On 12 Oct 2010, at 2:27 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Some people would say that "NoSQL" is a contrast with relational
> databases but I would say that in fact these things are orthogonal.
> You can in fact use the relational model of data over both an ACID
> database as over a "NoSQL" database, just as you can use a key-value
> store over both as well.
We (a large UK media organisation) use both SQL and NoSQL on our
platform, and deploy each where it is most appropriate to do so.
We endure extremely high loads from time to time from thundering
herds, and to do this on a realistic budget, the NoSQL options give us
the performance required. To insulate ourselves from unstable nosql
interfaces, we defined a very simple HTTP based restful API to our
nosql database, giving us the option to swap out our nosql database at
a future date should we need to.
For years, SQL has been sold as a magic hammer to solve all database
problems, but as the size of the data exceeded the practical size of a
machine, and as internet audiences grew faster than the capacity of
individual servers, the need became apparent for more specific
database types that performed a far simpler job, far faster.
Regards,
Graham
--
