Parleys.com Search Index

Home

| Only JUGs

| FOSDEM NoSQL

Title: NOSQL for Fun and Profit

Summary:
NOSQL for Fun and Profit

Description:
Introduction talk on NOSQL by Tim Anglade at NOSQL devroom / FOSDEM 2010

Speaker(s): Tim Anglade

Keyword(s): nosql fosdem

Slide Content:
1) NOSQLun&Profit! forF TIM ANGLADE PROUDLY PRESENTS PART TWO OF THE TOTALLY UNKOWN “FUN & PROFIT” SERIES. A TALE OF TECH, INTRIGUE & FORBIDDEN LOVE. A WHIRLWIND OF ADVENTURERS, PRODUCTION SYSTEMS & TROLLS. A STORY SO BIG, ITS TITLE HAD TO HAVE ITS OWN INTRODUCTION TEXT. HERE IS…
2) @TIMANGLADE Hit me up. I don’t bite… too hard.
3) AN ANNOUNCEMENT
4) NØSQL e! p ro u E TH & 21ST LONDON, APRIL 20 ND WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING ON THE 22 FOLLOW @NOSQLEU FOR DETAILS
5) A WARNING This is Tech for Managers. Don’t Blame Me.
6) 40 YEARS IN THE DESERT
7) Information Retrieval P. BAXENDALE, Editor A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks E. F. CODD IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California Future having internal such at and are needed traffic with models are form data tions and in the KEY users to know information of large how is not the data data A banks prompting must be protected machine which Activities should from (the supplies of users remain is organized solution. programs of the in query, types data of more external in the service representation). and when when as and the some Changes a result natural noninferential, files data. A base are (other to the model. AND PHRASES: of integrity 3.73, a satisfactory application internal aspects in data in the formatted or based introduced. than logical of slightly terminals even changed. most unaffected representation representation of data will update, stored general systems is changed often and provide information. users network models a normal a universal operadiscussed consistency be representation report of changes growth Existing tree-structured of the discussed. for on data relations sublanguage applied user’s In Section model relations, 1, inadequacies on n-ary and the In Section inference) redundancy concept of these relations, of are and 2, certain The relational view (or model) of data described in Section 1 appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model [3,4] presently in vogue for noninferential systems. It provides a means of describing data with its natural structure only-that is, without superimposing any additional structure for machine representation purposes. Accordingly, it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other. A further advantage of the relational view is that it forms a sound basis for treating derivability, redundancy, and consistency of relations-these are discussedin Se
8) Information Retrieval P. BAXENDALE, Editor A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks E. F. CODD IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California Future having internal such at and are needed traffic with models are form data tions and in the KEY users to know information of large how is not the data data A banks prompting must be protected machine which Activities should from (the supplies of users remain is organized solution. programs of the in query, types data of more external in the service representation). and when when as and the some Changes a result natural noninferential, files data. A base are (other to the model. AND PHRASES: of a satisfactory application internal aspects in data in the formatted or based introduced. than logical of slightly terminals even changed. most unaffected representation representation of data will update, stored general systems is changed often and provide information. users network models a normal a universal operadiscussed consistency be representation report of changes growth Existing tree-structured of the discussed. for on data relations sublanguage applied user’s In Section model relations, 1, inadequacies on n-ary and the In Section inference) redundancy concept of these relations, of are and 2, certain The relational view (or model) of data described in Section 1 appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model [3,4] presently in vogue for noninferential systems. It provides a means of describing data with its natural structure only-that is, without superimposing any additional structure for machine representation purposes. Accordingly, it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other. A further advantage of the relational view is that it forms a sound basis for treating derivability, redundancy, and consistency of relations-these are discussedin Section 2. The net
9) WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “THE DESERT”?
10) THE GOOD A strong ecosystem.
11) THE BAD Databases on ACID.
12) THE UGLY Paradigm Puzzlement.
13) Noun paradigm (plural paradigms) 1. An example serving as a model or pattern. 2. A system of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.
