Wha? Exsqueeze me? PostgreSQL is a search engine? Sure, PostgreSQL offers search, but compare PostgreSQL search to something like Solr. It's hard to see why you'd drive that screw into a wall with a hammer.
In short, people are continuing to make the same mistakes they made with their RDBMSes, only in a bigger way. In an RDBMS, you should not seek to have "one holy schema" that is ideal for both your operational system and your analytical system. In the world of NoSQL, you shouldn't necessarily seek to have the same database for both your operational and analytical systems. Sharma wraps up with:
What was I getting in return for dealing with all this? Web scale doesn't interest me so much. digiDoc is tiny and RDBMS have proven themselves to work at whatever scale we're likely to achieve.
Therein lies the issue. You were familiar with an RDBMS and you didn't have the kind of problem that makes you need to think about a problem in a different way. So you tried to use a document database as you would have used your RDBMS. Yet if you're working on a tiny application that doesn't have high scalability requirements and you're familiar with PostgreSQL, why not use PostgreSQL?
Be very circumspect when turning your back on 40 years of computer science. Graph theory, document databases, and so on are nothing new to computer science. Lotus Domino used a document database decades ago.
The lesson to be learned here is: Don't solve a simple problem with a completely unfamiliar technology and apply it to use cases it isn't especially appropriate for. In short, dude, you're holding it wrong.
But Google said...
Now let's turn our attention to a post by Todd Hoff on the High Scalability blog. He interprets a paper on the Google Research site about Google's new globally distributed database, Spanner, as a signal that the company is veering away from NoSQL:
Reading the Spanner paper I felt it had that chiseled in stone feel that all of Google's best papers have. An instant classic.