[Discuss] No-SQL Database Recommendation?

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)]

On 1/11/2015 2:08 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
> Again, a "relational database" is a tool that is able to support a
> relational data model. That does not mean that it MUST be relational.

The definition of a relational database is a database that uses the 
relational model. If it uses a different model then it's something other 
than a relational database.

As a point: it's not "a" relational model. It's "the" relational model.

> Calling SQL databases the "wrong tool" because it has a huge arsenal of
> tools to examine and access data makes no sense.

I'm not calling relational databases the wrong tool for this reason. I'm 
calling them the wrong tool for data that don't fit the relational 
model. Trying to shoe-horn non-relational data into a relational 
database is foolish, plain and simple.

As a point: SQL does not equal relational model or relational database. 
While the language was designed for use with relational databases, and 
while most relational databases use it exclusively, many (I don't have a 
list handy) non-relational databases have SQL bindings so you can use 
either native queries or SQL queries depending on your needs.

-- 
Rich P.