"I'll need to be able to pull by date or by a number of key fields"
So, in other words, you have already decided on key fields. If you use a database, this has things call index's, that can search billions of rows for a key field in a fraction of a second.
If you don't use something with INDEX's then you can't do this.
Where has this idea that Databases can't scale come from? - The world runs on Database for heaven sake. Do you think when you take money out of an ATM, its going to MONGODB? - And yet there are millions of ATM's and you can take money out of your VISA account in almost all of them anywhere in the world. That is called scale.
How cool is that!!! If that was me, I would make sure they didn't put the skin back on, and added a few blue flashing LED's for additional affect.
"It will not be used as a disintegrating death ray, but to study symmetries and invariants. This is much more interesting..."
Oh, no its not!
I wonder, how much Co2 has been released into the atmosphere, with this bug present on millions of computers, over decades, causing PC's to eat more electricity than they should.
Its also more formally called TDD. Create some code that tests the suitability of the existing code to solve the problem. Then randomly change the code until it passes the test, and all the others. Repeat, rinse, etc.
Its a commodity. Like gold, or silver.
Apple don't keep changing stuff around in their Mac OS, unlike Microsoft do with windows, so my mum can keep up to date without getting lost.
Yes, I do have to fix stuff sometimes, but that doesn't include removing dozens of spyware etc.
When I see comments like this, I am SOOOO grateful that mum bought a core duo imac 6 years ago, and it still is going strong....
Imagine 2 envelopes, A and B. Inside both envelopes is a hidden binary code, just printed on a card.
These envelopes are sent to Alice and Bob. However, Alice doesn't read the code directly. She first generates her own pseudo random stream of random 0's and '1's. She can control the ratio of 1's and 0's, by initially choosing an angle, and the Generator will spew out a sequence that all '0's if the angle is 0degrees, or all '1's if the angle is 90degrees, and any angle between 0 and 90 will adjust the ratio accordingly.
Alice then X'ORs her stream of 0's and 1's with that printed on her card, in the envelope, to give a result.
At the other envelope, BOB does exactly the same. He also has a pseudo random number generator, (using the same seed as Alice). When he sets his angle to 0, and Alice sets her's to 0, they will BOTH end up with the same sequence on the PRNG, and so XORing the number on the card will result in the same message. In fact when Alice and Bob set their PRNG to the same angle, they always will get the same sequence, and so their message will always match. Nothing spooky going on here.
The spooky thing happens when Alice and Bob choose different angles. Lets say that Alice sets her angle to 0 degrees, and Bob chooses 30 degrees. They do the calculation, and it appears the final sequences correlate 3 out of 4 times.... or 25% of the time there is a difference between Bobs and Alices code. Bob then changes his angle back to 0, and Alice sets hers to -30 Degrees. Again, after doing the calculation, they work out that 25% of the time the codes differ.
If alice sets hers to -30 and Bob sets his to 30, it would be common sense to say that there could be no more than 50%, the codes will differ. Except this is not the case. In the real world, using real entangled particles the result comes out to be 75%. What *must* be happening for this result, is the original hidden code printed on Alices and Bob's card MUST some how change, when the other party changes their angle.... OR, that there is no hidden code, but something else is going on... No hidden fixed sequence of numbers can explain the experimental results. This is 'Spooky' action at a distance, and can't be explained using traditional physics on its own.