Slashdot Mirror
Are Relational Databases Obsolete?
jpkunst sends us to Computerworld for a look at Michael Stonebraker's opinion that RDBMSs "should be considered legacy technology." Computerworld adds some background and analysis to Stonebraker's comments, which appear in a new blog, The Database Column. Stonebraker co-created the Ingres and Postgres technology while a researcher at UC Berkeley in the early 1970s. He predicts that "column stores will take over the [data] warehouse market over time, completely displacing row stores."
Okay, at the risk of sounding stupid...
Since when is a column store database and a relational database mutually exclusive concepts? I thought that both column store and row store (i.e. traditional) databases were just different means of storing data, and had nothing to do with whether a database was relational or not. I think the article misinterpreted what he said.
Also, I don't think it's news that Michael Stonebraker (a great name, by the way), co-founder and CEO of a company that (surprise!) happens to develop column store database software, thinks that column store databases are going to be the Next Big Thing. Right or wrong, his opinion can't exactly be considered unbiased...
The name of his blog is The Database Column after all.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Relational databases aren't being obsoleted. Some schema design heuristics are.
0xfeedface
Is there a dual-mode db, that lets you create a row-based or column-based "table"? I imagine cross-mode queries would kill performance, but at least you could have a system front-loaded with row tables, where data comes in, and then archive this data over time into the column-based tables, so that reads were fast.
stuff |
every article linked makes it clear that this is about warehousing as opposed to oltp. so is the technology dead? no - can it do everything? no
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
>"column stores will take over the [data] warehouse market over time, completely displacing row stores."
Hmmmm. So if I rotate my Paradox or Excel table by 90 degrees, I have achieved database coolness? Who knew it was so easy.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
...is duping himself and thus Slashdot is duping the stories by extension.
Stonebraker has been pushing the concept of column-oriented databases for quite some time now, trying to get someone, ANYONE, to listen that it's superior. While I think he has a point, I'm not sure if he really goes far enough. Our relational databases of today are heavily based on the ISAM files of yesteryear. Far too many products threw foreign keys on top of a collection of ISAMs and called it a day. Which is why we STILL have key integrity issues to this day.
It would be nice if we could take a step back and re-engineer our databases with more modern technology in mind. e.g. Instead of passing around abstract id numbers, it would be nice if we had reference objects that abstracted programmers away from the temptation of manually managing identifiers. Data storage is another area that can be improved, with Object Databases (really just fancy relational databases with their own access methods) showing how it's possible to store something more complex than integers and varchars.
The demands on our DBMSes are only going to grow. So there's something to be said for going back and reengineering things. If column-oriented databases are the answer, my opinion is that they're only PART of the answer. Take the redesign to its logical conclusion. Let's see databases that truly store any data, and enforce the integrity of their sets.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You've all heard of the IBM product called DB2, right? So what was DB1? Answer: IMS, which is a hierarchical database. They were a pain in the ass to use--PSBs and all--but they were/are faster than hell and I doubt any company is going to throw them out for any reason. Same goes for relational databases. They're going nowhere. Sure, we have room for more but nobody is going to displace the RDBMS anytime soon.
No. There, that was easy !
It's like the packet of crisps that says "Is there a 20 pound note in here !!?" - the answer should always be 'No'.
Except maybe for one person.
sed -e 's/crisps/potato chips/' -e 's/pound/dollar/'
Obviously, he's biased. But more importantly, he just said that column-store databases are going to take over the WAREHOUSE market. That doesn't mean that row-store databases are going to become obsolete, because there will always be applications out there that do a substantial amount of writing as well as reading.
In fact, the new wave of user-generated-content websites and webapps seems to me to indicate the exact opposite - if anything, row-store databases, with their usefulness in write-heavy applications, should becoming, if anything, more and more necessary/useful on the web.
So...chalk this one up to some grandstanding on the part of a guy who wants to put more money in his pockets...
Column stores are great (better than a row store) if you're just reading tons of data, but they're much more costly than a row store if you're writing tons of data.
Therefore, pick your method depending on your needs. Are you storing massive amounts of data? Column stores are probably not for you...Your application will run better on a row store, because writing to a row store is a simple matter of adding one more record to the file, whereas writing to a column store is often a matter of writing a record to many files...Obviously more costly.
On the other hand, are you dealing with a relatively static dataset, where you have far more reads than writes? Then a row store isn't the best bet, and you should try a column store. A query on a row store has to query entire rows, which means you'll often end up hitting fields you don't give a damn about while looking for the specific fields you want to return. With column stores, you can ignore any columns that aren't referenced in your query...Additionally, your data is homogenous in a column store, so you lose overhead attached to having to deal with different datatypes and can choose the best data compression by field rather than by data block.
Why do people insist that one size really does fit all?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The next big thing in DBMS:
turning your head sideways.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
In my IT business, a vast majority of our top tier clients (grossing over US$100 million annually) are still using antiquated software that is still using a relational database backend. While these companies are generally VERY efficient in terms of providing services or products to their market, their accounting, purchase orders and project management software is decades outdated. Many of the companies that maintain these packages have merely made the interface more current (but still 5+ years old, but are still using terribly outdated software. I can't begin to tell you how often the words "FoxPro" and "MS SQL" come up and it ends up being a relational database "solution" or even worse.
