The reason that this is becoming a hot-button issue is because IT organizations have invested billions of dollars in investments in SQL. Adding new data management frameworks such as Hadoop will add considerable expense in terms of finding people with the skills needed to manage these platforms. Stonebraker isn’t necessarily against Hadoop; he’s just pointing out that there is no one SQL database engine that fits all requirements and that before IT organizations adopt a NoSQL approach, they should consider other SQL-compatible approaches to solving the same problem.

Translated: What do these NoSQL kids know? My products are always the best. So instead of paying them, why not continue paying me.

Original title and link: Michael Stonebraker Says in Defense of NewSQL (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/vizard/in-defense-of-new-sql/?cs=49255

I agree this title is misleading but problem is clear: today Oracle does not provide any product can compete with new cloud computing needs and with the NoSQL movement. It is not possibile to think that actually the RAC technology of oracle can be used in a cloud environment and also a cloud service cannot be deployed over an Exadata.

The real question though is if Oracle is really interested by the market currently served by NoSQL databases and/or hybrid solutions. And judging by the latest versions of MySQL and MySQL Cluster^[1] it looks like they are testing the waters.

Original title and link: Will Oracle Win the NoSQL Competition (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu/2011/09/will-oracle-win-the-nosql-competition/

A few more statements:

• SQL-based relational database systems are indeed as moribund as NoSQL advocates charge

• Elephants are not slow because they support SQL.

• Oracle doesn’t scale,

I assume you already know who’s the author.

Original title and link: A Few More SQLish Statements (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238728/newsql_could_combine_the_best_of_sql_and_nosql.html

Stephen O’Grady:

It is too early to handicap the probable outcomes for these various query language projects. Nor is it certain that NoSQL will achieve the same consolidation the relational market did around a single approach; the differing approaches of the various NoSQL projects argue against this, in fact.

If by consolidation we mean having a query language that pseudo-works (by imposing tons of limitations, like GQL), I think we’ll be better of with custom query languages that take full advantage of their underlying NoSQL database engine.

Programming languages are not unified. Nor are file systems. And we are still using them to take full advantage of their unique features.

Original title and link: NoSQL: It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like SQL (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2011/08/05/nosql-to-sql/

Tony Bain:

What is best?  Well that comes down to the resulting complexity, cost, performance and other trade-offs.  Trade-offs are key as there are almost always significant concessions to be made as you scale up.

[…]

So what is my point? Well I guess what I am saying is physical scalability is of course an important consideration in determining what is best. But it is only one side of the coin. What it “costs” you in terms of complexity, actual dollars, performance, flexibility, availability, consistency etc, etc are all important too. And these are often relative, what is complex for you may not be complex for someone else.

I concur—a long time ago I wrote: Complexity is a dimension of scalability.

Original title and link: What Scales Best? (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blog.tonybain.com/tony_bain/2011/07/what-scales-best.html

Although there will be isolated examples, it is going to be rare, therefore, that any potential adopter would be directly comparing NoSQL and NewSQL technologies unless they are still at the stage trying to figure out the level of consistency required for an individual application.

I believe that the future will bring these technologies together so being aware of their pros and cons will be essential. Categorizing all of storage and processing engines just from the level of consistency perspective is like saying there’s only transactional data out there. We all know that’s not true at all.

Original title and link: NoSQL/NewSQL/MySQL Is Not a Zero Sum Game (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/07/11/nosql-newsql-mysql-not-a-zero-sum-game/

Dan Weinreb comments on Michael Stonebraker’s Urban Myths about SQL (PDF) :

Dr. Michael Stonebraker recently posted a presentation entitled “Urban Myths about NoSQL”. Its primary point is to defend SQL, i.e. relational, database systems against the claims of the new “NoSQL” data stores. Dr. Stonebraker is one of the original inventors of relational database technology, and has been one of the most eminent database researchers and practitioners for decades.

In fact, Michael Stonebraker bashes everything that is not his current product—this GigaOm interview is the latest example.

For now, I’m filing this away until VoltDB is sold.

Original title and link: Comments on Urban Myths About NoSQL (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://danweinreb.org/blog/657

Adam D’Angelo^[1]:

I think the “NoSQL” fad will end when someone finally implements a distributed relational database with relaxed semantics.

I believe that defining these relaxed semantics will actually lead to figuring out the origins of many of the NoSQL solutions—just as an example, relaxing the relational model would lead to options like the document model or the BigTable-like columnar model.

Original title and link: The NoSQL Fad (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Quora-use-MySQL-as-the-data-store-rather-than-NoSQLs-such-as-Cassandra-MongoDB-CouchDB-etc