Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Databases
gManZboy writes "Ever wonder where database technology is going? This is something that Turing award winner Jim Gray from Microsoft has given a lot of thought to. He recently published an article in which he looks at the many forces pushing database technologies forward, and what those new technologies will look like. Gray writes, 'the greatest of these [research challenges] will have to do with the unification of approximate and exact reasoning. Most of us come from the exact-reasoning world -- but most of our clients are now asking questions that require approximate or probabilistic answers.'"
As in, he passed the Turing test?
How many times have we heard of huge sites going down because databases become corrupt or unrecoverable, or of the huge resource strain (memory and CPU) from a large database?
In my opinion, the future of databases is nothing so complicated as pitched here -- but rather a move to simpler, more reliable back ends where the filesystem is the database. This is certainly the vision pitched by Hans Reiser and reiserfs, which aims to put more database like intelligence within the filesystem. So you eliminate extra unnecessary layers that just eat up resources and create fragile databases.
Data is data. Just data. Save it, read it, sort it how you like. Efficient results mean having rapid, low-latency access to data.
... except that you still do, because SQL isn't a way of avoiding logical errors. ... and that they still don't save time. At best, they allow for some parallelism, external access to the data, and a separation of concerns.
Add code to it, and you have data+code.
OF course, code is data, and thus data can be treated as code, and handled by other code. LISP does this moderately well.
But you can't avoid the fact that, as it stands, databases are just engines for keeping your data structures outside your code, or when you add code to them, engines for reading your data structure for you so that you don't have to think about how to do it.
I'm getting rather tired of the fad that databases should be tacked on to everything, ranging from a shopping list to guidance systems. When did adding overhead become the mark of skill?
The requirements for a database today aren't too much different from those twenty years ago - except for what we want to get out of them.
Now that data mining is a $[insert large number here]million industry, databases are being asked to do a lot more processing with this data than before. For example: old database query = get these attributes from tuples that match this pattern. New database query = determine how likely a user who has accessed 30 or more times this last month is to subscribe to the second-level pay service within the next ninety days, with or without an email advertising said service.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
... MBA's want the magic glowy box to do their thinking for them.
Fortunately, Microsoft will be there to take their money.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
$techology is dying. It will be replaced with $replacement. Insert 4000 more words sprinkled with $random_buzzwords. I am so smart! The end.
most of our clients are now asking questions that require approximate or probabilistic answers
Bioinformatics databases are a good example of this. DNA and protein sequence databases are often searched by approximate string-matching algorithms based on "dynamic programming" to hidden Markov models and other stochastic grammars.
Historically, drug target-hunters in Big Pharma created a market for accelerated hardware to facilitate dynamic programming searches, some of which (e.g. Paracel's Fast Data Finder chip) was originally marketed to government agencies who, um, shared an interest in approximate string-matching ;)
The "next great advancement" in databases will be when I can setup 2 or more linux servers and have them act as a single database server. Our database server is the most expensive item in our datacenter because it's an N-way IBM server.
Could someone summarize it without using the letter 'e'?
Sure.
Th Futur of Databass
Postd by timothy on Monday May 02, @08:12PM
from th your-flight-status-is-'mayb' dpt.
gManZboy writs "vr wondr whr databas tchnology is going? This is somthing that Turing award winnr Jim Gray from Microsoft has givn a lot of thought to. H rcntly publishd an articl in which h looks at th many forcs pushing databas tchnologis forward, and what thos nw tchnologis will look lik. Gray writs, 'th gratst of ths [rsarch challngs] will hav to do with th unification of approximat and xact rasoning. Most of us com from th xact-rasoning world -- but most of our clints ar now asking qustions that rquir approximat or probabilistic answrs.'"
Hmmm, I kind of like 'databass'.