As in, I didn’t participate in the most recent T-SQL Tuesday about my favorite feature in SQL 2008 R2.
PostgreSQL and MongoDB are rapidly advancing features that solve my daily problems. I’m an OLTP guy. Honestly, I don’t care about the latest reporting ding dongs and doo dads. I already know PowerShell. I manage 6 production servers and we’re unlikely to grow, so these MDM and Utility Control Points don’t make me giddy with excitement.
I solve problems using SQL.
You know what makes me happy? Support for window functions or better yet, improved support for window functions. What about exclusion constraints? Or column level triggers so I don’t have to use branching logic in my triggers? Yes, I use triggers. Or any other of these features.
What about MongoDB? I’ve just started playing with it, but it solves a lot of the problems I face at work. Not just in the day job, but in side projects as well. I’ve bitched about O/R-Ms before, but one of the biggest problems that users of O/R-Ms (developers) face is that the ideal way to model data for object-oriented programming bears no resemblance to the ideal way to store relational data. A recent article about scaling Farmville hints at this – the developers of Farmville managed scale by storing everything in a key-value store (memcached) before persisting to a relational data store later. Digg does something similar with Cassandra. It’s not like these guys are idiots, the blog posts from Digg show that they know their stuff.
MongoDB lets me solve these problems. I can control the frequency of syncs to disk (just as I can in PostgreSQL) to improve raw write performance to memory. I only have to worry about storing data the way my application expects to see the data – arrays and hashes – without worrying about building many-to-many join tables.
What about DMVs and data integrity and a write-ahead log and indexes? MongoDB has instrumentation and indexes. Yeah, you sacrifice some durability but many applications don’t need that. Hell, Amazon has even designed their systems to account for the potential of failure.
When I start my next application, I’m going to look long and hard at the platform I’m building on. There’s a good chance it’s not going to be a relational database and a really good chance it’s not going to be using SQL Server. It’s not because I have a problem with SQL Server or even RDBMSes, but because there are other choices that give me the flexibility I need to solve the problems I’m facing.
This is nothing against SQL Server 2008 R2, it’s a great step forward in the direction that SQL Server seems to be going. Sometimes I wonder if SQL Server and I are on the same road.