Related
ORM seems to be a fast-growing model, with both pros and cons in their side. From Ultra-Fast ASP.NET of Richard Kiessig (http://www.amazon.com/Ultra-Fast-ASP-NET-Build-Ultra-Scalable-Server/dp/1430223839/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b):
"I love them because they allow me to develop small, proof-of-concept sites extremely quickly. I can side step much of the SQL and related complexity that I would otherwise need and focus on the objects, business logic and presentation. However, at the same time, I also don't care for them because, unfortunately, their performance and scalability is usually very poor, even when they're integrated with a comprehensive caching system (the reason for that becomes clear when you realize that when properly configured, SQL Server itself is really just a big data cache"
My questions are:
What is your comment about Richard's idea. Do you agree with him or not? If not, please tell why.
What is the best suitable fields for ORM and traditional database query? in other words, where you should use ORM and where you should use traditional database query :), which kind/size... of applications you should undoubtedly choose ORM/traditional database query
Thanks in advance
I can't agree to the common complain about ORMs that they perform bad. I've seen many plain-SQL applications until now. While it is theoretically possible to write optimized SQL, in reality, they ruin all the performance gain by writing not optimized business logic.
When using plain SQL, the business logic gets highly coupled to the db model and database operations and optimizations are up to the business logic. Because there is no oo model, you can't pass around whole object structures. I've seen many applications which pass around primary keys and retrieve the data from the database on each layer again and again. I've seen applications which access the database in loops. And so on. The problem is: because the business logic is already hardly maintainable, there is no space for any more optimizations. Often when you try to reuse at least some of your code, you accept that it is not optimized for each case. The performance gets bad by design.
An ORM usually doesn't require the business logic to care too much about data access. Some optimizations are implemented in the ORM. There are caches and the ability for batches. This automatic (and runtime-dynamic) optimizations are not perfect, but they decouple the business logic from it. For instance, if a piece of data is conditionally used, it loads it using lazy loading on request (exactly once). You don't need anything to do to make this happen.
On the other hand, ORM's have a steep learning curve. I wouldn't use an ORM for trivial applications, unless the ORM is already in use by the same team.
Another disadvantage of the ORM is (actually not of the ORM itself but of the fact that you'll work with a relational database an and object model), that the team needs to be strong in both worlds, the relational as well as the oo.
Conclusion:
ORMs are powerful for business-logic centric applications with data structures that are complex enough that having an OO model will advantageous.
ORMs have usually a (somehow) steep learning curve. For small applications, it could get too expensive.
Applications based on simple data structures, having not much logic to manage it, are most probably easier and straight forward to be written in plain sql.
Teams with a high level of database knowledge and not much experience in oo technologies will most probably be more efficient by using plain sql. (Of course, depending on the applications they write it could be recommendable for the team to switch the focus)
Teams with a high level of oo knowledge and only basic database experience are most probably more efficient by using an ORM. (same here, depending on the applications they write it could be recommendable for the team to switch the focus)
ORM is pretty old, at least in the Java world.
Major problems with ORM:
Object-Oriented model and Relational model are quite different.
SQL is a high level language to access data based on relational algebra, different from any OO language like C#, Java or Visual Basic.Net. Mixing those can you the worst of two worlds, instead of the best
For more information search the web on things like 'Object-relational impedance mismatch'
Either case, a good ORM framework saves you on quite some boiler-plate code. But you still need to have knowlegde of SQL, how to setup a good SQL databasemodel. Start with creating a good databasemodel using SQL, then base your OO model on that (not the other way around)
However, the above only holds if you really need to use a SQL database. I recommend looking into NoSQL movement as well. There's stuff like Cassandra, Couch-db. While google'ing for .net solutions I found this stackoverflow question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1777103/what-nosql-solutions-are-out-there-for-net
I'm the author of the book with the text quoted in the question.
Let me emphatically add that I am not arguing against using business objects or object oriented programming.
One issue I have with conventional ORM -- for example, LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework -- is that it often leads to developers making DB calls when they don't even realize that they're doing so. This, in turn, is a performance and scalability killer.
I review lots of websites for performance issues, and have found that DB chattiness is one of the most common causes of serious problems. Unfortunately, ORM tends to encourage chattiness, in spades.
