[BangPypers] BangPypers meeting February 2011

[Ramdas S]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Jeffrey Jose <jeffjosejeff at gmail.com>wrote:

> Its kinda true that noSQL started as 'death to everything that's SQL'. As
> things got matured people realized noSQL is not a replacement but another
> tool in developers toolbox to solve problems.
>
> And that's the reason some people dont ever use the term 'noSQL' because it
> sounds like 'No SQL' and if they must they say 'noSQL' stands for 'not only
> SQL' and not what it sounds.
>
> /jeff
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <noufal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 12 2011, Santosh Rajan wrote:
> >
> > > My 2 cents before you jump into the nosql bandwagon.
> > >
> > > 1) If sql works for you, stick with it. RDBMS's like postgeSQL, MySQL
> > > will not wake you up in the middle of the night with a crash.
> > > 2) If you have scaling problems, add some horse power to you hardware,
> > > battery backed RAID, and solid state hard drives are good for you.
> > > (Prices have come down in the last year or two).
> > > 3) Disk space is cheap. Avoid joins while using sql as far as
> > > possible. Create additional table to do your indexing and grouping.
> > > 4) And if you still think you need nosql, god help you.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > One of the things mentioned during the event was collecting logs from
> > remote sites that have only access to the net for a short while every
> > day. A data store like couch which works by appending documents is ideal
> > for collecting log output. You keep dumping logs into it (over a local
> > connection) and when you have access to the internet, you replicate all
> > the local databases to a master couch database. I liked the idea and
> > think it's an interesting way to approach the problem of synchronising
> > logs.
> >
> > NoSQL databases are interesting and while RDBMs have their own
> > applications, a lot of possiblities open up with document stores. To
> > view them *purely* as alternatives to relational databases is, in my
> > opinion, missing the point.
> >
> > >From your last point, I take it that you feel that one shouldn't even
> > consider noSQL databases and somehow spend money and time squeezing
> > performance out of relational databases. That reminds me of people who
> > refuse to try out new languages and technologies and make engineering
> > decisions and stick to, say, COBOL.
> >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > BangPypers mailing list
> > BangPypers at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> BangPypers mailing list
> BangPypers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
>

Thought I will pick your brains on this.

We are archiving a lot of information, some message format very similar to
email in structure, through its not an RFC complaint format. Presently we
are storing some basic seachable details in a data base, and the physical
file  is in a SAN box, with the location of file also in the database. It's
fine now, but we are expecting the client to generate a few TB of
information over the next 2 years.

Does this make a good case of using NoSQL. Also I remember someone saying
that NOSQL  stuff like MongoDB does a miss a document once in a while.



-- 
Ramdas S
+91 9342 583 065