Researchers Create Database-Hadoop Hybrid 122
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."
PostGreSQL (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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).