NoSQL vs. SQL: The truth about SQL, NoSQL, and NoNoSQL

Post by lukaseder » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 6:07 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #11

Tarang wrote: post #2

The bias is very obvious. There is a leaning toward SQL. While some of the things may be true there is a heavy focus on standards here & less so on performance & capabilities. Looks like its to push the commercial product on the bottom of the page.

I got lost with the "is it a * standard" comparison. I understand the importance of standards, but a standard for a query language is different than a category of data stores. (Also - half the things he talks about further down are very very hard to do with standard SQL and not using any proprietary extensions - see Hierarchal). Perhaps a comparison that made the left column "RDBMS" would be better... At the very lea…

Post by almosnow » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 6:38 PM UTC

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #20

almosnow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with articles (and people) that are written like this. Reminds me of how burecrautized the sector can be. 99% of database deployments are made by a guy like this and they are hell on earth (thousands of tables, 20+ recursive joins between them, a specification that spans more than 500 tables, "and that's just the 'inventory' database". But hey! the guy must know what he's doing! he's got 'the theory' and O…

The fact that you would even theoretically be fired for expediently using a gender-specific pronoun is beyond ridiculous. Unless, of course, you're part of the political correctness secret police.

Post by almosnow » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 11:47 PM UTC

lukaseder wrote: post #24

almosnow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with articles (and people) that are written like this. Reminds me of how burecrautized the sector can be. 99% of database deployments are made by a guy like this and they are hell on earth (thousands of tables, 20+ recursive joins between them, a specification that spans more than 500 tables, "and that's just the 'inventory' database". But hey! the guy must know what he's doing! he's got 'the theory' and O…

I'm still waiting for any NoSQL technology to produce masterpieces of algorithmic knowledge as the guys at Oracle (or Microsoft, IBM, etc.) do. Have you read Tom Kyte's metadata matters? http://de.scribd.com/doc/28708969/Metadata-Matters-by-Tom-Ky... This isn't just about Oracle certifications. This is about databases that can actually handle the "hell on earth" complexity that some systems simply have. Or do you thi…

Post by almosnow » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:21 PM UTC

lukaseder wrote: post #26

almosnow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO and probably limited experience, all data problems as data size and concurrency approaches infinite become the same problem, and that problem is more easily solved with a KVS rather than with infinite RDB tables. To me, KVS and RDB are just two sides of the same coin. If you start modelling properties your DB will look like a RDB, if you start with objects first your DB will look like a KVS. I prefer KVSs becaus…

Yes, I know that Erik Meijer tried to claim that KVS (NoSQL) and RDBMS are two sides of the same coin: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297&repost To me, quite frankly, his article sounded more like a pro-LINQ marketing campaign than anything else :-). No wonder he's propagating duality between SQL and NoSQL (coSQL) when he planned on creating a company called Applied Duality Inc...