 |
 |
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]