 |
 |
I'd actually vote for the "sensible, forward-looking approach." The BBC (for one) is already using CouchDB in a production: http://damienkatz.net/2010/03/bbc_and_couchdb.html That said, NoSQL as a "movement" is as wide and varied as the RDBMS world, and there are pros and cons to each. I'm personally a proponent of CouchDB because it's RESTful API, JSON storage system, and JavaScript (or Erlang, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc) map/reduce view engine. If your project need replication at all (whether for scaling, data sharing, etc), I'd take a good hard look at CouchDB as that's it's core distinction among the other NoSQL databases. Hope that helps, Benjamin -- President BigBlueHat P: 864.232.9553 W: http://www.bigbluehat.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung On 4/12/10 10:55 AM, Thomas Dowling wrote: > So let's say (hypothetically, of course) that a colleague tells you he's > considering a NoSQL database like MongoDB or CouchDB, to store a couple > tens of millions of "documents", where a document is pretty much an > article citation, abstract, and the location of full text (not the full > text itself). Would your reaction be: > > "That's a sensible, forward-looking approach. Lots of sites are putting > lots of data into these databases and they'll only get better." > > "This guy's on the bleeding edge. Personally, I'd hold off, but it could > work." > > "Schedule that 2012 re-migration to Oracle or Postgres now." > > "Bwahahahah!!!" > > Or something else? > > > > (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL> is a good jumping-in point.) > > >