new report.
Like noSql, this term also appears to be intentionally broad, indicating a problem to be addressed rather than a very specific spec or solution. I don't have any problem with this, but the ambiguity can cause a lot of confusion...
Are they doing away with the relational model? Or the SQL language itself?
Here's another blurb that may answer this:
"Like NoSQL, NewSQL is used to describe a loosely-affiliated group of companies (ScaleBase has done a good job of identifying, some of the several NewSQL sub-types) but what they have in common is the development of new relational database products and services designed to bring the benefits of the relational model to distributed architectures, or to improve the performance of relational databases to the extent that horizontal scalability is no longer a necessity."
Which is great, but is it really new sql? I'm not sure the old relational model or sql language made any specifications or recommendations about how it should be implemented. This might just be an implementation of sql and relational databases that improves performances in distributed systems. Again, a great idea, but is a new implementation of a back-end the same as a "newSql".
I was initially very sceptical about "noSql" until I understood what it really meant (from what I've read, it was a movement away from using rdbms and sql as the default data store for all persistence, and toward a consideration of other persistence frameworks that might be more optimal for the task at hand - hard to find fault with that).
Similarly, "newSql" sounded like something more revolutionary than I'm seeing here. As far as I can tell, this is same old sql, but with a new implementation designed to scale well in distributed systems. Great idea, but not loving the name here.
From 2007: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/12/28/how-youtube-scal...
Undated job opening: http://www.google.com/intl/ln/jobs/uslocations/mountain-view...
Edit: The article includes this gem: "The widely accepted problem with MySQL is that it wasn’t built for webscale applications..." Every time I see "webscale", I get the feeling that the author doesn't actually have a great grasp of what's going on. However, this guy did mention ACID, which confuses me. Did we define "webscale" when I wasn't looking?
And then, when you get to Facebook's scale--though as a coworker just pointed out, Facebook probably isn't particularly ACID-compliant--Postgres is going to have problems that are pretty much the same as those you see in MySQL.
PostgreSQL isn't really "better than" or "an improvement over" MySQL. Different tools, different tasks--though they do have considerable overlap.
There are more grown-up SQL servers out there that can handle way more than MySQL, and not one of these "NewSQL" things that the author talks about.
Sure, let's bet the whole site on a really new database. Worked really well for Digg!
At that scale you need to do 2 things, denormalize and cache. (And, if you're FB, buy 75% of FusionIO's production). Big complicated queries just don't scale like simple key-value lookups, especially if they impose locking constraints on your database or try to join against things that are sharded to different servers.
Doesn't really matter what database back-end you're using if you're only using the dead-simple features.