My vote is to just call ignite "IgniteDB". That's it. No other additional explanation is required as no amount of additional verbiage will help. Every DB is different: from MongoDB, to RedisDB, to CockroachDB, to Oracle - they all look & act completely different, and they don't go around trying to explain in one line what they do and how they are different.
"IgniteDB" is clear, concise and gives us the broadest initial acceptance from the new user perspective. Thanks, -- Nikita Ivanov On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > My thoughts are similar to as Denis and Val mentioned like Apache Ignite - > "A Memory Centric Database". > > It aligns to current features of Apache Ignite as mentioned in the below > post. > > > https://thenewstack.io/memory-centric-architectures-whats-next-for-in-memory-computing > > Regards, > Saikat > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:02 AM Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com> > wrote: > >> So when I came across Ignite It was described as an In Memory Data Grid >> >> So one way to look at this is who do you fashion as Ignite competing >> against? >> >> Are competing against Redis, Aerospike - In Memory Databases >> >> Or are you more competing with >> >> Gigaspaces - True In memory Compute platform >> >> And then you have like of >> >> Hazelcast that started as a Distributed Hash and have gained some >> features... >> >> On thing that I think is a differentiator that isn't being highlighted >> but Is unique feature to Ignited, and the primary reason we ended up here; >> The integration with spark and it's distributed/shared Datasets/Dataframes. >> >> I don't know for me the In Memory Data Grid I think fits what Ignite >> is... >> >> Regards >> >> ~Adam >> >> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | >> Bottomline Technologies >> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >> www.bottomline.com >> >> >> >> On 9/17/20, 11:45 AM, "Glenn Wiebe" <glenn.wi...@gridgain.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with Stephen about "database" devaluing what Ignite can do >> (though >> it probably hits the majority of existing use cases). I tend to go >> with >> "massively distributed storage and compute platform" >> >> I know, I didn't take sides, I just have both. >> >> Cheers, >> Glenn >> >> On Thu., Sep. 17, 2020, 7:04 a.m. Stephen Darlington, < >> stephen.darling...@gridgain.com> wrote: >> >> > I think this is a great question. Explaining what Ignite does is >> always a >> > challenge, so having a useful “tag line” would be very valuable. >> > >> > I’m not sure what the answer is but I think calling it a “database” >> > devalues all the compute facilities. "Computing platform” may be >> too vague >> > but it at least says that we do more than “just” store data. >> > >> > On 17 Sep 2020, at 06:29, Valentin Kulichenko < >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > My vote is for the "distributed memory-first database". It clearly >> states >> > that Ignite is a database (which is true at this point), while still >> > emphasizing the in-memory computing power endorsed by the platform. >> > >> > The "in-memory computing platform" is an ambiguous term and doesn't >> really >> > reflect what Ignite is, especially in its current state. >> > >> > -Val >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:53 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Igniters, >> >> >> >> Throughout the history of our project, we could see how the >> addition of >> >> certain features required us to reassess the project's name and >> category. >> >> >> >> Before Ignite joined the ASF, it supported only compute APIs >> resembling >> >> the >> >> MapReduce engine of Hadoop. Those days, it was fair to define >> Ignite as "a >> >> distributed in-memory computing engine". Next, at the time of the >> project >> >> donation, it already included key-value/SQL/transactional APIs, >> was used >> >> as >> >> a distributed cache, and significantly outgrew the "in-memory >> computing >> >> engine" use case. That's how the project transitioned to the >> product >> >> category of in-memory caches and we started to name it as an >> "in-memory >> >> data grid" or "in-memory computing platform" to differentiate from >> >> classical caching products such as Memcached and Redis. >> >> >> >> Nowadays, the project outgrew its caching use case, and the >> classification >> >> of Ignite as an "in-memory data grid" or "in-memory computing >> platform" >> >> doesn't sound accurate. We rebuilt our storage engine by replacing >> a >> >> typical key-value engine with a B-tree engine that spans across >> memory and >> >> disk tiers. And it's not surprising to see more deployments of >> Ignite as a >> >> database on its own. So, it feels like we need to reconsider Ignite >> >> positioning again so that a) application developers can discover >> it easily >> >> via search engines and b) the project can stand out from in-memory >> >> projects >> >> with intersecting capabilities. >> >> >> >> To the point, I'm suggesting to reposition Ignite in one of the >> following >> >> ways: >> >> >> >> 1. Ignite is a "distributed X database". We are indeed a >> distributed >> >> partitioned database where X can be "multi-tiered" or >> "memory-first" to >> >> emphasize that we are more than an in-memory database. >> >> 2. Keep defining Ignite as "an in-memory computing platform" >> but name >> >> our storage engine uniquely as "IgniteDB" to highlight that the >> >> platform is >> >> powered by a "distributed multi-tiered/memory-first database". >> >> >> >> What is your thinking? >> >> >> >> >> >> (Also, regardless of a selected name, Ignite still will be used as >> a cache >> >> and grid, and we're not going to stop appealing to those use >> cases. But >> >> those are just use cases while Ignite has to figure out its new >> identity >> >> ... again). >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> >> Denis >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >>
