[antirez]

The examples I made are just a subset of the protection that this provides. Similarly you can't LRANGE a set type, and so forth. So this in general makes certain errors evident ASAP (command mismatch with the key type).

This does not meant that Redis would not work having generic LEN, INSERT, RANGE commands. But such commands would end also having type-specific options, that I have the feeling is not very clean. Anyway these are design tastes, but I don't think they dramatically change what Redis is or isn't. The interesting part is the data model, the idea of commands operating on abstract data structures, the memory-disk duality, and so forth. If one wants to analyze Redis, and understand merits and issues, a serious analysis should hardly focus on these kind of small choices.

[josephg]

Eh. What people are really arguing about here is redis’s type system. Redis’s approach has some pros and some cons. I think dismissing redis’s approach out of hand for its choices is too simple a treatment.

Most sql databases (like Postgres) require all types to be declared once, and then they do type checking on mutation. In that sense, sql is like a static language like C. But weirdly, the results returned from a sql query are always dynamically typed values, expressed in a table. Applications reading data from sql will still typically need to know what kind of data they expect back - but they usually do that type checking at runtime.

Redis flips both of those choices. It’s dynamically typed - so it won’t check your mutations. But also, you don’t need schema migrations and all the complexity they bring. And rather than having a single “table” type, redis queries can return scalar values, lists or maps. What kind of return value you get back depends on the query function. (Eg GET vs LRANGE).

If you think of a database as the foundation underneath your house, static typing & type checking is a wonderful way to make that foundation more stable. There’s a reason Postgres is the default, after all. But redis isn’t best used like that. Instead, it’s a Swiss Army knife which is best used in small, specific situations in which a real database would be complex overkill. Stuff like caching, event processing, data processing, task queues, configuration, and on and on. Places where you want some of the advantages of a database (fast, concurrent network-accessible storage) but you don’t want to stress about tables and schema migrations.

If you really hate redis, maybe say the same thing I say about Java when I teach it to my students. “I hate this, and I’ll tell you why. But there are smart people out there who disagree with me.”

If you ask me, I wish sql looked more like redis in some ways. I think it’s quite awkward that every sql query returns exactly one “table”. I’d much rather if queries could return scalar values or even multiple tables, depending on your query.

[gregw2]

Minor nit. Some SQL databases allow you to return multiple tables. IIRC, SQL Server stored procedures can do that. Agreed its not a language feature of SQL.

[CRConrad]

> I’d much rather if queries could return scalar values

Since when can't they?

[josephg]

I mean, they can - but they’re always wrapped up as pseudo-tables.

Not everything is best described as a table, y’know?

[CRConrad]

> they’re always wrapped up as pseudo-tables.

Are they??? Not as I understand it.

[josephg]

If you call “select 1;”, you get back a table with 1 row and 1 column.

[CRConrad]

That's just because SQL clients present their results that way, AFAICS. If you use a sub-query like in, say,

   select * from orders where custno = (select custno from customers where name = 'John Doe');

you'll get the same result as if you'd put that scalar in your query, like

   select * from orders where custno = 123456; -- John Doe's customer number

Or maybe you're right, that to SQL databases scalar values are single-row single-column tables. But so what? In mathematics, isn't any number also the single-member set of numbers that contains only that number? Where's the harm in that? (And, hey, RDBMSes are founded on set theory...)

So I don't really see what the big problem is either way. Hoping I'm not being stupid AF, maybe you could explain further?