This is ridiculous linkbait bullshit.
Anyone who dismisses document stores entirely has lost all my respect. It wasn't the right solution for your problem, but it might be the right solution for many others.
Anyone who dismisses document stores entirely has lost all my respect. It wasn't the right solution for your problem, but it might be the right solution for many others.
The author made the example of the movie database and explained why it was a good idea when they started, and why it didn't work out. Can you point out an example of data you would store in a document database, which is not purely for caching purposes?
I've been a pretty vocal critic of document databases in the past[1] (indeed, I get a little bit of a chuckle recalling the prevailing HN wisdom a couple of years ago and comparing it to now), however I recently had a project where added data was immutable and additive and non-relational: MongoDB was the perfect choice, and provided a zero friction, easy to deploy and scale solution.
[1] - http://dennisforbes.ca/index.php/2010/03/24/the-impact-of-ss... -- this went seriously against the prevailing sentiment at the time, and there was this strong "only relics use SQL" sentiment, including here on HN.
Technically that sounds a lot like the TV database example in the OP. MongoDB was the perfect choice until a feature was required that required a relation.
A content management system. Some stuff may want data from across relations (who owns this thing, and what is their email), but that's pretty infrequent and having nice flexible-schema documents that contain all relevant information that's being CRUD'ed simplifies things hugely - particularly in MVCC systems like Couch that put stuff like multi-master/offline-online sync and conflict resolution in the set of core expectations.
Edit: That said, Postgres is also MVCC, and hstore makes schema an option the same way that relations and transactions were already, so I think it could do pretty well. I haven't gotten the chance to play with it in recent history, unfortunately.
That might be a shaky assumption. Speaking as someone who works on a CMS, content usually has an author, and people accessing that content might be interested in them.
It's only when you want joins (e.g. give me all of the titles of all the content and their author's information at the same time) that things get hairy.
Agreed it's not always going to be true for many CMSes. I meant it as a particular CMS, not the general class of CMSes but didn't make that clear at all.
Isn't that only true if you have lots of shards? Otherwise, you have one process doing the mapping.
I am not saying the author of the article submitted has fallen victim to described wrong doings, I am only saying that at all cost unknown teritorry should be approached with extreme care. You don't know what is subliminally hidden until you realize. Too late.
Hint: /r/TheRedPill is going to make your life worse, not better.
You are also making wildly inaccurate statements to justify your abuse and I hate to think that other readers might accept them uncritically. We have been actively pushing women out of computer science for the past 30 years (and doing a fine job or excluding and ignoring the contributions of other minority groups in the process). Suggesting that men "were" dominant and misrepresenting the direction of this change in willful ignorance of history at best.
I know relying to trolls is not particularly effective and other users have called this out for being hateful but I don't want to see us accept either the premises or the tone presented here.
So that is where all of the shit code in production (which is the majority) comes from? it's really insidious, because the commits are made using male names. This must have been going on far longer than i imagined, because I've dealt with really old legacy code that is shit.
Since, you made a provable statement, I'm sure we will soon see a tremendous number of papers documenting this coming gynepacalapse of bad code.
...Was that emotional enough? Or not emotional enough? It's so hard to tell.