With Cloud Computing increasingly getting popular, will Relational DBs suffer death?


With Cloud Computing increasingly getting popular, will Relational DBs suffer death?



While computer programming evangelists predicting the future of Cloud Computing to be very bright, is there a chance for relational databases to be on their way out?

What are the DBs that are more suitable for Cloud Computing?




Designing tables for storing various requirements and stats for multiplayer game

1:



Unable to export Access DB table
Here's a good article that may answer some of your questions.


Programmatically verify database structure in C++
It features a good comparison between RDBMS systems and the ones usually used for cloud storage infrastructure:.
SQL Server Database Schemas
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php.
select the maximun


What is a “database entity” and what types of DBMS items are considered entities? [closed]


ADO or DBX using Delphi

2:



best way to statistically detect anomalies in data
The relational database model has a firm mathematical basis in relational algebra.

This makes it easy to reason about, to extend, and to use properly (in theory).

Even if database access patterns change significantly as a result of these new APIs and uses, it's likely that a relational database will form the underlying implementation for this reason..


3:


No, RDBMSs will always have a place because of their functionality.

Not just on their own, but also as backbones to other systems (like OODBMSs)..


4:


Relational databases are still relevant, both for localized storage (such as application-specific storage) and for server storage..


5:


The cloud computing platforms that I've seen each have a relational database offering.

So, I don't see cloud computing really changing the picture in reference to database types being used.. However, something will eventually replace the databases that we're all used to.

The question is whether that will be a higher-level version of RDBs or something different.

Another aspect of that question is how long will it take for the current crop of RDBs to fade out? (I don't have an answer for either.).


6:


Clouds go poof still these days, so I don't think so anytime soon..


7:


I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs.

Something else might though.. First, what type of storage engine a given application uses does not (or should not) depend on where it is running (the cloud or a specific server), but rather on how it needs to store the data.. Second, as far as I can tell the only reason people think RDBMSs are on their way out is because they don't scale as well as non-relational DBMSs (such as document-oriented DBMSs like CouchDB) which can more easily be distributed into the cloud.

However, there is no reason that RDBMSs cannot become more cloud-friendly in the future.

As an early example, look at Drizzle:.
The Drizzle project is building a database optimized for Cloud and Net applications.

It is being designed for massive concurrency on modern multi-cpu/core architecture.
.
So no, I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs.

They will just be forced to adapt.

What might kill them, however, is if an existing alternative, or a new one, becomes as robust and easy to use as RDBMSs.

What I mean is a solution that has both completely solid software (betas not allowed) and is easy for programmers to switch to.

They give out degrees to people who understand RDBMSs.

Because of all the assisting software (such as ORMs like ActiveRecord, SQLAlchemy, and whatever the .NET folk use I'm assuming), using RDBMSs has become easy even for people who don't know what the first normal form is.

So I think that until there is a way for people to use (for instance) a DODBMS just as easily, RDBMSs will continue to dominate.

I'm also not saying that is necessarily bad.

Again, which DBMS you use should depend on your data, not what people say is cool and better..


8:


A quote from the article :. "The inherent constraints of a relational database ensure that data at the lowest level have integrity.

Data that violate integrity constraints cannot physically be entered into the database.

These constraints don't exist in a key/value database, so the responsibility for ensuring data integrity falls entirely to the application.

But application code often carries bugs.

Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues.". What this means to me is that RDBMS's are doomed, and hotshot new technologies are facing a great and brilliant future, to the same extent that users aren't anywhere near interested in the correctness of their data.. IMHO..


9:


There's nothing wrong with relational databases for applications that need to query more structured data (e.g., "How many people bought product XYZ, on this date, paid more than $100, but less than $150?").

There are potentially significant architectural issues that will need to be addressed as these systems scale and grow.

Once your DB outgrows the one machine you started on and/or traffic/requests begin to overload available resources, then (if you still want to keep your relational database) you have to start adding layers.

Thankfully today, there are many more options available then in previous years...

including caching, map and reduce, and other functionality - but these add-on layers do add complexity and maintenance overhead.

In one sense I'd consider these engineered "band-aids" which will most likely solve the scalability and distribution problems with a relational DB today, but longer term? Who knows.

I also see these popular layers today - all of which are basically trying to emulate functionality already available in object DBs, giving developers a "virtual object DB" layer that they can use with their object languages to do things faster and more efficiently, and get past the growth and performance obstacles.

So I guess my overall opinion is, relational DBs became the defacto DB probably mostly due to how (relatively) easy it was to query a database, and get results back to the one client/app using it.

As volumes have grown though, and application complexity is exponentially greater today, I think more developers will decide to bite the bullet, learn the syntax for object DBs (which is actually about as standardized today as relational DBs), and just skip all the middleware and layers that only emulate functionality that one could get natively in an OODBMS.

I've seen OODBs that simply get installed on any number of servers, and automatically distributing data as needed, and giving the developer a single view of any size federation of databases...

Seems to me the best solution as systems become more distributed, to get a DB that can has native distributed architecture.

Anyway, just a thought..



86 out of 100 based on 86 user ratings 686 reviews