NuoDB another NewSQL database.

by steilpass • 15 years ago

58 53 15 years ago

wccrawford• 15 years ago

For those wondering about it, don't bother searching for 'NewSQL'. It's a buzzword that doesn't actually mean anything other than 'it's not mysql, pgsql, oracle, or mssql.' They claim to improve on the standard DBs, but every single DB does it in a different way. The name is useless.

Instead, read the 'who we are' and 'how it works' bits on NuoDB's page. They were much more informative.

I think it sounds exciting and fresh... And doesn't seem to be open source at all.

I'm not allergic to paying money for software, but I've found I'm happiest when using something that I can guarantee will survive, even if may have to do so by my own hand. Commercial products have a tendency to be a pain in the rear.

rkalla3• 15 years ago

Thanks for the heads up (was looking for more real info and not the damnable 'beta signup' form)

This sounds like SQL ontop of Cassandra (for a more or less mental-map if you are looking for one):

  Our distributed non-blocking atomic commit protocol allows database 
  transaction processing at any available node. The system is 
  designed to provide a consistent view of data, high availability, 
  and the ability to detect and manage partitions in a predictable   
  and consistent manner. Query processing scales with the number of 
  available nodes, storage scales according to the choice of storage 
  manager of which there are many. Storage managers are key/value 
  storage engines that also operate as a distributed in-memory cache 
  and participate in the commit protocol to ensure durability 
  guarantees.

dberg• 15 years ago

Given that they seem to favor consistency in the CAP model, it would be closer to Hbase in this regard. Cassandra is, by design, eventually consistent and can not offer these same guarantees.

wmf3• 15 years ago

All the NewSQLs I've seen are shared-nothing cluster databases; that's basically the definition of the term. (Of course, that technology was invented in the 1980s and then forgotten, so it's new to somebody.)

As for open source, something you can't say is that open source communities are unable to develop this kind of software.

shin_lao3• 15 years ago

Given that the CEO worked with the author of the 1986 paper about shared-nothing clusters, you're probably right.

CPlatypus2• 15 years ago

"NewSQL" basically means "old guy desperately trying to stay relevant in a post-relational world" See also: VoltDB.

jcapote• 15 years ago

can't wait to read the white paper

spuz• 15 years ago

I'm guessing you're referring to their claim of being able to do distributed transactions?

Data is spread out across transaction and storage nodes and it always available. When network partitions occur NuoDB continues offering services via the most available and healthy segment while the other segments provide a consistent read-only snapshot while awaiting reconnection at which point they will synchronize with their counterparts. Clients can simply reconnect to the active partition of the cluster to continue processing updates.

I'm not sure how they can ensure that network partitions only occur between fully replicated sets (i.e. how can all the data be available in all locations?)

wmf3• 15 years ago

Anybody know why they changed the name? Nimbus seems more pronounceable.

rkalla3• 15 years ago

To add validity to their new term "NewSQL" possibly? (I don't know, just guessing).

To the "NewSQL" term, I don't really have a problem with it... from their "how it works" it sounds like they are genuinely doing something interesting and cool with SQL. I have no qualms with them calling it "NewSQL".

I don't know why marketing terms get people so mad, sometimes they make sense.

I'd also point out that the first few times people used "NoSQL", I imagine there were comments along these same lines talking about how silly it was.

It isn't like they named it "WebScaleSQL" :)

jimstarkey5• 15 years ago

Marketing statements notwithstanding, the name change was the result of something really boring -- a name conflict with another company.

Oh, "New-oh dee bee".

ericfrenkiel• 15 years ago

Nimbus Data, a maker of of flash storage, wasn't too happy about NimbusDB and the brand confusion

LeafStorm2• 15 years ago

To be completely honest, I have never heard the term "NewSQL" before in my life. After a quick Google, it seems that the term basically means "SQL databases that go FAST LIKE NOSQL." (Though it's not really popular.) Which is, once again, completely missing the point.

I can't speak for professional devs - I'm just a hobbyist - but I'm not developing for "NoSQL" databases like CouchDB and Redis because I want to do SUPER WEB SCALE. I'm developing for CouchDB and Redis because they offer truly interesting alternative ways to look at your data. (In fact, Redis is what got me interested in data structures.) And if I wanted to write a project that used data that makes sense from a relational standpoint, SQLite (for development) and Postgres (for production) are just fine with me.

wmf3• 15 years ago

OK, you're rational. Unfortunately you're in the minority.

jonpaul• 15 years ago

Exactly. I use MongoDB because schema-less databases make prototyping my applications easier. Migrations became a pain point.

pjscott3• 15 years ago

There are a lot of people who would like a full-fledged relational database that scales up to large clusters. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they're "completely missing the point."

LeafStorm2• 15 years ago

I was referring more to the marketing aspects of the term (and proposing their solution as a counterpart to "NoSQL"), than the concept itself. There are a lot of people who think that "NoSQL" is all about magic scaling sauce, and this isn't really helping.

MostAwesomeDude2• 15 years ago

Alas, I can't downvote this link.

Can anybody explain why I should go with this instead of Pg?

To the submitter or anybody else sufficiently knowledgeable: When will ORMs get support for this? I use SQLA but could port Django or ActiveRecord code.

shin_lao3• 15 years ago

disclaimer: I have a bias as we could be seen as a "competitor".

If I understand correctly, their SQL engine can scale through the use of a proprietary peer to peer technology. This would be new and would indeed make it possible to solve bottlenecks and scale the SQL database to a very large number of nodes.

However, I think it misses the point where SQL is simply not always needed. They will always be slower than a NoSQL engine that scales well.

Your example of ORMs is on spot: do you really need SQL as the back end of an ORM? If not, why pay the relational tax?

No silver bullet.

jimstarkey5• 15 years ago

The question really isn't SQL but ACID transactions. If you can do ACID transaction, SQL drastically reduces the amount of data transmitted.

There is no intrinsic reason that ACID transactions, with or without SQL, can't scale, just that up until now, it hasn't.

And there's a reason that until now, it hasn't. From the beginning of time, academic computer "scientists" have confused the terms serializability and consistency. In short, serializability is a sufficient condition for consistency, but it isn't a necessary condition. If you design a system that enforces consistency without requiring serializability, it scales. Period. Legacy RDMSes don't work that way, but that's their problem.

zzzeek• 15 years ago

> Your example of ORMs is on spot: do you really need SQL as the back end of an ORM? If not, why pay the relational tax?

That would be because "ORM" stands for "Object Relational Mapper".

MostAwesomeDude2• 15 years ago

The fun part of ORMs isn't that the relational algebra of SQL is mapped into your language, but that the relations between objects in your object-based language are mapped onto SQL. See Axiom for a great example of what this can mean.

netghost• 15 years ago

At a glance, they say that they support most of SQL99, so semantically it wouldn't be hard to adapt ActiveRecord or Django to work with it, assuming the drivers were easy enough to use.

I guess they billed it as "NewSQL" not "NoSQL" which is pretty absurd.

I'd vote that you go with Pg, because it's Awesome MostAwesomeDude, at least until this has been around for a while.

pjscott3• 15 years ago

If you don't know that you need something like this, then you probably should be using Postgres or something instead. It's mature and usually plenty fast enough. (Unless it isn't, in which case you can feel free to start considering fancy databases like this one.)

seiji• 15 years ago

Now with Cloudbursting!

Looks like they are doing a pure enterprise push: NuoDB, Inc., the thought leader in cloud database technology, ...

andrewcooke3• 15 years ago

in case anyone else was wondering: the key CAP-related "compromise", from "how it works", is that on partition it supports transactions on only one sub-set of nodes (the "healthiest"); the others provide read-only snapshots.

http://nuodb.com/how_it_works.html (see "Availability and Resiliency").

CPlatypus2• 15 years ago

In other words, it's plain old CA.

julochrobak6• 15 years ago

I'm a big fan of relational theory and I'm always happy to see any activity in this space. However, their "revolutionary" distributed model seems to be similar to something which is already out there, open source, and ready for use:

http://bandilab.org/blog/2011-06-22.Ostap.Running_on_Multipl...

or maybe I just don't have enough information about the nuodb ?

jimstarkey5• 15 years ago

Nope. Not enough info on NuoDB.

NuoDB doesn't have a centralized transaction controller. It doesn't have a centralized anything. And it isn't "like" anything else -- all new. It's a distributed database without distributed transactions.

In a nutshell, it isn't based on pages or disks but distributed objects. Each distributed object, called an atom, can exist in as many places as necessary. Each atom instance knows of the other instances and replicates changes. Transaction nodes do SQL and are diskless. Archive nodes listen to replication and store serialized atoms on disk, S3, or some other KV store. If a transaction node needs an atom, it gets it from another transaction node or, at last resort, from an archive node that fetches the atom from disk, S3, or wherever.

julochrobak6• 15 years ago

fair point about the transaction controller, this is indeed something which is not yet distributed in bandicoot. Though, I don't think it's a big deal as the tx is really simple and lightweight.

Anyway, let's go back to nuodb :) I'm really interested on how it manages the whole ACID. I did not get it from the page nor from your reply.

For simplicity, let's pick on durability only. The archive nodes listen to replication and store serialized atoms on disk. At the same time the atoms replicate the changes to other instances. Is the durability achieved by a synchronous replication?

antoncohen• 15 years ago

Thank you for the clear and concise description. Your website really needs to say that, plus have a diagram.

Are there NuoDB-specific drivers/connectors for languages? What interface would I use in Python or Ruby? What would I need to install?

jbellis• 15 years ago

Their claims reminded me of Jim Starkey's history with the CAP theorem: http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2010/03/cap-and-leases...

moe• 15 years ago

Has anyone actually tried this wonder-machine or is it Vaporware?

I remember submitting an evaluation request almost a year ago but never received a response.

Their homepage and blog don't seem to have changed since then either; no real information anywhere, only truck-loads of PR fluff.

NuoDB another NewSQL database.

Related Stories