I may have missed what you are trying to do here. NoSQL is really a bad name and should really be renamed to NoREL instead. NoSQL implementations are not used just because of limitations of traditional RDBMS when it comes to sheer traffic volume, they are also used because they scale horizontally very well. When I was reading though all these emails it seems to be you would have 200+ nodes here with the SAME data. Maybe that's not what you are trying to do?
I also did not know the software for maintaining the data was already in place. JW On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Johan De Meersman <vegiv...@tuxera.be>wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Johnny Withers <joh...@pixelated.net>wrote: > >> >> This sounds like a good job for a 'NoSQL' system. Maybe? >> > > I can't help but blink at that. How exactly is NoSQL going to fix issues > that are related to topology, not inherent SQL limitations ? Which > particular incarnation of NoSQL are you thinking of ? > > Also, I suspect rewriting all 200 clients' services is not going to be an > option :-) > > -- > Bier met grenadyn > Is als mosterd by den wyn > Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel > Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel > -- ----------------------------- Johnny Withers 601.209.4985 joh...@pixelated.net
