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 Basics, Benefits and Best-Fit Scenarios

Curt Monash, author of ☞ DBMS2, writing about NoSQL databases:

Rather, NoSQL DBMS start from three design premises:

  • Transaction semantics are unimportant, and locking is downright annoying.
  • Joins are also unimportant, especially joins of any complexity.
  • There are some benefits to having a DBMS even so.

I disagree. NoSQL databases design principles are in my opinion:

  • not all data is equal
  • not all data is tabular
  • not all data fits inside RDBMS

I’d say that noone would give up a priori joins or transactions if these would be practical and doable in the above context.

After briefly reviewing a couple of alternative data models available through NoSQL databases, Curt concludes:

The bottom line is that for cutting-edge applications — and not just Internet-centric ones — NoSQL technology can make sense. But in many use cases, NoSQL’s drawbacks are likely to outweigh advantages.

I’d say that in many other cases RDBMS drawbacks can also outweigh advantages.

Original title and link: NoSQL Basics, Benefits and Best-Fit Scenarios (NoSQL databases © myNoSQL)

via: http://intelligent-enterprise.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=E0UTGC5D40ES1QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=227701021