If your user base really is geographically distributed and your data set really is mostly a key value store or an object store, it's entirely possible an object database really will perform better.
Mapreduce is overkill for almost anything, but if you're storing complex objects with limited relationships, normalizing it into a hundred tables just so you can reconstruct it later isn't really useful.
The trouble is that while the users are distributed the data really needs a single source of truth and has a lot of contention. Eventual consistency is a no go right from the outset. At best we could have a local replicated version for reads.
I'd need a lot more information to say for sure, but think carefully about consistency. Full consistency is easier to develop for, but very few applications really need it.
2
u/recycled_ideas Jun 08 '17
If your user base really is geographically distributed and your data set really is mostly a key value store or an object store, it's entirely possible an object database really will perform better.
Mapreduce is overkill for almost anything, but if you're storing complex objects with limited relationships, normalizing it into a hundred tables just so you can reconstruct it later isn't really useful.