I am sure many of you must have gone through this discussion, but sharing it anyway since I liked the analogy he makes with SQL against NoSQL compared to transmission in cars.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2559411/sql-mysql-vs-nosql-couchdb It might be a cliche, but I kind of feel the current "NoSQL movement" is simply a case of "The grass must be greener on the other side". --Anand On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM, vikas ruhil <vikasruhi...@gmail.com>wrote: > < have you try even BIG QUERY service from Google as Trusted Tester? > < than you will find out your answer definitely? > > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Noufal Ibrahim <nou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 13 2011, Santosh Rajan wrote: > > > > > Google has BigTable as its nosql implementation. You would think that, > > > for a mission critical massive scale operation like Google adwords, > > > Google uses BigTable right? Wrong! They use MySQL. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdWords#Technology > > > > > > Google see's so much value with what works, that in fact they submit > > > patches to MySQL, for any large scale problem they faced. > > > > > > Understanding that your job is "to get the job done", and new fangled > > > stuff is simply not worth the risk, when postgresql or MySQL can get > > > the job done, will take you a long way towards database zen. > > > > RDBMS and document stores optimise for different things[1]. This diagram > > shows where these different systems fall > > http://guide.couchdb.org/editions/1/en/consistency.html#cap > > > > Shoehorning an application that would best work with an RDMBS (and all > > the things that it offers) to work with a document store is folly. > > > > It's equally dumb to force something that's a natural fit for a document > > store to use an RDMBS. > > > > Google used mySQL for adwords because they needed what it offered. > > They use BigTable for a number of other products because it's a better > > fit over there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigTable#History > > > > I'm new to the whole NoSQL thing but it offers new ideas and I think > > dismissing them as "new fangled stuff" that's "not worth the risk" is > > myopic. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Footnotes: > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > BangPypers mailing list > > BangPypers@python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > > > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > -- --Anand _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
