Relational databases are dead -- who knew?
RDBMS vendors need to add NoSQL options to their product families
Follow @SavioRodriguesReading Computerworld's article on the anti-database movement reminded me of James Governor's "SOA flatlines: BRAIN!" post. I always love going back to James' post when someone proclaims that Y is so much better than X, that while X is used widely, X will surely die. Here's a choice set of quotes:
"Windows- Windows is obviously dead. MacOS and Linux have killed it stone dead. Yeah 80%+ market share is a terrible place to be. And don't even get me started on IE. Because it. is. dead.
Unix is dead. Damn straight. Oh yeah don't forget the relational database. Dead. Cobol – totally dead. Hundreds of millions of lines of new code each year. That's dead right? Dead, dead, dead.
Everything is dead."
[ Keep up with the latest open source news with InfoWorld's open source newsletter and topic center. ]
Back to the Computerworld article: It's based on a NoSQL confab held in early June that attracted 150 attendees. The article could be viewed as NoSQL propaganda, as some comments on the post and at HackerNews have suggested.
For example:
FaceBook, for instance, created its Cassandra data store in-house to replace its use of MySQL...
In reality, a reader comments:
Facebook is still MySQL backed and uses Cassandra for only specific things and that they use many different technologies where they're good (like heavy use of memcached as a key-value store to reduce load on MySQL where queries aren't needed).
To be fair, the original quote did not suggest that Facebook has completely ditched MySQL -- just that Cassandra, a NoSQL option, is being used for work that was previously done with MySQL.
Or the following quote from NoSQL confab organizer Johan Oskarsson:
