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 and The Future of CMS

Interesting to check if the set of requirements of a CMS represent a good fit for NoSQL solutions:

  1. Richly structured content types
  2. Unstructured binary objects
  3. Relationships / references / associations
  4. The ability to evolve content models over time (what I call “schema evolution”)
  5. Branch / merge (in the Source Code Management (SCM) sense of the term)
  6. Snapshot based versioning
  7. ACID transactions
  8. Scalability to large content sets
  9. Geographic distribution

The only requirement that doesn’t seem to be satisfied by most of the NoSQL is “ACID transactions”. But in case this could be translated into atomic and durable operations, I think most of the NoSQL solution will pass this test too.

The guys from Outerthought, builders of the Daisy CMS, have been publishing a lot recently about their decision to build the next generation CMS (Lily) on top of HBase. Below are the slides of their presentation: “Learning Lessons: Building a CMS on top of NoSQL technologies” from Berlin Buzzwords

Another resource useful to understand the needs behind a CMS is ☞ OuterThoughts’ technology choices.