RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:15:33 -0400
"Bingo. IOW, a group of inexperienced and incompetent
developers decides to "write a web 2.0 site" and
shazam, now "ALL enterprises should do the same".
I seem to recall that same argument with the
shopping carts of 8 years ago."
I'd be very careful making these kinds of statements. In my experience, the
folks working at companies like Google, Facebook, MySpace, Ning, LiveJournal,
etc. are easily as bright and experienced as the folks who work in tech at
banks, pharmaceuticals, etc.
They've simply made a different determination - that the cost of using a
relational database in a scale-up or scale-out configuration is greater than
the cost of using one of these non-traditional data stores. Many of these
companies have data needs that scale exponentially with increases in revenue.
Consequently, scale is of extreme importance, as is performance. I know an
online advertising startup that has been up and running for less than a year
and already has close to 50TB of data it's analyzing, and they expect that to
grow around 1TB/day through 2009, and as high as 10TB/day through 2010. They
do indeed collapse data periodically, etc., but still - if they were going to
buy that kind of horsepower with Oracle, how much would they spend?
Instead, they use CouchDB and another non-SQL-esque database whose name I can't
remember. Since they wrote their apps from scratch, there was equal cost to
develop against those as there would be against Oracle/MySQL/SQL Server.
Of course, the article is overblown and hyperbolic, because that makes for a
much better story. But the reality is that while SQL-based, ACID-compliant
databases are not going anywhere, there are other data storage models out there
that may fit better, depending on your application.
So why can't we have both?
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Nuno Souto
Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:15 AM
Cc: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
Sunil Kanderi wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 4:47 AM:
> aversion to understanding SQL. At this point these NoSQL alternatives do
> not seem to apply to the enterprises, but mostly to Web 2.0 based
> applications.
Bingo. IOW, a group of inexperienced and incompetent
developers decides to "write a web 2.0 site" and
shazam, now "ALL enterprises should do the same".
I seem to recall that same argument with the
shopping carts of 8 years ago.
> the broader Oracle community thinks about these alternatives especially
> with Cloud computing and databases on the cloud, fast catching on within
> the enterprises.
No they are not. That those who claim cloud whatever is the solution
to global warming doesn't necessary make it true: it's just another
marketing lie, sorry, campaign.
> At my work place, we are migrating all out
> hardware/database infrastructure to a hosted platform and I wouldn't be
> surprised if within the next three years all our applications being
> totally supported on a cloud platform.
There is a world of difference between a hosted platform which is
basically an outsourced data centre, and cloud computing.
> Here is a good discussion on the article sited above.
>
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=683807
My suggestion is: don't waste anytime with this nonsense.
It's nothing but another pile of unsubstantiated and baseless
boulderdash pushed by the same folks who gave us the dotcom
burst and who haven't yet realised the time when the
"next big thing" was terribly exciting is now utterly
and completely GONE.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
