Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digg Says Yes To NoSQL Cassandra DB, Bye To MySQL

Posted by timothy on from the can-you-trust-a-db-by-that-name? dept.

donadony writes "After twitter, now it's Digg who's decided to replace MySQL and most of their infrastructure components and move away from LAMP to another architecture called NoSQL that is based in Cassandra, an open source project that develops a highly scalable second-generation distributed database. Cassandra was open sourced by Facebook in 2008 and is licensed under the Apache License. The reason for this move, as explained by Digg, is the increasing difficulty of building a high-performance, write-intensive application on a data set that is growing quickly, with no end in sight. This growth has forced them into horizontal and vertical partitioning strategies that have eliminated most of the value of a relational database, while still incurring all the overhead."

6 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Dugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    They'll be able to suck off Kevin Rose's dick that much faster

  2. Richard Stallman resigns from FSF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Richard Stallman resigns from Free Software Foundation, announces bid for GNAA presidency

  3. Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg by QuoteMstr · · Score: 0, Troll

    No. To simplify the scenario, let's pretend instead that you receive a lump-sum payment of $2 billion or $1 million two years. What specific actions would take for the former that you would not take for the latter?

    As for the "tasks related to founding a company" bit: the intent was to screen out irrelevant answers like "I'd have sex with Newt Gingrich for $2 billion but not for $1 million".

  4. Re:Reddit's reliability has been shitty lately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    $

    The motherfucking word is "money". "$" isn't a word: it's an abbreviation for "I'm a teenager or computer janitor who doesn't have an intellect strong enough to be bothered by skullfucking the English language."

  5. Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg by seanadams.com · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes, I omitted the word "in" between "million" and "two". Therefore, I am wrong. The strength of your argument being overwhelming, I am forced to concede.

    I might have guessed that, or I might have guessed "for", which would have made only slightly less sense.

    If you have a point, why don't you come out and state it instead of asking me to answer an implausible question?

  6. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Blah Blah

    Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

    How else can you explain the wealth of approaches like ORM mappers, the repository and active record patterns, etc ? They are just patches on the relational model to make them friendly to application code.

    Blah Blah Blah

    ORMs are syntactic sugar for the underlying database operations. It's possible to bypass them when you need SQL's full power and access the same data store.

    I for one do not want to use an API with Address1 - Address5 string properties.

    Blah Blah

    So create a table of addresses and use foreign keys to connect them to whatever other table you'd like. Since when does a relational structure require a garbage schema like your example. But surely you know all that.

    Further, since most object databases are defined and consumed in the languages you develop against with them, the sophistication is limited to the language

    Blah Blah Blah

    But doesn't that then preclude accessing the same data set from programs written in other languages? The beauty of SQL is that it's language-agnostic.

    You also make several points relating to toolchains and testing: sure, some databases have better tools than others. But we're talking about differences between models, not differences between particular tools.

    I think that just about covers it.