The article makes a very simple argument for something that I have felt for a while, block chain is a cool technology but the majority of the use cases people talk about are just bull shit.
I’ve been following the blockchain ecosystem for some time now largely because it strikes me as yet another distributed database architecture, and I dream about those things.
For some time now, I’ve been wondering what to do after Tesora and blockchain was one of the things I’ve been looking at as a promising technology but I wasn’t seeing it. Of late I’ve been asking people who claim to be devotees at the altar of blockchain what they see as the killer app. All I hear are a large number of low rumbling sounds.
Let’s be clear, I absolutely agree that bitcoin is a wonderful use of the blockchain technology and it solves the issue of trust very cleverly through proof of work. I think there is little dispute of elegance of this solution.
But once we go past bitcoin, the applications largely sound and feel like my stomach after eating gas station sushi; they sound horrible and throw me into convulsions of pain.
In his article, Jamie Burke talks of 3d printing based on a blockchain sharded CAD file. I definitely don’t see how blockchain can prevent the double-spend (i.e. buy one Yoda CAD file, print 10,000).
Most of the blockchain ideas I’m seeing are things which are attempting to piggy-back on the hot new buzzword and where blockchain is being used to refer to “secure and encrypted database”. After all, there’s a bunch of crypto involved and there’s data stored there right? so it must be a secure encrypted database.
To which I say, Bullshit!
P.S. Oh, the irony. This blog post references a blog post with a picture labeled “Burke’s Bullshit Cycle”, and the name of this blog is hypecycles.com.
I just posted an article comparing parallel databases to sharding on the ParElastic blog at http://bit.ly/JaMeVr
It was motivated by the fact that I’ve been asked a couple of times recently how the ParElastic architecture compares with sharding and it occurred to me this past weekend that
“Parallel Database” is a database architecture but sharding is an application architecture
Read the entire blog post here:
As network performance continues, the bottleneck will become the amount of time spent in moving packets between the wire (hardware) and the application (software) and vice versa. The netamp framework is an interesting approach to address this.
Just reading this article http://www.wireclub.com/development/TqnkQwQ8CxUYTVT90/read describing one companies experiences migrating from SQL Server to MongoDB.
Having read the article, my only question to these folks is “why do it”?
Let’s begin by saying that we should discount all one time costs related to data migration. They are just that, one time migration costs. However monumental, if you believe that the final outcome is going to justify it, grin and bear the cost.
But, once you are in the (promised) MongoDB land, what then?
The things that this author believes that they will miss are:
- query expressiveness
- case insensitive indexes on text fields
Really, and you would still roll the dice in favor of a NoSQL science project. Well, then the benefits must be really really awesome! Let’s go take a look at what those are. Let’s take a look at what those are:
- MongoDB is free
- MongoDB is fast
- Freedom from rigid schemas
- ObjectID’s are expressive and handy
- GridFS for distributed file storage
- Developed in the open
OK, I’m scratching my head now. None of these really blows me away. Let’s look at these one at a time.
- MongoDB is free
- So is PostgreSQL and MySQL
- So are PostgreSQL and MySQL if you put them on the same SSD and multiple HDD’s like you claim you do with MongoDB
- I’ll give you this one, relational databases are kind of “old school” in this department
- Elastic Transparent Sharding schemes like ParElastic overcome this with Elastic Sequences which give you the same benefits. A half-way decent developer could do this for you with a simple sharded architecture.
- Replication anyone?
- Yes, MongoDB is free and developed in the open like a puppy is “free”. You just told us all the “costs” associated with this “free puppy”
So really, why do people use MongoDB? I know there are good circumstances where MongoDB will whip the pants off any relational database but I submit to you that those are the 1%.
To this day, I believe that the best description of MongoDB is this one: