Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:33:51 -0700
Message-ID: <a898e6820907031233i6e41b665gc57f7e2a1ffbbf92_at_mail.gmail.com>
I completely agree with you Matt.
This article is definitely quite hyperbolic, and putting on blinders while shouting out that these alternatives to traditional RDBMS are a passing fad being adopted by incompetent developers will not serve our purpose.
I might have contributed to this slant by juxtaposing Java developers penchant for being as far away from SQL as possible by their heavy reliance on ORM tools and such with these Non-sql databases. They are two different parallel issues and it could be that one is contributing to the growing popularity of the other.
My 2 cents is that both these options are here to stay in the near term and it would be very beneficial for the DBA community to better understand these other data store solutions.
Thanks,
Sunil.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com> wrote:
>
> "Bingo. IOW, a group of inexperienced and incompetent
> developers decides to "write a web 2.0 site" and
> shazam, now "ALL enterprises should do the same".
> I seem to recall that same argument with the
> shopping carts of 8 years ago."
>
> I'd be very careful making these kinds of statements. In my experience,
> the folks working at companies like Google, Facebook, MySpace, Ning,
> LiveJournal, etc. are easily as bright and experienced as the folks who work
> in tech at banks, pharmaceuticals, etc.
>
> They've simply made a different determination - that the cost of using a
> relational database in a scale-up or scale-out configuration is greater than
> the cost of using one of these non-traditional data stores. Many of these
> companies have data needs that scale exponentially with increases in
> revenue. Consequently, scale is of extreme importance, as is performance.
> I know an online advertising startup that has been up and running for less
> than a year and already has close to 50TB of data it's analyzing, and they
> expect that to grow around 1TB/day through 2009, and as high as 10TB/day
> through 2010. They do indeed collapse data periodically, etc., but still -
> if they were going to buy that kind of horsepower with Oracle, how much
> would they spend?
>
> Instead, they use CouchDB and another non-SQL-esque database whose name I
> can't remember. Since they wrote their apps from scratch, there was equal
> cost to develop against those as there would be against Oracle/MySQL/SQL
> Server.
>
> Of course, the article is overblown and hyperbolic, because that makes for
> a much better story. But the reality is that while SQL-based,
> ACID-compliant databases are not going anywhere, there are other data
> storage models out there that may fit better, depending on your application.
>
> So why can't we have both?
>
> Matt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org on behalf of Nuno Souto
> Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:15 AM
> Cc: Oracle-L_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
>
> Sunil Kanderi wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 4:47 AM:
>
> > aversion to understanding SQL. At this point these NoSQL alternatives do
> > not seem to apply to the enterprises, but mostly to Web 2.0 based
> > applications.
>
> Bingo. IOW, a group of inexperienced and incompetent
> developers decides to "write a web 2.0 site" and
> shazam, now "ALL enterprises should do the same".
> I seem to recall that same argument with the
> shopping carts of 8 years ago.
>
>
> > the broader Oracle community thinks about these alternatives especially
> > with Cloud computing and databases on the cloud, fast catching on within
> > the enterprises.
>
> No they are not. That those who claim cloud whatever is the solution
> to global warming doesn't necessary make it true: it's just another
> marketing lie, sorry, campaign.
>
>
> > At my work place, we are migrating all out
> > hardware/database infrastructure to a hosted platform and I wouldn't be
> > surprised if within the next three years all our applications being
> > totally supported on a cloud platform.
>
> There is a world of difference between a hosted platform which is
> basically an outsourced data centre, and cloud computing.
>
> > Here is a good discussion on the article sited above.
> >
> > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=683807
>
> My suggestion is: don't waste anytime with this nonsense.
> It's nothing but another pile of unsubstantiated and baseless
> boulderdash pushed by the same folks who gave us the dotcom
> burst and who haven't yet realised the time when the
> "next big thing" was terribly exciting is now utterly
> and completely GONE.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Jul 03 2009 - 14:33:51 CDT