It is very frustrating because we do have programmers on staff that create third party plug-ins to these databases to try to make solutions that the OEM code doesn't. When you meet younger programmers, many of them are frustrated themselves to work on ancient solutions that have no hope of being upgraded, because these industries we work in are not in a rush to try anything new and shiny, but instead are happy with the status quo.
I just bid a job a few months back that would cost $150,000 to upgrade their database infrastructure, and likely save the company $300,000+ annually in added efficiency, less downtime, and a more robust report system. Guess what they said? "We all think it is fine the way it is." That's money thrown out the window, employees who are frustrated (without knowing why), and forcing the company to lose efficiency by not being able to compete with newer companies that are utilizing newer technology to better their bottom line.
Ugh.
Once someone shows that there is no longer a use for any relationship between data entries, then we'll be able to say that RDBMSs are obsolete. Actually both headlines (/. and the linked article) are mistaken about what Michael Stonebraker is saying. He is talking about read intensive applications mostly and he is talking about optimization of data for reading purposes. This does not mean that RDBMSs are obsolete for all uses, just that he sees a faster way to retrieve data for certain uses.
You can't handle the truth.
Along with Procedural Programming, this could REVOLUTIONIZE the software industry!!
Traditionally perl-objects are hashes with one blessed hash per instance. The hash contains all the instance variable values using their names as keys.
instead one can use blessed scalars holding a single integer value for instances and let the class variable contain all the instance data in arrays indexed by the instances scalar value.
This technique was originally promoted as an indirection to protect object data from direct manipution that bypassed get/set methods. But it also allows the object to be either row or column oriented internally. that is the class could store all the instance hashes in an array indexed by the scalar. or it could store each instance variable in a separate array that is indexed by the scalar value.
Thus the perl class can, on-the-fly, switch itself from column-oriented to row-oriented as needed while maintaining the same external interface.
Of course this is not a perl-exclusive feature and it can implemented in other languages. It just happens to be particularly easy and natural to do in perl.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
On the contrary.
... etc
From a standard 3rd generation programing language one can read and write into flat files and we can do close to this with a hierachical database.
We lose this with relational databases because the way the database organises data has no direct mapping to the way it might be set up in a standard programming language.
What this means is that every transaction to and from the database must go through a literally horrible re-mapping. IE. The language data structures do not correspond to the RDBMS data structures and visa versa.
As an example - in postgreSQL the last I looked at writing a simple row into a table where there were something like 100 columns in the row...
In the 3rd generation programming languages this was just a simple structure with 100 entries.
The data transfer from that structure generated a function call with more than 1000 parameters. This was to be mapped and re-mapped with each call to transfer data, this is even though the structure itself is static and determined at compile time.
Next: There were about 10 parameters per field (column).
1: Column name
2: Column name length
3: data type
4: data length
5: character representation
finally 10: Address where the data lives.
The thing is such a table could be set up very easily and populated with a simple loop that rolls in the required values via say a mapping function with about 10 arguments. This could be done ONCE at run time to prepare for the transfer of data and then the same table could be referenced for each call and simply an address could be sent with the transfer.
Noooo.. It was dynamic and the data was encoded as parameters on the stack. This means the stack must be build and torn down and rebuilt for each call.
Next - the implementation was so bad that the program would run in test mode with only a few parameter but it failed when the whole row was to be transfered.
I gave up on that interface.
---------------
Oracle had pre-compilers. They did the same damn thing. The code generated by the pre-compilers was just awful.
---------------
While there is much good to say about RDBMS's in general. The issue I ran into was the interface from 3rd generation languages took a HUGE step backward. IMHO we should have a high level language statement called DBRead() and DBWrite(). In C this should generally correspond to fread() and fwrite(). If this is too complex then DBWriteStruct() could be implemented with suitable mapping helper function.
Nooo...
In the old days one could read and write into a flat file at a given location with a single statement or function call depending on the language. Of course "where" to read and write became a real issue and I do fully understand the complexity of file based tree structures and so forth, especially since I wrote a lot of code to implement these algorithms.
The thing is now we have RDBMS and other solutions that give us the data organisational abilities we need - and we lose the ease of mapping these structures into a suitable structure or object in the programming language.
I for one do not think we have stepped forward very far at all.
-------------
I'll toss in a case in point made by a good buddy of mine who just happens to be one of the top geophysical programmers in this city.
One of his clients was running an application hooked to an Oracle database running on a fast SUN. Run times were measured in close to a day.
Finally they removed the Oracle interface and replaced it with a glorified flat file. They clearly built in some indexing. The result is the run times dropped to under 20 minuets.
As my buddy says - He will NOT use any RDBMS. He can take 5 views of the data comprising 1000's of seismic lines and the user can click on any trace number, line number, well tie and so forth and in real time he can modify all views of the data on as many as 5 s
- He helped created THE first relational DB.
- He later moved to creating an Object-Oriented Relational DB with Postgres in the 80's. Much of that tech has found its way into other DBs such as Oracle and even helped create the OODBMS world.
- Now, he is creating the Column store DB and announces that this will be the next big thing.
I would listen to him. Biased or not, He has a better track record than most intelligent ppl (and all the wanna-be/hasbeens; dvrack comes to mind) in the tech field.I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.