Comments on: Let’s not let “NoSQL” go the way of “Web 2.0” http://facets.endeca.com/2010/03/let%e2%80%99s-not-let-%e2%80%9cnosql%e2%80%9d-go-the-way-of-%e2%80%9cweb-2-0%e2%80%9d/ The many faces of discovery Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:05:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Enlaces rápidos (15-03-2010) | Sentido Web http://facets.endeca.com/2010/03/let%e2%80%99s-not-let-%e2%80%9cnosql%e2%80%9d-go-the-way-of-%e2%80%9cweb-2-0%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-203 Enlaces rápidos (15-03-2010) | Sentido Web Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:24 +0000 http://facets.endeca.com/?p=257#comment-203 [...] Let’s not let “NoSQL” go the way of “Web 2.0” [...] [...] Let’s not let “NoSQL” go the way of “Web 2.0” [...]

]]> By: Need to Focus the Meaning of “NoSQL” « François Schiettecatte’s Blog http://facets.endeca.com/2010/03/let%e2%80%99s-not-let-%e2%80%9cnosql%e2%80%9d-go-the-way-of-%e2%80%9cweb-2-0%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Need to Focus the Meaning of “NoSQL” « François Schiettecatte’s Blog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:50:30 +0000 http://facets.endeca.com/?p=257#comment-197 [...] Development by François Schiettecatte on March 11, 2010 Great post by Adam Ferrari titled Let’s not let “NoSQL” go the way of “Web 2.0” on the new to focus the definition of “NoSQL” lest it turns into the term “Web [...] [...] Development by François Schiettecatte on March 11, 2010 Great post by Adam Ferrari titled Let’s not let “NoSQL” go the way of “Web 2.0” on the new to focus the definition of “NoSQL” lest it turns into the term “Web [...]

]]> By: aferrari http://facets.endeca.com/2010/03/let%e2%80%99s-not-let-%e2%80%9cnosql%e2%80%9d-go-the-way-of-%e2%80%9cweb-2-0%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-196 aferrari Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:55:35 +0000 http://facets.endeca.com/?p=257#comment-196 Dave, Thanks for the comment. As always you make solid points. But I don’t think NoSQL has to go the way of Web 2.0, and I continue to view the positioning of tech like XML databases under the NoSQL label as problematic. Lumping the ideas together only serves to confuse the issue for the very managers for whom you’re trying to help clarify reasoning around using non-mainstream DBMSs. The protest model of NoSQL doesn’t ring true to me. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that many “database people” view NoSQL as problematic. But then many serious database people are also participating in moving NoSQL tech forward. A quick anecdote is illustrative: at a recent MongoDB talk, Stonebraker stood up to scold the speaker for inventing a new data model without a principled motivation. But Mike’s former student Sam Madden immediately stood up to point out that the Mongo guys hadn’t exactly invented JSON, and that it was a natural choice since so many web developers are comfortable with it. It doesn’t seem like a protest argument. More like a technical discussion with smart people on both sides. And as to the passionate responses you’re getting on your blog, I don’t think that’s frustration with the DBMS oligopoly manifesting as “religion.” It seems more to me like the passion of a graduate student defending a dissertation, where you’ve got an idea that’s new and real but not everybody gets it. When you see someone not getting it, you just want to share (and yes, validate) the technical insight. -Adam Dave,
Thanks for the comment. As always you make solid points. But I don’t think NoSQL has to go the way of Web 2.0, and I continue to view the positioning of tech like XML databases under the NoSQL label as problematic. Lumping the ideas together only serves to confuse the issue for the very managers for whom you’re trying to help clarify reasoning around using non-mainstream DBMSs.

The protest model of NoSQL doesn’t ring true to me. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that many “database people” view NoSQL as problematic. But then many serious database people are also participating in moving NoSQL tech forward. A quick anecdote is illustrative: at a recent MongoDB talk, Stonebraker stood up to scold the speaker for inventing a new data model without a principled motivation. But Mike’s former student Sam Madden immediately stood up to point out that the Mongo guys hadn’t exactly invented JSON, and that it was a natural choice since so many web developers are comfortable with it. It doesn’t seem like a protest argument. More like a technical discussion with smart people on both sides.

And as to the passionate responses you’re getting on your blog, I don’t think that’s frustration with the DBMS oligopoly manifesting as “religion.” It seems more to me like the passion of a graduate student defending a dissertation, where you’ve got an idea that’s new and real but not everybody gets it. When you see someone not getting it, you just want to share (and yes, validate) the technical insight.

-Adam

]]> By: Dave Kellogg http://facets.endeca.com/2010/03/let%e2%80%99s-not-let-%e2%80%9cnosql%e2%80%9d-go-the-way-of-%e2%80%9cweb-2-0%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-195 Dave Kellogg Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:38:42 +0000 http://facets.endeca.com/?p=257#comment-195 Nice post, Adam. I agree that roots of NoSQL were in large scale and distributed (commodity) hardware infrastructure. But, from the database mafia perspective, "database people" (of which I consider myself one) would most certainly want to do those apps and not have databases excluded for scaling and/or hardware reasons. Scaling to big and exploit large hardware clusters are supposed to be things that databases do. Put differently, from the database community perspective, it is a "failure" that people moved to non-database (or un-database) systems for these applications. That's why Stonebraker blasted them early on and get heavily blasted back in return. In the end, I think traditional databases have two key flaws which are driving folks the NoSQL direction: [1] they don't handle unstructured information well, and [2] they set too high a bar on transaction consistency for some applications. As you / Brewer point out, for many applications you want to make trade-offs that database prohibit because they take a very purist approach. I agree on the analysis vs. simple lookups bent but would note that folks like Aster, who embed MapReduce in a data warehouse DBMS, enable you to do both. I don't view Endeca as a NoSQL system either, though I do suspect NoSQL will go pretty much exactly the same way Web 2.0 -- i.e., get over-used and hyped into meaning pretty much nothing at all. Best, Dave Nice post, Adam.

I agree that roots of NoSQL were in large scale and distributed (commodity) hardware infrastructure. But, from the database mafia perspective, “database people” (of which I consider myself one) would most certainly want to do those apps and not have databases excluded for scaling and/or hardware reasons. Scaling to big and exploit large hardware clusters are supposed to be things that databases do.

Put differently, from the database community perspective, it is a “failure” that people moved to non-database (or un-database) systems for these applications. That’s why Stonebraker blasted them early on and get heavily blasted back in return.

In the end, I think traditional databases have two key flaws which are driving folks the NoSQL direction: [1] they don’t handle unstructured information well, and [2] they set too high a bar on transaction consistency for some applications. As you / Brewer point out, for many applications you want to make trade-offs that database prohibit because they take a very purist approach.

I agree on the analysis vs. simple lookups bent but would note that folks like Aster, who embed MapReduce in a data warehouse DBMS, enable you to do both.

I don’t view Endeca as a NoSQL system either, though I do suspect NoSQL will go pretty much exactly the same way Web 2.0 — i.e., get over-used and hyped into meaning pretty much nothing at all.

Best,
Dave

]]>