I'd opt for the first response.  I hope NoSQL is not flash in the pan.  It makes eminent sense to me.  SQL is just one way of looking at data.  A level of abstraction.  What authority says that SQL is the only or the best way of looking at a dataset?  Or the MARC record format for that matter?  They certainly weren't inscribed on stone tablets.   These things can become mind prisons.  I think it's refreshing that there are those willing to look at databases beyond SQL.

Peter Schlumpf
www.avantilibrarysystems.com


-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Dowling <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Apr 12, 2010 10:55 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [CODE4LIB] NoSQL - is this a real thing or a flash in the pan?
>
>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.)
>
>
>-- 
>Thomas Dowling
>[log in to unmask]