Comments on: Amazon SimpleDB – when less is, supposedly, enough http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/ Choices in data management and analysis Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:51:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Elastra - somewhat more sensible Amazon-based DBMS option | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-97873 Elastra - somewhat more sensible Amazon-based DBMS option | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:46:01 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-97873 [...] a post earlier tonight about Amazon’s new SimpleDB, I suggested that SimpleDB’s main use might be as the database engine behind other S3/EC2 [...] [...] a post earlier tonight about Amazon’s new SimpleDB, I suggested that SimpleDB’s main use might be as the database engine behind other S3/EC2 [...]

]]> By: Andre de Cavaignac http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-97384 Andre de Cavaignac Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:04:21 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-97384 I don't think SimpleDB is as much of a "database" as it is a distributed cache. The reason its so simple is because its hard to do DBMS on a large distributed cluster. The disadvantage is you don't get the richness of a traditional database, but you do gain performance and scalability. Try having 1000 clients (web servers) connected to a traditional database. They are certainly missing some things, and transactions will be vital... But the ability to store sparse data sets in a scalable, backed-up store, even if that does mean doing some work on the client once you get the data back, can be worth it in many scenarios. I don’t think SimpleDB is as much of a “database” as it is a distributed cache. The reason its so simple is because its hard to do DBMS on a large distributed cluster. The disadvantage is you don’t get the richness of a traditional database, but you do gain performance and scalability. Try having 1000 clients (web servers) connected to a traditional database.

They are certainly missing some things, and transactions will be vital… But the ability to store sparse data sets in a scalable, backed-up store, even if that does mean doing some work on the client once you get the data back, can be worth it in many scenarios.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-64735 Curt Monash Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:42:49 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-64735 Joe, Fair enough. But can you think of any nontrivial application categories where this approach actually makes sense? I'm all in favor of schema flexibility, and of doing integrity checks programmatically rather than declaratively when the tradeoffs justify it. But in SimpleDB I don't see an easy way to code the integrity checks, I don't see an easy way to assure transaction integrity, and I don't see an easy way to query the data. What am I missing? CAM Joe,

Fair enough. But can you think of any nontrivial application categories where this approach actually makes sense?

I’m all in favor of schema flexibility, and of doing integrity checks programmatically rather than declaratively when the tradeoffs justify it. But in SimpleDB I don’t see an easy way to code the integrity checks, I don’t see an easy way to assure transaction integrity, and I don’t see an easy way to query the data.

What am I missing?

CAM

]]> By: Joe Harris http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-64732 Joe Harris Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:24:25 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2007/12/18/amazon-simpledb/#comment-64732 Curt, This is aimed at web-centric developers who don't use the features of the DBMS in any case. E.g. the Web2.0 crrowd who are using toolsets like Ruby on Rails and PHP. I'm not saying it's a good idea but a lot of the current technologies encourage the developer to treate the database as a glorified card store. Which is exactly what SimpleDB is. I often see tips on ways to remove or avoid "inconvenient" or "slow" features of the DB like referential integrity and transactions! Joe Curt,

This is aimed at web-centric developers who don’t use the features of the DBMS in any case. E.g. the Web2.0 crrowd who are using toolsets like Ruby on Rails and PHP.

I’m not saying it’s a good idea but a lot of the current technologies encourage the developer to treate the database as a glorified card store. Which is exactly what SimpleDB is.

I often see tips on ways to remove or avoid “inconvenient” or “slow” features of the DB like referential integrity and transactions!

Joe

]]>