Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Software Programming IT Technology

Researchers Create Database-Hadoop Hybrid 122

Posted by kdawson
from the try-this-at-home dept.
ericatcw writes "'NoSQL' alternatives such as Hadoop and MapReduce may be uber-cheap and scalable, but they remain slower and clumsier to use than relational databases, say some. Now, researchers at Yale University have created a database-Hadoop hybrid that they say offers the best of both worlds: fast performance and the ability to scale out near-indefinitely. HadoopDB was built using PostGreSQL, though MySQL has also successfully been swapped in, according to Yale computer science professor Daniel Abadi, whose students built this prototype."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Create Database-Hadoop Hybrid

Comments Filter:
  • PostGreSQL (Score:5, Informative)

    by tcopeland (32225) <[tom] [at] [thomasleecopeland.com]> on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @03:08PM (#28773349) Homepage

    It's PostgreSQL [postgresql.org]... but I sympathize with the mixed case confusion and refer you to this Postgres vs PostgreSQL permathread [postgresql.org].

  • Re:Please stop (Score:3, Informative)

    by Freetardo Jones (1574733) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @03:52PM (#28773883)

    Considering that "Ubermensch" was translatable to "Superman" then "Ubercheap" would be "Supercheap"

    No, it wouldn't. It would be word soup that any German would find to be awkward. To say something is "super cheap" they would say something like "superpreiswertes" which would literally translate as "super inexpensive". They wouldn't use über in such a situation.

  • Re:MySQL? (Score:4, Informative)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @04:31PM (#28774363) Journal

    MySQL has its fan boys from circa 1994-2001. During this period, the MySQL license was much more permissive, and gained a certain momentum from PHP that carries it through to this day. At the same time, PostgreSQL was still using Cygwin on Windows, the INSTALL had a table of contents, and was lacking performance enhancements (particularly on Windows). Eventually Cygwin was dropped and the threading was happy on windows, and the performance enhancements were good. Along with this came a much shorter INSTALL file and all reason to use MySQL had disappeared. But once you know something, people like to keep on using it. Then MySQL got things like triggers, foreign key constraints and full ACID compliance. So in the end it ended being a wash. However, and not to start a flame war, it seems that PostgreSQL, having been feature-complete (ACID, foreign keys, etc) maintained a performance edge. But also to this day MySQL has a very fast table implementation, provided you don't need things like ACID compliance. For a variety of applications, this is "good enough" and the trade-offs of feature completeness vs performance are worth it. Disclaimer: I have used both extensively in the past. I prefer PostgreSQL, but now use neither. Now I only do SQLite (embedded tables) or Oracle (for hot replication).

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Working...