couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [user] Re: The Blog
Date Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:40:36 GMT

On 9 Feb 2009, at 18:28, Paul Davis wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Adam Petty <adamjpetty@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> If a hospital starts to move to an SOA - and all the business logic  
>> gets
>> abstracted to the web services that each department exposes in the  
>> use,
>> transmission (security) of data... wouldn't that then become almost  
>> the
>> perfect place for couch?
>>
>> Now if it's already in Oracle - I can see how it might not be smart  
>> to
>> retool just for couch, but starting from scratch, I can't think of  
>> anything
>> that goes on in a hospital that doesn't revolve around physical  
>> documents.
>>
>> I've done consulting for medical records processing companies - but  
>> not for
>> hospitals themselves - any specifics as to why this wouldn't meet
>> requirements?
>>
>>
>
> I saw the schema for an Oracle db used in production at a teaching
> hospital. It still gives me nightmares. This was the general business
> database not related to things like patient records etc. Ie, it tracks
> which doctor is on what rotations in which department. AFAIK, it
> basically ran everything *except* patient records. Personally I'd
> probably pick up a commercial solution for things like medical records
> for liability alone.

I think for the sake of the argument we're assuming that we're building
a new commercial solution on top of CouchDB.


> The larger picture here though is when business logic and consistency
> are more important than availability and partition tolerance. These
> are systems that are designed to be run on a single machine with
> perhaps a hot spare etc.

A double-write proxy in front of the master & hot spare and not using
replication gives you CA!P instead of !CAP. CouchDB lets you even
make the choice. It is moar bettar! :)

Cheers
Jan
--

> In other words, these are not your Web 2.0 "Let's have an ORMgy!"  
> databases.
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com 
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Wout Mertens <wmertens@cisco.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:51:18AM -0500, Adam Petty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could this thread be added to the wiki - with only minor  
>>>>>> editing for
>>>>>> length
>>>>>> - maybe as "a RDBMS vs couch 'Discussion' ?"  or something  
>>>>>> similar?"...
>>>>>
>>>>> We've learnt from the book that such comparisons tend to be  
>>>>> harmful.
>>>>>
>>>>> They lead people into thinking that there is a direct meaningful
>>>>> comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fundamentally, CouchDB and RDMS solve different problems.
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, I think it would be interesting to compare the main  
>>>> benefits of
>>>> each so that you know what the strong points of each are.
>>>>
>>>> For example, suppose you implement schema-free in an RDBMS by  
>>>> adding a
>>> text
>>>> field that contains a JSON string. You still keep some of the  
>>>> metadata,
>>> like
>>>> _rev and _id, in proper fields.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you stuff a structured string into an RDBMS you're Doing It Wrong
>>> &trade;.
>>>
>>>> However, thinking about that, it means you will need to re- 
>>>> implement
>>>> everything CouchDB does, like views and replication.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I think saying RDBMS and CouchDB are for different
>>> solutions
>>>> is just you guys being nice. I think that any application would  
>>>> benefit
>>> from
>>>> using the CouchDB model and only in very specific, very demanding  
>>>> cases
>>> an
>>>> RDBMS would be better. I can't think of any examples though.
>>>>
>>>> So here's my challenge to the mailing list, it's pretty much the  
>>>> same one
>>>> that MrDonut posted: Give us an example of something that would  
>>>> be better
>>> be
>>>> done with an RDBMS and something that would better be done with  
>>>> CouchDB.
>>>>
>>>> I'll help you: I think it would be easier to create a wiki with  
>>>> CouchDB
>>> than
>>>> with an RDBMS. It is possible in both but CouchDB just makes it  
>>>> easier. I
>>>> suppose we'd have to ask the http://couch.it guys to know if that's
>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what would be done better in an RDBMS. Performance  
>>>> logging
>>>> perhaps? Something with really stringent schema requirements?
>>>>
>>>> Wout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Things that CouchDB is better at:
>>>
>>> The interweb.
>>>
>>> Things that an RDBMS is better at:
>>>
>>> Huge amounts of business logic. As in the Oracle install running  
>>> your
>>> favorite hospital. Think along the lines of 10's and 100's of
>>> thousands of lines of app logic in the DB itself.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Paul Davis
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message