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
Monday, 12 July 2010
‹ Back

NoSQL Drama Revisited

About:
,

Jeremy Zawodny (of craigslist.com) offers a different, but correct perspective on some of the news (or noise) last week about MongoDB durability[1] and Twitter’s Cassandra usage:

Each and every one of those NoSQL projects exist because someone needed them. And sometimes you need to start using a shiny new thing before really understanding its limitations and what those tradeoffs REALLY mean in your environment. And once you’ve done that you might realize that sticking with the tried and true is the best path forward. The same is true of programming languages (Ruby vs. Python vs. PHP vs. JavaScript vs. Go vs. whatever) and the frameworks that programmers decide to use. Lots of drama and fan-boy arguments that really boil down to different people having different needs and priorities.

  1. I’ve written about MongoDB durability months ago, but it looks like I haven’t used the right tone and format to come close to ☞ this post.  (↩)

via: http://blog.zawodny.com/2010/07/10/database-drama/