Re: NoSQL -vs- SQL

Hi,

I liked the article.
A few years ago, I heard that Michael Stonebraker said "There is no new (theoretical) invention around the database technology.The key is integration of existing technologies". Everyone feels that RDBMS has reached saturation level and no further developemnt is possible. I do not agree with this.

I feel strongly that integration of existing technologies is possible. Inventions in RDBMS technology is possible. RDBMS should become INTELLIGENT.
CAP: Consistancy, Availability and Partition Tolerance should be achieved same time.

I have concepts in mind and need to work on the same and looking for sponcer.

Regards,
Vijay Ghatpande

----- Original Message -----
From: Satoshi Nagayasu <satoshi(dot)nagayasu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:43 am
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] NoSQL -vs- SQL
To: Carlos Mennens <carlos(dot)mennens(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org

> On 2010/10/12 8:46, Carlos Mennens wrote:
> > Just wondering how you guys feel about NoSQL and I just wanted to
> > share the following article...
> >
> > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10770
> >
> > Looking to read your feedback and / or opinions.
>
> Seems a nice article. I like it. :)
>
> I think "NoSQL is a new implementation built with old technologies".
> Computing paradigm (and the hype) is repeatable.
>
> I know there are several trade-offs on making decisions of technology
> design, such as "Traditional RDBMS", "In-Memory Datatabase",
> "Key-Value Store" or something like that.
>
> A few years ago, I heard that Michael Stonebraker said
> "There is no new (theoretical) invention around the database
> technology.The key is integration of existing technologies". I
> agree with that.
> At that time, he was working for the C-store.
>
> Anyway, NoSQL is grown as a kind of storage, not a database to process
> business transactions (As the article mentioned, early MySQL users
> knewan importance of web-scale storage). However, when NoSQL
> process more
> critical transactions or critical user data, it needs to be ACID-
> compliant,and needs to have several technologies around
> traditional RDBMSes.
> For example, Cassandra is now having its write-ahead-logging.
>
> So, from my viewpoint, NoSQL is a subset of traditional database
> technologies, and I agree with that it would deliver values
> in some use cases, because there are several trade-offs and overheads
> on existing technologies in such use cases.
>
> However, NoSQL is still lacking important features and/or
> properties to
> process business transactions, and there are only few sites having
> needsfor true Facebook-size scalability.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> NAGAYASU Satoshi <satoshi(dot)nagayasu(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>