The other complaints I have about ORM include:
No support for command batching
No support for multiple result sets
No support for table valued parameters
No support for native async calls (making them from a background thread doesn't count)
Support for SqlDependency and SqlCacheDependency is klunky if/when it works at all
I have no objection to using ORM tactically, to address specific business issues. But I do object to using it haphazardly, to the point where developers do things like make the exact same DB call dozens of time on the same page, or issue hugely expensive queries without considering caching and change notifications, or totally neglect async operations when scalability is a concern.
This site uses Linq-to-SQL I believe, and it's 'fairly' high traffic... I think that the time you save from writing the boiler plate code to access/insert/update simple items is invaluable, but there is always the option to drop down to calling a SPROC if you have something more complex, where you know you can write some screaming fast SQL directly.
I don't think that these things have to be mutually exclusive - use the advantages of both, and if there are sections of your application that start to slow down, then you can optimise as you need to.
ORM is far older than both Java and .NET. The first one I knew about was TopLink for Smalltalk. It's an idea as old as persistent objects.
Every "CRUD on the web" framework like Ruby on Rails, Grails, Django, etc. uses ORM for persistence because they all presume that you are starting with a clean sheet object model: no legacy schema to bother with. You start with the objects to model your problem and generate the persistence from it.
It often works the other way with legacy systems: the schema is long-lived, and you may or may not have objects.
It's astonishing how quickly you can get a prototype up and running with "CRUD on the web" frameworks, but I don't see them being used to develop enterprise apps in large corporations. Maybe that's a Fortune 500 prejudice.
Database admins that I know tell me they don't like the SQL that ORMs generate because it's often inefficient. They all wish for a way to hand-tune it.
I agree with most points already made here.
ORM's are not new in .NET, LLBLGen has been around for a long time, I've been using them for >5 years now in .NET.
I've seen very bad performing code written without ORMs (in-efficient SQL queries, bad indexes, nested database calls - ouch!) and bad code written with ORMs - I'm sure I've contributed to some of the bad code too :)
What I would add is that an ORM is generally a powerful and productivity-enhancing tool that allows you to stop worrying about plumbing db code for most of your application and concentrate on the application itself. When you start trying to write complex code (for example reporting pages or complex UI's) you need to understand what is happening underneath the hood - ignorance can be very costly. But, used properly, they are immensely powerful, and IMO won't have a detrimental effect on your apps performance. I for one wouldn't be happy on a project that didn't use an ORM.
Programming is about writing software for business use. The more we can focus on business logic and presentation and less with technicalities that only matter at certain points in time (when software goes down, when software needs upgrading, etc), the better.
Recently I read about talks of scalability from a Reddit founder, from here, and one line of him that caught my attention was this:
"Having to deal with the complexities
of relational databases (relations,
joins, constraints) is a thing of the
past."
From what I have watched, maintaining a complex database schema, when it comes to scalability, becomes a major pain as the site grows (you add a field, you reassign constraints, re-map foreign keys...etc). It was not entirely clear to me as to why is that. They're not using a NOSQL database though, they're in Postgres.
Add to that, here comes ORM, another layer of abstraction. It simplifies code writing, but almost often at a performance penalty. For me, a simple database abstraction library will do, much like lightweight AR libs out there together with database-specific "plain text" queries. I can't show you any benchmark but with the ORMs I have seen, most of them say that "ORM can often be slow".
Richard covers both sides of the coin, so I agree with him.
As for the fields, I really don't quite get the context of the "fields" you are asking about.
As others have said, you can write underperforming ORM code, and you can also write underperforming SQL.
Using ORM doesn't excuse you from knowing your SQL, and understanding how a query fits together. If you can optimize a SQL query, you can usually optimize an ORM query. For example, hibernate's criteria and HQL queries let you control which associations are joined to improve performance and avoid additional select statements. Knowing how to create an index to improve your most common query can make or break your application performance.
What ORM buys you is uniform, maintainable database access. They provide an extra layer of verification to ensure that your OO code matches up as closely as possible with your database access, and prevent you from making certain classes of stupid mistake, like writing code that's vulnerable to SQL injection. Of course, you can parameterize your own queries, but ORM buys you that advantage without having to think about it.