14) S L Just say no
15) A NOT-SO-NOVEL IDEA
16) Information Retrieval P. BAXENDALE, Editor A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks E. F. CODD IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California Future having internal such at and are needed traffic with models are form data tions and in the KEY users to know information of large how is not the data data A banks prompting must be protected machine which Activities should from (the supplies of users remain is organized solution. programs of the in query, types data of more external in the service representation). and when when as and the some Changes a result natural noninferential, files data. A base are (other to the model. AND PHRASES: of integrity 3.73, a satisfactory application internal aspects in data in the formatted or based introduced. than logical of slightly terminals even changed. most unaffected representation representation of data will update, stored general systems is changed often and provide information. users network models a normal a universal operadiscussed consistency be representation report of changes growth Existing tree-structured of the discussed. for on data relations sublanguage applied user’s In Section model relations, 1, inadequacies on n-ary and the In Section inference) redundancy concept of these relations, of are and 2, certain The relational view (or model) of data described in Section 1 appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model [3,4] presently in vogue for noninferential systems. It provides a means of describing data with its natural structure only-that is, without superimposing any additional structure for machine representation purposes. Accordingly, it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other. A further advantage of the relational view is that it forms a sound basis for treating derivability, redundancy, and consistency of relations-these are discussedin Se
17) P. BAXENDALE, Editor ata for ia protected machine which should from (the supplies of users remain he ctivities data will is changed often and be representation report e, The relational view (or model) of data described in Section 1 appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model [3,4] presently in vogue for noninferential systems. It provides a means of describing data with its natural structure only-that is, without superimposing any additional structure for machine representation purposes. Accordingly, it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other. A further advantage of the relational view is that it forms a sound basis for treating derivability, redundancy, and consistency of relations-these are discussedin Section 2. The network model, on the other hand, has spawned a number of confusions, not the least of which is mistaking the derivation of connections for the derivation of relations (seeremarks in Section 2 on the “connection trap”). Finally, the relational view permits a clearer evaluation
18) TWO WORDS data warehousing.
19) THE ODD COUPLE FAMILY
20) COUCHDB MONGODB RIAK REDIS TOKYOCABINET
21) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DOCUMENT KEY–VALUE GRAPH COLUMN/BIGTABLE GEO OBJECT FILESYSTEM
22) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. FLAT!DOCUMENT, FILESYSTEM ASSOCIATIVE!KEY-VALUE HIERARCHICAL!GEO NETWORK!GRAPH DIMENSIONAL!COLUMN OBJECTIONAL!OBJECT
23) FOR THE SQL-ERS I made a relational version of that.
24) join brand document key–value graph column geo object ﬁlesystem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 7 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 ﬂat associative hierarchical network dimensional objectional paradigm 1 2 3 4 5 6
25) FLAT (DOCUMENT)
26) ASSOCIATIVE (KEY–VALUE)
27) HIERARCHICAL (GEO)
28) NETWORK (GRAPH)
29)
30) DIMENSIONAL (COLUMN) Sales Fact Table +------------------------+ | sale_amount | time_id | +------------------------+ Time Dimension | 2008.08| 1234 |---+ +-----------------------------+ +------------------------+ | | time_id | timestamp | | +-----------------------------+ +---->| 1234 | 20080902 12:35:43 | +-----------------------------+
31) OBJECTIONAL (OBJECT)
32) WHAT’S IN A NAME?
33) ANTI-SQL?
34) ANTI-DATABASES?
35) A NEW STANDARD?
36) A NEW LANGUAGE?
37) NOT ONLY SQL?
38)
39) WHAT IS NOSQL ABOUT?
40) SQL VS. NOSQL VS. NOSQL
41) 1. NOSQL SUCKS No, really.
42) 2. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SIZE. IT’S ABOUT HOW YOU USE IT.
43) 3. IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
44)
45)
46)
47)
48) ALIVE !!! IT’S…
49)
50)
51) ?
52) NOSQL & it! rof n P rFu fo
53) & NOSQL fit! ro n P Fu for TIM ANGLADE PROUDLY PRESENTS PART TWO OF THE TOTALLY UNKOWN “FUN & PROFIT” SERIES. A TALE OF TECH, INTRIGUE & FORBIDDEN LOVE. A WHIRLWIND OF ADVENTURERS, PRODUCTION SYSTEMS & TROLLS. A STORY SO BIG, ITS TITLE HAD TO HAVE ITS OWN INTRODUCTION TEXT. HERE IS…