Luca Olivari, Director of Business Development at 10gen:
With MongoDB you can
cover 80% of the use cases of Relational plus NoSQL databases.
Leaving aside for a second the last part of this sentence as being obviously not accurate, let’s look at what the first part might mean:
- fewer than 20% of the use cases need strong transactional semantics
- fewer than 20% of the use cases need strong data integrity constraints
- fewer than 20% of the use cases require integration with other existing data processing tools that imply SQL access
- fewer than 20% of the use cases require one or more of the still unique to relational database features (triggers, materialized views, etc.)
- fewer than 20% of use cases require to be always available.
I’d (probably) be OK with the fact that each of the above could be true, but I don’t believe that adding together all these cases makes only for 20% of the use cases.
So, what’s another answer to the question:
If you were
to choose a new technology, what would you choose? There’s a chance that
you’ll pick the one that gives you more advantages in more cases.
It’s well known for many that adoption, thus opportunity, is not always related to the technological merits. Actually most of the time a 3rd party business opportunity is directly connected with the complexity or incompleteness or fragility of a technology.
If you’d be a business, wouldn’t you choose a market where there is sizable opportunity but the competition (nb your competition, not the solution competition) is not that strong and there’s a chance for recurring business (i.e. a business that requires a client to call multiple times is definitely better than one which once delivered it just works).
Original title and link: What’s really in it for MongoDB’s 3rd parties? ( ©myNoSQL)