Prev: Buy Genuine Google Adsense Account only for Rs.200/- for indian people.
Next: Getting Windows ACLs in Java
From: Jim Janney on 1 Apr 2010 17:01
Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 01-04-2010 16:08, Jim Janney wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj<arne(a)vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> On 01-04-2010 15:11, Jim Janney wrote:
>>>> I need to maintain a data base of small text snippets keyed by
>>>> arbitrary strings, without the overhead of a full SQL relational
>>>> database. We will have several people putting data into it so it
>>>> needs to support concurrent access over a network.
>>>>
>>>> JDBM catches my eye (http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/) but I can't find
>>>> any place that says whether it supports concurrent access or not.
>>>> Berkeley DB would be perfect but would need a license from Oracle
>>>> since this is a commercial product. Gdbm apparently does not support
>>>> concurrent access. TDB (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdb/) looks
>>>> good but would require a JNI interface and probably some work to get
>>>> it to compile under Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Any recommendations? I can do JNI if neccessary but would be just as
>>>> happy not to need to. I need something I can get going quickly --
>>>> management wants it yesterday, as usual...
>>>
>>> Why are you so sure that a full SQL relational database has
>>> too much overhead?
>>
>> Five years of experience using a relational database in the
>> application for which this is intended. They're great for some
>> things, and we use it for those things. This is not one of them.
>
> And the simple solution of buying some more powerful
> database hardware is not an option?

Tell all of our customers they have to upgrade their network and buy a
faster AS/400? No, that's not going to fly.

>>> They work. They are widely used. They are optimized a lot.
>>> They support ACID.
>>>
>>> Chosing some rarely used ISAM package, that may have
>>> concurrency problems& other bugs and may not even be optimized
>>> very well seems as a high risk for little gain to me.
>>>
>>> Sure Google, Yahoo, Facebook etc. uses NOSQL databases
>>> today. But they can also afford to spend 2 digit millions
>>> of dollars on the development without blinking. Can you?
>>
>> If I had time to debate this I wouldn't have asked the question. I
>> was hoping someone might have a quick, constructive suggestion.
>
> The fact that using a relational database does not perform
> well does not guarantee that a non-relational database will
> perform well.
>
> That is just wishful thinking.
>
> If you ask questions for free in a public forum, then
> you should be prepared for suggestions about other
> approaches than the one you prefer.

In the abstract it is undoubtably an interesting technical question.
I don't have time for it now.

--
Jim Janney
From: Jim Janney on 1 Apr 2010 17:06
Spud <fake(a)fkfkfkf.com> writes:

> Jim Janney wrote:
>> I need to maintain a data base of small text snippets keyed by
>> arbitrary strings, without the overhead of a full SQL relational
>> database. We will have several people putting data into it so it
>> needs to support concurrent access over a network.
>>
>> JDBM catches my eye (http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/) but I can't find
>> any place that says whether it supports concurrent access or not.
>> Berkeley DB would be perfect but would need a license from Oracle
>> since this is a commercial product. Gdbm apparently does not support
>> concurrent access. TDB (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdb/) looks
>> good but would require a JNI interface and probably some work to get
>> it to compile under Windows.
>>
>> Any recommendations? I can do JNI if neccessary but would be just as
>> happy not to need to. I need something I can get going quickly --
>> management wants it yesterday, as usual...
>>
>
> Google "key value stores". There are a bunch of them. Unfortunately
> most aren't very far along yet, and some have way more overhead than I
> think you want. But Tokyo Cabinet gets good reviews, as do a few
> others.

I overlooked that one. Thank you.

--
Jim Janney
From: Tom Anderson on 1 Apr 2010 18:15
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Arne Vajh?j wrote:

> On 01-04-2010 16:08, Jim Janney wrote:
>> Arne Vajh?j<arne(a)vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> On 01-04-2010 15:11, Jim Janney wrote:
>>>> I need to maintain a data base of small text snippets keyed by
>>>> arbitrary strings, without the overhead of a full SQL relational
>>>> database. We will have several people putting data into it so it
>>>> needs to support concurrent access over a network.
>>>
>>> Why are you so sure that a full SQL relational database has
>>> too much overhead?
>>
>> Five years of experience using a relational database in the
>> application for which this is intended. They're great for some
>> things, and we use it for those things. This is not one of them.
>
> And the simple solution of buying some more powerful database hardware
> is not an option?

Are you blinking serious? Are you mental? In what universe is it simpler
to use an RDBMS and pay copious dollars for more hardware than to use a
key-value store, a kind of software which is *principally known* for being
simpler than an RDBMS?

> The fact that using a relational database does not perform well does not
> guarantee that a non-relational database will perform well.
>
> That is just wishful thinking.

No, it's a reasonable hypothesis.

tom

--
When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. --
H. G. Wells
From: Roedy Green on 1 Apr 2010 23:38
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:11:10 -0600, Jim Janney
<jjanney(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>I need to maintain a data base of small text snippets keyed by
>arbitrary strings, without the overhead of a full SQL relational
>database. We will have several people putting data into it so it
>needs to support concurrent access over a network.

You might want a POD. see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/pod.html

To look for lightweight SQL engines, see
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sqlvendors.html

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

If you tell a computer the same fact in more than one place, unless you have an automated mechanism to ensure they stay in sync, the versions of the fact will eventually get out of sync.
From: Patrick May on 2 Apr 2010 11:29
Jim Janney <jjanney(a)shell.xmission.com> writes:
> I need to maintain a data base of small text snippets keyed by
> arbitrary strings, without the overhead of a full SQL relational
> database. We will have several people putting data into it so it
> needs to support concurrent access over a network.
[ . . . ]
> Berkeley DB would be perfect but would need a license from Oracle
> since this is a commercial product.

BDB was my first thought when reading your requirements. It's fast
and trustworthy. How expensive is the commercial license? I suspect
it's worth the amount of risk it eliminates.

Regards,

Patrick

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.softwarematters.org
Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO systems design and
implementation. (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Buy Genuine Google Adsense Account only for Rs.200/- for indian people.
Next: Getting Windows ACLs in Java