Google F1 vs. FoundationDB's SQL Layer(foundationdb.com)

45 pointsby aritraghosh00713 anni fa12 comments

https://foundationdb.com/blog/7-things-that-make-google-f1-and-the-foundationdb-sql-layer-so-strikingly-similar

4 comments

This reads like a thinly disguised ad to me.

"We all know that Google's stuff is excellent. Now, here's how we're doing the same thing..."

spullara13 anni fa

My investment in these guys was announced this morning. I've been talking with them for over a year, one of my other portfolio companies is using it in production and I can't say enough good things about the rigor used to develop it. Honestly it is easy to be skeptical of their claims, but I think that if you dig in you will find that they are true.

https://foundationdb.com/blog/foundationdb-raises-17-million...

eonil13 anni fa

This is real big news! This blows out the concern for long term product availability, and will make more conservative people to adapt the product.

disdev13 anni fa

I've gotta say, I'm a big fan of the software. I'm excited to use it in an upcoming project!

fizx13 anni fa

Congrats!

joshu13 anni fa

congrats, sam!

rdtsc13 anni fa

The tough sell for me is -- I don't see the source code. 10 whitepapers and 15 blog posts comparing to Google doesn't add to credibility. That works for investors and for fun recreational reading. Show me how you do write locking, let's see your cluster membership module.

Perhaps, they want to be Oracle or DB2, that's fine, and I understand that, different market perhaps. But they don't have the credibility those companies do. Even Google's F1 has more credibility because well, because of brand name recognition.

Look at these other DB products I might want to choose, all with available source code: RethinkDB, PostreSQL, Riak, CouchDB, SQLite, MariaDB, MongoDB, Couchbase, Cassandra.

At this point, databases are a bit like operating system, there is no way I am picking a closed source operating system if I have a choice. It is just too critical of a component to be closed under a sealed lid.

Yes they all have different features and maybe FoundationDB does something better, I will still put it last in whatever category, just because I want to be able to look at how it works.

[deleted]13 anni fa

bitdiddle13 anni fa

agreed! I just downloaded and installed and can't for the life of me find the source code.

perhaps by open source they mean the collection of clients on Github

Dave_Rosenthal13 anni fa

The SQL layer (which is compared to Google F1 in the blog post) is open-source (it is not yet released; an older version is on GitHub: https://github.com/FoundationDB/sql-layer). This means that the SQL parser, query planner, execution engine, etc. can all be audited, examined, and changed.

You are correct that the FoundationDB storage engine itself (transactional key-value store) is closed-source. (It is free for production use in smaller cluster, and available for license for larger clusters.)

bitdiddle13 anni fa

Thanks for the clarification, my interest was academic and piqued by the use of hierarchical structures. Best of luck with it!

[deleted]13 anni fa

jb00713 anni fa

I don't need to see source code to use a software. Maybe I need to see source code to get some ideas to help me with my own software I'm building that I'm having problems with.

[deleted]13 anni fa

_stephan13 anni fa

An ordered key-value store with consistent secondary indices and simple transactions covers the needs of lots of applications (as e.g. the Google App Engine data store proves). If FoundationDB can indeed deliver consistency without compromising performance and scalability, they will probably have a bright future.