Because SQLite already performs this sort of job on iOS (and desktop OSX) and appears to do it just fine. This product seems to be appropriate for problems with Apple's online infrastructure, not for their customer products.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Acquires 'Rock-Solid High-Performance' Database Company FoundationDB
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because SQLite already performs this sort of job on iOS (and desktop OSX) and appears to do it just fine. This product seems to be appropriate for problems with Apple's online infrastructure, not for their customer products.
Yay for better cloud services from Apple.
Though to be honest, aside from a few duplicated notes, I don't have any problem with iCloud.
Though to be honest, aside from a few duplicated notes, I don't have any problem with iCloud.
I never heard of NoSQL before. Is it a database application written by this company to compete with SQL ?
SQLite is alright, and made sense when iOS was running on underpowered devices, but these days developers need a more powerful DB. I agree with you that FoundationDB is probably destined for their servers, but I have wanted to see Postgres on iOS for several years. Its more sophisticated query and type support, along with its much more reliable/safe transactions, is really needed.s
No. It's a term that addresses all databases that do not use a relational database structure. As traditional relational databases were not designed to be scalable. If interested, I believe MondoDB's writeup on the matter is not too complicated:
http://www.mongodb.com/nosql-explained
Interesting
But really, there are a slew of "NoSQL" variants out there, so not sure what made this company special or why Apple feels it needed to acquire something they could probably engineer from scratch in a heartbeat.
I think it is clear that Apple is moving towards being a monolithic company that will shun cooperation or cross-licensing with any other company, big or small. Why cooperate when you can obliterate.
But really, there are a slew of "NoSQL" variants out there, so not sure what made this company special or why Apple feels it needed to acquire something they could probably engineer from scratch in a heartbeat.
I think it is clear that Apple is moving towards being a monolithic company that will shun cooperation or cross-licensing with any other company, big or small. Why cooperate when you can obliterate.
They found an extra, bag-o-money under Tim's office chair. The company came with free lollipops!
----------
IBM and Oracle/Sun would challenge your definition of "scalable". They charge Gigabucks for their high end solutions no web startup can afford. By the time you are big enough to afford them, you've already bent MySQL (~shutters~) into some horrible abomination... I mean cheaper alternative
They probably would, but it would amuse me, and in turn I'd challenge their relative definition of "traditional". Since if the underlined constraints have changed from original relational databases, as far as I'm concerned ... they are not subject to my statement.
Your Math is off. 1 Nanodollar isn't 9 zeroes in front of the 1, it is 8.
1 millidollar is .001 (2 zeros)
1 microdollar is .000001 (5 zeros)
and finally, a nanodollar is 8 zeroes in front of the one.
So the cost of a fully utilized service (54 billion transactions / hour times 3 billionths $/transaction)
is $162.00 / hour.
I'm surprised someone else didn't comment on that prior. You are correct it is off by a zero, I typed too many. But there should've only been 9 zeros in total @ 10^-9, not 9 after the decimal.
Fortunately, the second / micro-dollar comment was in accord with the OP's wit.
I've amended and credited the post.
Last edited:
