[Guest42]

Yes, the number of proposed db switched I’ve seen is remarkably high. I once interviewed for a role as a database developer and was confused to find out they didn’t have the database that the role pertained to. One of the early questions in the interview was how quickly I could migrate production from ms sql to pg. Needless to say that was a gigantic red flag and I hope they found the right person for that job.

I’ve also seen a switch from rdbms to Hadoop because a company had “millions” of rows. Luckily on this one I only had to rewrite a handful of queries.

[jaywalk]

I've got relatively modestly-specced SQL Servers handling tables with hundreds of millions and even billions of rows without breaking a sweat. Somebody either just really wanted a new toy to play with, or has no idea what indexes are.

[Guest42]

Exactly, I’ve seen Sql servers handle billions of rows with 2 thousand columns. I think also people that work too long at one company don’t realize how problems were solved elsewhere.

[eloff]

> I’ve also seen a switch from rdbms to Hadoop because a company had “millions” of rows. Luckily on this one I only had to rewrite a handful of queries.

Wat. That's gross. It probably costs them more per query now than the rdbms did.

[Guest42]

Didn’t even think about that part because I don’t know too much about Hadoop other than it seemed impractical.

[yellow_lead]

I guess millions sounded like a lot to a decision maker :)