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



NoSQL != automatic scalability

James Golick has an excellent point on the article ☞ Future of RDBMS is RAM Clouds & SSD, which I reviewed and added more context in SQL or NoSQL? The Conclusion is …:

Most of these new NOSQL systems scale without additional effort.

This simply is not true. Many of them only “scale” using consistent hashing in the client (e.g. redis, tokyo?), which means that you’re still responsible for figuring out how to rebalance shards when the time comes. That’s extra effort.

Many of the popular NoSQL dbs don’t partition at all. Couch certainly doesn’t. Mongo’s “auto-sharding” is still in alpha, and I’m not aware of any major deployments of it.

Cassandra can partition data automatically, but as of the current released version, you can’t remove capacity.

NoSQL != automatic scalability.

So true!

Make sure that after reading SQL or NoSQL? The Conclusion is …, you do read the comment thread on ☞ Ilya’s post.