[angelbob]

You're not wrong. But mostly we haven't collectively agreed that relational databases aren't great for highly-indexed rapid-update join tables.

I think we will at some point. That's the primary original use case for a lot of NoSQL, and the reason Twitter had so much trouble with relational databases.

But these are cultural understandings, and those move slowly. Also, we're poorly (collectively) equipped to handle subtlety in these discussions, so mostly we're trying to move from "relational databases are perfect for all use cases" to "NoSQL databases are perfect for all use cases" -- which is even less true, not more true.

Culturally, this is a hard thing to keep in our collective brain.

[tomcam]

That was an elegantly nuanced answer with just the right amount of context. Thank you.

[duaneb]

How has NoSQL addressed join tables? All the approaches I've seen are much, much slower than with a traditionally vertically scaled relational database—or by moving away from joining altogether—it's traditionally been the twin pressures of scale and replication that force people to move to a distributed database.

[machine-wisdom]

Non-relational DBs (the Not Only SQL sort) usually passes the buck up to the application layer for several things. It is in a way a good thing to do if the DB wants to focus on scale out issues such as consistency of replicas or high availability. I personally find it pretty easy to work with alternate data models, thus not relying on the possibility of a join or a transaction, as long as I am not writing a banking application. Without a relational data model, the biggest problem becomes verification IMHO; verification of the DB, the application logic, and whether the application logic makes the right assumptions about the DB it is using.

[angelbob]

Cassandra, for instance, makes it possible to query your join-type tables in relatively manual chunks using slice queries. You have to do a lot more of it in the application so you wind up with weird partial failures...

But at scale, weird partial failures, results as they are found and eventual consistency are usually preferable to a really long DB query that never returns.

Above a certain scale, big joins are simply not usable. NoSQL's manage-it-yourself approach is good for getting partial results where full results are too expensive.

You can think of it as applying a heuristic approach where an exact approach is too expensive, if it makes you feel less like NoSQL sullies the purity of databases :-)

[bind]

NoSQL doesn't do table joins.

[duaneb]

Well, F1 does. I'm fairly sure FoundationDB did too. It isn't incompatible--I'd argue joins are natural for certain tasks, and certainly reduce developer load, especially if the latency isn't a driving priority.

Yes, that's SQL, but the term nosql was always orthogonal to the priorities of the movement (horizontal scalability).