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



Contrary to popular belief, SQL and noSQL are really just two sides of the same coin

Not sure why it took me so long to mention Erik Meijer and Gavin Bierman paper: “A Co-Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks”:

At this point it feels like the conceptual dissonance between the key-value and foreign-/primary-key data models is insurmountable. That would be a pity since clearly each has its strengths and weaknesses. Wouldn’t it be great if we could give a more mathematical explanation of where the relational model shines and where the object-graph model works best? As it turns out, we can find the answer to this question by taking a closer look at the (in-memory) structures created for our running example in both models.

Erik Meijer has firstly introduced these ideas at the NoSQL track I’ve hosted in November last year. And the conclusion of the talk sticked with me:

Despite common wisdom, SQL and coSQL are not diabolically opposed, but instead deeply connected via beautiful mathematical theory,

Original title and link: Contrary to popular belief, SQL and noSQL are really just two sides of the same coin (NoSQL databases © myNoSQL)