Never got anything but pain and frustration from ORM packages. If I'd write my SQL the way they autogen it - yeah I'd claim to be fast while my code would be slow :-) Have you ever seen SQL generated by an ORM ? Barely has PK-s, uses FK-s only for misguided interpretation of "inheritance" and if it wants to do paging it dumps the whole recordset on you and then discards 90% of it :-))) Then it locks everything in sight since it has to take in a load of records like it went back to 50 yr old IBM's batch processing.
For a while I thought that the biggest problem with ORM was splintering (not going to have a standard in 50 yrs - every year different API, pardon "model" :-) and ideologizing (everyone selling you a big philosophy - always better than everyone else's of course :-) Then I realized that it was really the total amateurism that's the root cause of the mess and everything else is just the consequence.
Then it all started to make sense. ORM was never meant to be performant or reliable - that wasn't even on the list :-) It was academic, "conceptual" toy from the day one, the consolation prize for professors pissed off that all their "relational" research papers in Prolog went down the drain when IBM and Oracle started selling that terrible SQL thing and making a buck :-)
The closest I came to trusting one was LINQ but only because it's possible and quite easy to kick out all "tracking" and use is just as deserialization layer for normal SQL code. Then I read how the object that's managing connection can develop spontaneous failures that sounded like premature GC while it still had some dangling stuff around. No way I was going to risk my neck with it after that - nope, not my head :-)
So, let me make a list:
Totally sloppy code - not going to suffer bugs and poor perf
Not going to take deadlocks from ORM's 10-100 times longer "transactions"
Drastic reduction of capabilities - SQL has huge expressive power these days
Tying you up into fringe and sloppy API (every ORM aims to hijack your codebase)
SQL queries are highly portable and SQL knowledge is totally portable
I still have to know SQL just to clean up ORM's mess anyway
For "proof-of-concept" I can just serialize to binary or XML files
not much slower, zero bug libraries and one XPath can select better anyway
I've actually done heavy traffic web sites all from XML files
if I actually need real graph then I have no use for DB - nothing real to query
I can serialize a blob and dump into SQL in like 3 lines of code
If someone claims that he does it all from DB to UI - keep your codebase locked :-)
and backup your payroll DB - you'll thank me latter :-)))
NoSQL bases are more honest than ORM - "we specialize in persistence"
and have better code quality - not surprised at all
That would be the short list :-) BTW, modern SQL engines these days do trees and spatial indexing, not to mention paging without a single record wasted. ORM-s are actually "solving" problems of 10yrs ago and promoting amateurism. To that extent NoSQL, also known as document
I would like to understand database scalability so I've just heard a talk about Habits of Highly Scalable Web Applications
http://techportal.inviqa.com/2010/03/02/habits-of-highly-scalable-web-applications/
On it, the presenter mainly talk about relational database scalability.
I also have read something about MapReduce and Column oriented tables, big tables, hypertable etc... trying to understand which are the most up to date methods to scale web application data. But the second group, to me, is being hard to understand where it fits.
It serves as transactional, reliable data store? or not, its just for large access and processing and to handle fine graned operations we will ever need to rely on RDBMSs?
Could someone give a comprehensive landscape for those new technologies and how to use it?
Basically it's about using the right tool for the job. Relational databases have been around for decades, which means they are very good at solving the problems that haven't changed in that time - things like keeping track of sales for example. Although they have become the default data store for just about everything, they are not so good at handling the problems that didn't exist twenty years ago - particularly scalability and data without a clearly defined, unchanging schema.
NOSQL is a class of tools designed to solve the problems that are not perfectly suited to relational databases. Scalability is the best known, though unlikely to be a relevant to most developers. I think the other key use case that we don't see so much of yet is for small projects that don't need to worry about the data storage characteristics at all, and can just use the default - being able to skip database design, ORM and database maintenance is quite attractive.
For Ecommerce specifically you're probably better off using sql at least in part - You might use NOSQL for product details or a recommendation engine, but you want your sales data in an easily queried sql table.
We are in the early stages of design of a big business application that will have multiple modules. One of the requirements is that the application should be database independent, it should support SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL and DB2.
From what I have read on the web, database independence is a very bad idea: it would result in a hard-to-maintain code, database design with the least-common features in all supported DBMSs, bad performance and bad scalability. My personal gut feeling is that the complexity of this feature, more than any other feature, could increase the development cost and time exponentially. The code will be dreadful.
But I cannot persuade anybody to ignore this feature. The problem is that most data on this issue are empirical data, lacking numbers to support the case. If anyone can share any numbers-supported data on the issue I would appreciate it.
