Databases

>>59593599
http://db.cs.cmu.edu/courses/ some free courses here, the 'advanced' db course has youtube lectures and is totally awesome explaining everything about a modern dbms

To answer your question read this pdf http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2016/papers/pavlo-newsql2015.pdf

You should never use a NoSQL database unless you plan to store an extremely huge amount of data over several servers.

>>59593599

NoSQL is the future. If you still useMysQL, you are either braindead or an Oracle employee.

>>59595065
>NoSQL is the future
They said this 10 years ago. All the big companies still use mostly SQL databases.

Facebook, for example, wrote their own NoSQL database, opensurced it and abandoned it. Now they use MySQL for everything. Google uses MySQL for all their advertising businesses (which is their most important part of the company since it makes 99% of their revenue).

Seems to me that NoSQL has failed and failed miserably.

File: 1459400109001.png (43KB, 478x284px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 478x284px

>>59594991
>You should never use a NoSQL database unless you plan to store an extremely huge amount of data over several servers.
... and if the data is more or less worthless (access logs for example).

If you care about data, you should never use nosql.

>>59593599
The reference RDBMS nowadays is Postgres. MySQL is kinda amateurish, it's used a lot because it has the fame of being easier.

Read Sam Teachs you SQL in 24 hours. It will give you a good idea of the main concepts. Then dive into the Postgres reference manual, it's 3000 pages long but will make you a ninja(tip's).

Basically no one uses Oracle.
Only your local grocery store uses SQLServer.

Contrary to what people are saying, NoSQL does have some uses and neither facebook or google abandoned their projects.

People think NoSQL is dead because it didn't live up to the retardly high expectations. The same happened to most tech buzzwords.

>>59595065
Yes, you should have moved on to MariaDB by now.

File: 2817548511.jpg (109KB, 539x410px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 539x410px

>>59595806
>Basically no one uses Oracle.

>>59595806
Oracle is heavily used in enterprise due to technologically incompetent higher management being swayed by their sales team.

Given that, it's a good product as long as you can pay for it. Definitely not for crappy hobby projects. Would be nice to see Postgres catch up on features though.

>>59595975
>Oracle is heavily used in enterprise due to technologically incompetent higher management being swayed by their sales team.

The thing with Oracle is that if your simple select query fails, you can call oracle-911 and 20 db-monkeys will step at your door within 2 minutes. For better or worse, this is a cool feature.

>>59595975
>>59596026
Unless you're Amazon or Google, having a support contract is a must. That's also why RHEL is the only acceptable Linux distro for most companies.

>>59593599
oracle database, absolute the best in industry, used by most corporations and governments.

>>59593599
We need a regular database threads.

>>59596143
>we need a new general
found the mongodb user

>>59596095
>oracle database
do Oracle DB guys still make $100k+?

>>59596143
agreed

>>59593599
>What is the best database to learn how to use right now? For web programming and such...

PostgreSQL and MariaDB are the only sane choices for your primary data store. SQLite is also a decent choice if you're certain your app will never scale beyond one server.

>>59596026
>The thing with Oracle is that if your simple select query fails, you can call oracle-911 and 20 db-monkeys will step at your door within 2 minutes. For better or worse, this is a cool feature.

You can get enterprise support for any database of sufficient marketshare.

>>59596165
What wrong with mongodb if I may ask?

>>59596293
Someone should create a list of resources so people can learn about databases.

>>59596431

Because you can emulate a NoSQL datastore in any relational database worth a shit. And most importantly, because your data is relational, even if you don't know it yet.

>>59594991
> You should never use a NoSQL database unless you plan to store an extremely huge amount of data

Also, if you don't care about performance in searching that data.

Also, if you don't mind replication delays.

NoSQL has its uses, but it's best for data where exact precision is not necessary, and there's so much of it that its sheer size becomes a challenge to manage.

File: 1468665880590.png (203KB, 394x376px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 394x376px

>>59596467
>resources so people can learn about databases.
there was a good Stanford class on DBs but it got takne down or something

>>59595065
>NoSQL is the future. If you still useMysQL, you are either braindead or an Oracle employee.

This is laughably incorrect.

Use SQL when you need fast search results that are perfectly accurate -- even if the amount of data gets quite large.

If you're willing to give up both speed and accuracy, then you can consider NoSQL.

So basically, SQL is for business operations: accounting, inventory, orders, tracking, etc. Those applications do not use NoSQL, and they never will.

NoSQL usage might grow, but there are some very important domains where NoSQL has no chance to replace SQL.