At the same time he has the right kind of experience for people to listen to him. He is saying that the ordinary relational database, like MySQL and Postgres, can no longer keep up with the needs of large net systems. Facebook runs about 4000 MySQL instances and expanding to 9000 to handle the load and recovery needs. Mike Stonebraker is telling those who will listen that the future is in a new kind of distributed in-memory database designed to handle exponentially larger amounts of information. He is more recently associated with VoltDB and has drawn criticism from Amazon chief technology officer Werner Vogels and a core database engineer at Mark Zuckerberg's social networking outfit showing how jealous the networking and system guys are.
The critics may have forgotten that Stonebraker exposed the flaws of the MapReduce distributed number crunching platform that underpinned Google's backend infrastructure. The argument really comes down to disk versus memory. Yes, in memory databases are faster but if they crash that instance is lost. If the DB is running on drives then the info is rarely ‘lost.’ Also remember that Facebook uses Cassandra for its inbox search tool, and it went with HBase for its new messaging platform. These are distributed databases that are not the traditional SQL model in favour of distributed non-relational architectures that can readily scale. The reason is the ease of scalability.
So the future, for Web based systems at least, appears to be the non-SQL databases something between the NoSQL and NewSQL models. Stonebraker favours the latter model but many others prefer and are using the former. Don’t get me wrong SQL is still a major player and of major importance in the wider database world. There is no database that can do it all in all situations. There are some that perform better in a given situation and when you are choosing one remember that the standard relational database models are not the only ones out there. Time will tell how this debate ends up and it won’t be too long before a new technology and a new database engine is developed and used.
This week I have been writing a lot of SQL, T-SQL in this case. Basic SQL is quite easy, the simple forms of the SELECT, UPDATE and other statements are easy to learn and use. Things get a little easier when you have to dig a little deeper. It starts with some simple sub-selects then two or more levels of these. Doing an UPDATE to modify some existing data is Ok until you have to use a correlated subselect to update the data. The problem is that there is little documentation on really advanced SQL and the only decent source are discussion boards of those who may have tried different combination until something works.
For example today I was writing a difficult UPDATE sequence that worked off both a subselect and a correlated query. It took me a bit of experimenting with both the brackets and the syntax until I managed to get it working. Even then I had to try a few different suggestions from a few different Web search results before I started to zero in. Then there is the whole exercise of moving from an Access automatically generated SQL statement across to the SQLServer realm.
But wait you point out, they are both from Microsoft. Yes my young Padawan but it appears that the two teams were kept not only in different rooms but on different continents and they never spoke to each other, not once. Syntax is different, structure is different, behaviour is different and things you can do in Access requires a lot of creative thinking to translate into the more bland T-SQL world. Bottom line if you are going to get into the world of SQL be prepared for a bit of a learning curve, especially if you want to get creative.
My brother dropped by on the weekend and started using my computer. After a few minutes he said “you really need to get a new computer.” My PC is over 4 years old now, it is getting slower, has too much junk installed on it, some of the ports no longer work very well and most importantly it doesn’t play Starcraft 2 very well. The good news is that you can get a very good computer these days for around $1000 or 30K Baht. For the average person you don’t need tri-state DDR RAM and you don’t need an eight core CPU. The basic middle of the road units are great. If you are going 64-bit Windows 7 then get lots of RAM, many new computers come with 8-12 GB these days.
For my purposes the middle level graphics cards with 1GB are enough and one of those. I’ll still get a good ASUS or Gigabyte motherboard with USB3 and as many SATA hard drive ports as possible, including a couple that will support the faster drives. I also like the idea of a solid state boot drive where I will store and run programs. Not sure on the size yet but as usual the longer I wait the less expensive the final purchase will be. I’ll let you know when and what I get.
Industry News
There are now a lot of book sellers who are hoping that Android crushes Apple in the eBook segment in the near future. Booksellers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Kobo have been forced by Apple to remove all links to their own web-based stores from all their apps for the iPhone and iPad. The Google Books app has vanished completely. It took five months but the February edict that all must bow and genuflect to Apple finally took hold. All that is left are some announcements from the book sellers about an app change and the need to separately go to their stores.
The draconian Apple imposition also means that people can no longer manage their accounts easily while in the Apple sphere at least. Understandably the book sellers are not happy and it also means that the moment Apple no longer become necessary for any significant sales figures that they will be justifiably cut off. The only concession from Apple is that items or subscriptions sold through the App Store must no longer cost the same or less than the same content offered from the provider's own website.
Apple has also shown its might in the country of China forcing two ‘Apple’ stores to close down. From the Chinese point of view it was because they did not have the correct trading permits. From Apple’s perspective they were complete copies of a real Apple store, to the point that the local Chinese thought they were real and the staff believed that they were employed by Apple. They were even buying the products from authourised resellers so no fakes were involved in this instance. The real issue was that Apple has four real stores in China in Beijing and Shanghai along with 13 authorised resellers in Kunming. The five stores involved, even though they meet all of the normal Apple requirements are in ‘competition’ with the real Apple stores so they had to go.
Truly Apple as an organization is now the epitome of the overbearing computer organization.