
The NoSQL movement is growing, but what is it?  - monkeygrinder
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2807&blogid=25
======
inboulder
I wish the energy being put into the whole 'nosql' movement had moved toward
object databases instead of KV stores. KV is fine for caching, but is
obviously not suitable for modeling and retrieving data with complex
relationships.

I think it's hilarious that some NoSQL solutions now have 'columns!', way to
go, you're slowly reinventing the RDBMS, poorly...

------
helwr
the article is very shallow. if you want a serious overview of "noSql
movement" I recommend this paper: "No Relation: The Mixed Blessings of Non-
Relational Databases" by Ian Varley
[http://ianvarley.com/UT/MR/Varley_MastersReport_Full_2009-08...](http://ianvarley.com/UT/MR/Varley_MastersReport_Full_2009-08-07.pdf)

------
k7d
This article sounds like a typical enterprise architect bullshit. And he is
missing the point. NoSQL is so much more than simple KV store. NoSQL Wants To
Be "Elastic Caching" When It Grows Up. What is he smoking?

------
Roridge
Realistically we have all been creating NoSQL applications for some time. For
years we have been hiding the SQL away from the Objects. EJB is a classic
example of something that tries to keep the SQLugly away from applications.

But NoSQL is like a breath of real-time fresh air for me. RDBMS have become
stale and the flurry of NoSQL out there is exactly what the real-time web
needs.

~~~
AndrewDucker
We haven't _all_ been doing that. Some of us have been writing SQL
applications that extract related data from multiple tables while maintaining
integrity between them. Seems to work for us...

~~~
geebee
I think that NoSql is a very regrettable name for an interesting movement. I
got a response from someone who appears to have been involved in the early
stages

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=967882>

"...NoSQL was never meant to be a "movement". We were taking a trip to the Bay
Area from London and we wanted to meet up with some of the guys who were
working on scalable non-relational data stores. We planned a one-day
conference and someone suggested naming it NoSQL. It was just a tongue-in-
cheek name, until someone came along and decided it was a "movement".

I can see how this happens. Unfortunately, a name like "NoSql" is going to get
people to come to the defense of Sql in many ways that were never really part
of the "NoSql" concept. For instance, my initial reaction was a defense of the
language and its (in my opinion) remarkably effective way of structuring and
managing complex relationships in data. However, it appears that most of the
"NoSql" folk aren't making any claim to the contrary.

NoSql, I think, is more about avoiding rdbms's as a default data store when
you don't really need sql and are experiencing scalability issues. In that
case, it probably does make sense.

"NotAlwaysSql" might have been a more descriptive name, but doesn't really
have the same impact... sometimes this is deliberate (get the impact of a
controversial term, but then define that term as something much easier to
defend), but in this case, I don't think it was deliberate, I think it was
something that got away from them.

~~~
Roridge
Yes, it's a very unfortunate name, it's a shame it stuck.

I'm not against SQL at all, I just like that the "movement" to provide an API
to develop against at the points where SQL isn't necessary. It just saves me
implementing it myself with the SQL behind it.

