Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0C81337E54 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:04:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36062-06 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:04:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:06.074099 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp1.exchange.upenn.edu (smtp1.exchange.upenn.edu [128.91.3.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE831337C7B for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:04:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from isc.upenn.edu (128.91.197.36) by smtp.exchange.upenn.edu (128.91.2.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.213.0; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:59:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:59:28 -0400 From: Garick Hamlin To: Tom Lane CC: Mark Kirkwood , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL Message-ID: <20100916135928.GA5707@isc.upenn.edu> References: <22883.1284577244@sss.pgh.pa.us> <28917.1284600122@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4C917363.6060304@catalyst.net.nz> <29640.1284602700@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29640.1284602700@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.21 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201009/878 X-Sequence-Number: 169742 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:05:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Kirkwood writes: > > On 16/09/10 13:22, Tom Lane wrote: > >> What exactly do those get you that an ordinary index, or at worst an > >> index-organized table, doesn't get you? > > > It is pretty rare to see key value stores vs relational engines > > discussed without a descent into total foolishiness, but this Wikipedia > > page looks like a reasonable summary: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL > > That doesn't do anything at all to answer my question. I don't want > to debate NoSQL versus traditional RDBMS here. What I asked was: > given that PG is a traditional RDBMS, what exactly are you hoping > to accomplish by putting a key-value storage mechanism in it? And > if you did, how would that be different from an index-organized table? One thing it would get is integration with existing infrastructure that makes up many critical apps. Many horizontal apps use things like memcached or redis to provide a distributed data layer for developing their applications. Sometimes that becomes the middle layer for an enterprise. Being able to hook into that middle layer is very handy. Shared login or session information is a good example of data that one might want put in a KVS. Also, many enterprises are full of different departments, orgs, teams, systems, etc ... KVS are simple and limited enough they might make a good choice for standardizing on how to share data in some places. Isn't this what SQL/Med is about? Garick > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers