<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scaling Without A Database</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/</link>
	<description>Thoughts from the edge of the 'net</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:49:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: François Schiettecatte</title>
		<link>http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>François Schiettecatte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-202</guid>
		<description>Jim

Aside from the sales pitch (I still approved the comment since I thought Nenest was an interesting idea,) what you are doing there is moving the storage from the web site in question to another place, data still has to be stored somewhere, and any web site which uses Nenest becomes dependent on its availability and scaling capabilities, so the bottleneck problems may well still remain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim</p>
<p>Aside from the sales pitch (I still approved the comment since I thought Nenest was an interesting idea,) what you are doing there is moving the storage from the web site in question to another place, data still has to be stored somewhere, and any web site which uses Nenest becomes dependent on its availability and scaling capabilities, so the bottleneck problems may well still remain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-184</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-184</guid>
		<description>There are some web framework could help to achieve this goal.  Nenest is such a tool, with which you don&#039;t need host a database on your site, but just use its API, from IFRAME tag to HTML API, and XML API, integrate the data with your pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are some web framework could help to achieve this goal.  Nenest is such a tool, with which you don&#8217;t need host a database on your site, but just use its API, from IFRAME tag to HTML API, and XML API, integrate the data with your pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: François Schiettecatte</title>
		<link>http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>François Schiettecatte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-102</guid>
		<description>I agree with you completely, we don&#039;t need an RDBMS for every project. If you are going to store key/value pairs, I think that BerkeleyDB is perfectly adequate, and if you are really into SQL, then SQLite may be a good solution.

And thank you for your comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you completely, we don&#8217;t need an RDBMS for every project. If you are going to store key/value pairs, I think that BerkeleyDB is perfectly adequate, and if you are really into SQL, then SQLite may be a good solution.</p>
<p>And thank you for your comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert McIntosh</title>
		<link>http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert McIntosh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fschiettecatte.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/scaling-without-a-database/#comment-96</guid>
		<description>I never said any of my thoughts were ground breaking :-) After reading a few comments to my post, I realized that what I was trying to convey didn&#039;t quite reach everyone in the way I wanted. I have no issues with relational databases. Don&#039;t hate them, don&#039;t dislike them. To be honest, what I don&#039;t like are tools like Hibernate that try to shield you  from said databases. After all, SQL is pretty darn powerful and isn&#039;t hard for what most people need to do.

Everything that you point out in this post is completely valid. Yes you have to process that XML in some way, yes you need to partition correctly and appropriately. None of that changes with or wihtout a RDMBS (as you mention in your last paragraph). The overall theme of my post was more about do we NEED a relational DB for EVERY app we build. Are there other alternatives that can simplify things? That is where I was going. 

With that in mind, I&#039;m actually putting my hypothesis to the test very soon and I&#039;ll write about it along the way.

Regardless, thanks for the comments. You bring up good points that I didn&#039;t touch on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never said any of my thoughts were ground breaking :-) After reading a few comments to my post, I realized that what I was trying to convey didn&#8217;t quite reach everyone in the way I wanted. I have no issues with relational databases. Don&#8217;t hate them, don&#8217;t dislike them. To be honest, what I don&#8217;t like are tools like Hibernate that try to shield you  from said databases. After all, SQL is pretty darn powerful and isn&#8217;t hard for what most people need to do.</p>
<p>Everything that you point out in this post is completely valid. Yes you have to process that XML in some way, yes you need to partition correctly and appropriately. None of that changes with or wihtout a RDMBS (as you mention in your last paragraph). The overall theme of my post was more about do we NEED a relational DB for EVERY app we build. Are there other alternatives that can simplify things? That is where I was going. </p>
<p>With that in mind, I&#8217;m actually putting my hypothesis to the test very soon and I&#8217;ll write about it along the way.</p>
<p>Regardless, thanks for the comments. You bring up good points that I didn&#8217;t touch on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
