On 02/09/14 17:03, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 09/02/2014 11:52 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
On 02/09/14 11:44, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Then let's stop talking about postgres being NoSQL. NoSQL is basically "schema-less" (really bad name) plus "infinite scalability" (which basically means transparent sharding). We fail to provide the latter very clearly...
Have you ever tried any of the "real" NoSQL products version of "infinite scalability" ?
Yes, and they are absolutely not infinite, and they suck in many other places. But they scale beyond one node, transparently, something that postgres doesn't. And regardless, this is what people is buying, we like it or not.
We are no worse than most if you use just the unstructured part (which is what the NoSQL crowd provides) and something like pl/proxy for scaling.
We are definitely worse. This is the problem, we only look to our own belly bottom (if this expression exists in English). All NoSQL scale *easily*, *transparently* beyond one node. Postgres doesn't. I'm not saying they don't suck at many many other things, or that some of them may be worse solution than the problem. But despite JSON/JSONB in pg is awesome, it's far far away from what we need to compete agains NoSQL in these regards.
Ask anyone not in the postgres world to use pl/proxy for scaling and they will run away to mongo/whatever. Talk about HA... and the discussion is over :( I know how hard these problems are in the general, transactional approach that postgres takes, and that NoSQL does this for very simple, non-ACID cases, but they do. Hence, we cannot claim NoSQL "compliance", just because we have jsonb. Unfortunately :( (Surely we do have many other values, but let's not say that we have NoSQL capabilities, because we don't while others -better or worse- do).
Regards,
Álvaro