One of the possible design options is to use Entity framework for the database tier with provider for each DBMS. My personal feeling is that writing SQL statements manually without any ORM would be a "must" since you have no control on the SQL generated by the entity framework, and a database-independent scenario will need some SQL tweaking based on the DBMS the code is targeting, and I think that third-party entity framework providers will have a significant amount of bugs that only appear in the complex scenarios that the application will have. I would like to hear from anyone who has had an experience with using entity framework for database-independent scenario before.
Also, one of the possibilities discussed by the team is to support one DBMS (SQL Server, for example) in the first iteration and then add support for other DBMSs in successive iterations. I think that since we will need a database design with the least common features, this development strategy is bad, since we need to know all the features of all databases before we start writing code for the first DBMS. I need to hear from you about this possibility, too.
Have you looked at Comparison of different SQL implementations ?
This is an interesting comparison, I believe it is reasonably current.
Designing a good relational data model for your application should be database agnostic, for the simple reason that all RDBMSs are designed to support the features of relational data models.
On the other hand, implementation of the model is normally influenced by the personal preferences of the people specifying the implementation. Everybody has their own slant on doing things, for instance you mention autoincremented identity in a comment above. These personal preferences for implementation are the hurdles that can limit portability.
Reading between the lines, the requirement for database independence has been handed down from above, with the instruction to make it so. It also seems likely that the application is intended for sale rather than in-house use. In context, the database preference of potential clients is unkown at this stage.
Given such requirements, then the practical questions include:
who will champion each specific database for design and development ? This is important, inasmuch as the personal preferences for implementation of each of these people need to be reconciled to achieve a database-neutral solution. If a specific database has no champion, chances are that implementing the application on this database will be poorly done, if at all.
who has the depth of database experience to act as moderator for the champions ? This person will have to make some hard decisions at times, but horsetrading is part of the fun.
will the programming team be productive without all of their personal favourite features ? Stored procedures, triggers etc. are the least transportable features between RDBMs.
The specification of the application itself will also need to include a clear distinction between database-agnostic and database specific design elements/chapters/modules/whatever. Amongst other things, this allows implementation with one DBMS first, with a defined effort required to implement for each subsequent DBMS.
Database-agnostic parts should include all of the DML, or ORM if you use one.
Database-specific parts should be more-or-less limited to installation and drivers.
Believe it or not, vanilla-flavoured sql is still a very powerful programming language, and personally I find it unlikely that you cannot create a performant application without database-specific features, if you wish to.
In summary, designing database-agnostic applications is an extension of a simple precept:
Encapsulate what varies
I work with Hibernate which gives me the benefits of the ORM plus the database independence. Database specific features are out of the question and this usually improves my design. Everything (domain model, business logic and data access methods) are testable so development is not painful.
مرحبا , Muhammed!
Database independence is neither "good" nor "bad". It is a design decision; it is a trade-off.
Let's talk about the choices:
It would result in a hard to maintain code
This is the choice of your programmers. If you make your code database-independent, then you should use a layer between your code and the database. The best kind of layer is one that someone else has written.
...Database design with the least common features in all supported DBMSs
This is, by definition, true. Luckily, the common features in all supported databases are fairly broad; they should all implement the SQL-99 standard.
...bad performance and bad scalability
This should not be true. The layer should add minimal cost to the database.
...this is the most feature ever that could increase the development cost and time exponentially with complexity. The code will be dreadful.
Again, I recommend that you use a layer between your code and the database.
You didn't specify which language or platform you're writing for. Luckily, many languages have already abstracted out databases:
Java has JDBC drivers
Python has the Python Database API
.NET has ADO.NET
Good luck.
Database independence is an overrated application feature. In reality, it is very rare for a large business application to be moved onto a new database platform after it's built and deployed. You can also miss out on DBMS specific features and optimisations.
That said, if you really want to include database independence, you might be best to write all your database access code against interfaces or abstract classes, like those used in the .NET System.Data.Common namespace (DbConnection, DbCommand, etc.) or use an O/RM library that supports multiple databases like NHibernate.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.
What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).
Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.
If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.
In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.
It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.
NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.
NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.
Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.
While computer programming evangelists predicting the future of Cloud Computing to be very bright, is there a chance for relational databases to be on their way out?
What are the DBs that are more suitable for Cloud Computing?
Here's a good article that may answer some of your questions. It features a good comparison between RDBMS systems and the ones usually used for cloud storage infrastructure:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php
The relational database model has a firm mathematical basis in relational algebra. This makes it easy to reason about, to extend, and to use properly (in theory). Even if database access patterns change significantly as a result of these new APIs and uses, it's likely that a relational database will form the underlying implementation for this reason.
No, RDBMSs will always have a place because of their functionality. Not just on their own, but also as backbones to other systems (like OODBMSs).
Relational databases are still relevant, both for localized storage (such as application-specific storage) and for server storage.
The cloud computing platforms that I've seen each have a relational database offering. So, I don't see cloud computing really changing the picture in reference to database types being used.
However, something will eventually replace the databases that we're all used to. The question is whether that will be a higher-level version of RDBs or something different. Another aspect of that question is how long will it take for the current crop of RDBs to fade out? (I don't have an answer for either.)
Clouds go poof still these days, so I don't think so anytime soon.
I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. Something else might though.
First, what type of storage engine a given application uses does not (or should not) depend on where it is running (the cloud or a specific server), but rather on how it needs to store the data.
Second, as far as I can tell the only reason people think RDBMSs are on their way out is because they don't scale as well as non-relational DBMSs (such as document-oriented DBMSs like CouchDB) which can more easily be distributed into the cloud. However, there is no reason that RDBMSs cannot become more cloud-friendly in the future. As an early example, look at Drizzle:
The Drizzle project is building a database optimized for Cloud and Net applications. It is being designed for massive concurrency on modern multi-cpu/core architecture.
So no, I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. They will just be forced to adapt. What might kill them, however, is if an existing alternative, or a new one, becomes as robust and easy to use as RDBMSs. What I mean is a solution that has both completely solid software (betas not allowed) and is easy for programmers to switch to. They give out degrees to people who understand RDBMSs. Because of all the assisting software (such as ORMs like ActiveRecord, SQLAlchemy, and whatever the .NET folk use I'm assuming), using RDBMSs has become easy even for people who don't know what the first normal form is. So I think that until there is a way for people to use (for instance) a DODBMS just as easily, RDBMSs will continue to dominate. I'm also not saying that is necessarily bad. Again, which DBMS you use should depend on your data, not what people say is cool and better.
A quote from the article :
"The inherent constraints of a relational database ensure that data at the lowest level have integrity. Data that violate integrity constraints cannot physically be entered into the database. These constraints don't exist in a key/value database, so the responsibility for ensuring data integrity falls entirely to the application. But application code often carries bugs. Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues."
What this means to me is that RDBMS's are doomed, and hotshot new technologies are facing a great and brilliant future, to the same extent that users aren't anywhere near interested in the correctness of their data.
IMHO.
There's nothing wrong with relational databases for applications that need to query more structured data (e.g., "How many people bought product XYZ, on this date, paid more than $100, but less than $150?"). There are potentially significant architectural issues that will need to be addressed as these systems scale and grow. Once your DB outgrows the one machine you started on and/or traffic/requests begin to overload available resources, then (if you still want to keep your relational database) you have to start adding layers. Thankfully today, there are many more options available then in previous years... including caching, map and reduce, and other functionality - but these add-on layers do add complexity and maintenance overhead. In one sense I'd consider these engineered "band-aids" which will most likely solve the scalability and distribution problems with a relational DB today, but longer term? Who knows. I also see these popular layers today - all of which are basically trying to emulate functionality already available in object DBs, giving developers a "virtual object DB" layer that they can use with their object languages to do things faster and more efficiently, and get past the growth and performance obstacles. So I guess my overall opinion is, relational DBs became the defacto DB probably mostly due to how (relatively) easy it was to query a database, and get results back to the one client/app using it. As volumes have grown though, and application complexity is exponentially greater today, I think more developers will decide to bite the bullet, learn the syntax for object DBs (which is actually about as standardized today as relational DBs), and just skip all the middleware and layers that only emulate functionality that one could get natively in an OODBMS. I've seen OODBs that simply get installed on any number of servers, and automatically distributing data as needed, and giving the developer a single view of any size federation of databases... Seems to me the best solution as systems become more distributed, to get a DB that can has native distributed architecture. Anyway, just a thought.