openstack team mailing list archive

[Duncan McGreggor <duncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 Nov 2011 - 13:15, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jason K??lker <jkoelker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:20 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems I've talked myself into preferring option e). It's too much
> >> work to do on my own, though, and it's going to be disruptive, so we
> >> need to do it real soon. I think it'll be worth it, though.
> >
> > I agree. This will also make it easier to swap out the storage with
> > other Non-SQLAlchemy datastores *cough* ElasticSearch *cough*.
>
> There's a very good reason this hasn't happened so far: handling
> highly relational datasets with a non-relational data store is a bad
> idea. In fact, I seem to remember that is exactly how Nova's data
> store started out life (*cough* Redis *cough*)

I haven't played much with Riak's linking capabilities yet, but I'm
wondering how close something like (graph-like databases) that would get
us... I haven't explored the relationships in the OpenStack schema yet.

(I'm in the middle of putting together some *simple* experiments with
linking, with my goal being a rough initial performance comparison with
MySQL querying similar data.)

d