| |||||||||||||
The unfortunate "NoSQL" moniker and Polyglot PersistenceThe unfortunate "NoSQL" moniker and Polyglot PersistencePosted Mar 11, 2010 14:05 UTC (Thu) by jwmittag (guest, #43097)Parent article: SCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relational
I always thought the NoSQL moniker was a quite unfortunate choice of naming, because it conveys exactly the opposite of what the whole NoSQL movement (another not quite so fortunate moniker) is all about: choosing the right tool for the job. Ruling out an entire class of databases is certainly not about choosing the right tool for the job. In fact, it is exactly what the NoSQL movement complains about. A much better name would be the "Not-automatically-SQL" movement or "Not-only-SQL" movement. Or, as Ben Scofield calls it, "polyglot persistence" (in analogy to the polyglot programming movement, which has been very successful in bringing the point across that there are domains where Java might not be automatically the best choice). What polyglot persistence is really about is changing the persistence question from "Which Edition of Oracle is the right tool for job" to "Which data organization, query algorithms, atomicity level, consistency level, isolation level, durability level is the right tool for the job". It is also about offering fast, scalable, dependable, robust, mature persistence solutions for every point in that design space, but the first goal is the more important one, IMHO.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||