"The problem is: NoSQL is not a solution at all. It's a trade-off."
Bingo, that is precisely what NotOnlySQL is all about. For example you trade some consistency guarantees for the ability to scale out.
Uninformed (has the author heard about the CAP theorem?), either-or diatribes like this article don't really serve any purpose other than sowing discord.
This is just like "C++ is better than Java is better than..." type flames wars. :)
We use Oracle and we use HBase. We would never replace Oracle with HBase for all of our data needs. At the same time we have need for a store that scales beyond what even Oracle can provide (and yes, we use RAC with multi TB caches across a database instance).
For the same reason we use Java, C++, Scala, Perl, Closure, Bash, JavaScript, etc... The right tool for the right job.
Personally what I would like to see is:
* secondary indexes
* snapshot isolation (in leu of global transactions, which will never scale).
Bingo, that is precisely what NotOnlySQL is all about. For example you trade some consistency guarantees for the ability to scale out.
Uninformed (has the author heard about the CAP theorem?), either-or diatribes like this article don't really serve any purpose other than sowing discord.
This is just like "C++ is better than Java is better than..." type flames wars. :)
We use Oracle and we use HBase. We would never replace Oracle with HBase for all of our data needs. At the same time we have need for a store that scales beyond what even Oracle can provide (and yes, we use RAC with multi TB caches across a database instance).
For the same reason we use Java, C++, Scala, Perl, Closure, Bash, JavaScript, etc... The right tool for the right job.
Personally what I would like to see is:
* secondary indexes
* snapshot isolation (in leu of global transactions, which will never scale).
Disclaimer: HBase committer here.