ALL COVERED TOPICS

NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter

NAVIGATE MAIN CATEGORIES

Close

NoSQL: Do You Need to Associate Your Product with it?

Mohammad Abdurraafay in a post about Apple Core Data:

My take on Core Data is, because it’s just not being Open Sourced, it’s not filed under NoSql. Otherwise, it’s the only NoSql on the best mobile platform, i.e. iOS and probably the first.

☞ posts.mohammadabdurraafay.com

This seems to be a reoccurring theme for existing storage solutions and not only. And I bet things will get more intense in the near future.

Indeed there are various arguments that can be used to associate your product with NoSQL databases: the data model, the processing model, the lack of SQL, etc. You have a key-value store (e.g. BerkleyDB) it is NoSQL. You have an object database or its new reincarnation as graph database, then you have a NoSQL database. Your product deals with BigData, then it is NoSQL.

But the real question is: if your product is already filling a market need and is well positioned, why would you try to place it under a buzzword umbrella?

Original title and link: NoSQL: Do You Need to Associate Your Product with it? (NoSQL databases © myNoSQL)