Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Reaction against RDBMS? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:17:17 +0100 Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <77qdnfWkpe0PhmPNnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 9jW2zEEtWQkiU+Iag5SjYAQlC1hety/L787Q8B+i+K2yDiIO/uAgJYwLbkiE320nA= Cancel-Lock: sha1:U7ieSJyWWtDVimgrYOLpp6wvCYU= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 In-Reply-To: <77qdnfWkpe0PhmPNnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.databases:343 On 01/22/2013 05:54 AM, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: > >> Yes and yes. > > Would you mind articulating those reasons? I'd like to get a broader > perspective on the issue. Most of what I find is usually from someone saying > the equivalent of, "RDBMS stinks, of course X is better." Yes: not all applications need the strict consistency rules (ACID) which typical RDBMS implementations of TX handling provide and not all applications need immediate access to all basic data fields (i.e. retrieval of complete documents is OK for many applications or even more efficient). By abandoning these more performance can be achieved and replication becomes easier just to name . So NoSQL database have real benefits for particular use cases (same as RDBMS have as well - just other use cases). Yes: they are hyped which you can see any time when looking in the media. When people start implementing RDBMS like TX handling on top of NoSQL databases "by hand" you should be suspicious. Cheers robert