What I like about the NoSQL crowd
Although I am not a big fan of the NoSQL movement (mostly because many of its advocates use arguments I do not agree with) there are a few things that I like about the NoSQL crowd and I want to write them down*. Most of what follows stems from discussions through the years with our DBA and some friends who are members of the «Greek Database Mafia«.
For more than two decades the dominance of the relational model (even though no commercial system fully implemented it†) was undisputed. Nobody ever got fired for choosing a commercial RDBMS for an application, where instead one would look suspicious if one dared to propose something different. This situation is no different than what Rob Pike described in «Systems Software Research is Irrelevant» for Operating Systems:
- For example it took 10+ years for the R-Tree to enter the commercial systems, although it was solving a real problem. In the meantime if you were lucky and your system offered extensibility you could write it on your own.
- No matter how novel the system, for it not to be marginalized it had to have an «SQL layer». No SQL queries, no sales. Provide an SQL layer and all innovation of the product stays unused.
- Ones proposal for an RDBMS purchase had to be among three or four commercial products. Anything else would likely be considered «a hacker’s choice» because «We make money! We cannot go that way!»
You could say that databases outside academic research had come to a halt. You don’t believe me? Just ask Yannis Ioannidis who uses to say that «Databases are dead«‡ in the most emphatic way when he wants to stir things up in a conversation.
And this is what I like about the NoSQL crowd (== implementers, advocates and integrators) . They do not care about established standards. They are not afraid to experiment in a «real environment». Some of them may focus on a single problem and solve it well. Others may aim at a wider range of problems. But no system is stopped from being developed and deployed because it not «SQL compilant» or not relational. And even though some of these solutions resemble CODASYLo, once again there is action in the field.
But please people, stop marketing them as a «one solution fits all». For we will again end up in a stagnation era, just like when everyone was storing stuff in an RDBMS for lack and fear of better suited solutions. They do not invalidate relational systems. They fill in the gap left by them.
[*] – As I had promised.
[†] – By the way, did you know that GROUP BY works outside of the «relational box»?
[‡] – I have heard him say this while giving a speech.
[o] – «one usually gets a low-level record-at-a-time DBMS interface«, says Mike Stonebraker.