[Discuss] Are SQL/NoSQL databases dead?

[Eric Chadbourne]

I lurk one of the postgresql dev lists and they are constantly making
new commits and there always seem to be new features being added, most
of which I haven't even started playing with.  But I think I hear what
you're saying.  It's an older technology that's been pretty well
explored and polished.  Probably not much low hanging fruit.

I haven't played with the NoSQL stuff yet.  Probably because I find
sql and it's super sets to be quite useful.  One of you posted this a
while back.  Still cracks me up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:25 AM,  <markw at mohawksoft.com> wrote:
> 'm not saying they are "dead" as in no one is using them, I'm more
> thinking they are dead with regard to feature development.
>
> PostgreSQL and MySQL and the commercial databases just seem less
> "important" these days with things like MongoDB and Cassandra. Don't get
> me wrong, I think the NoSQL crowd are fairly delusional because eventually
> these NoSQL databases will all have SQL front ends and ACID
> characteristics are vital to any real database. (but I digress)
>
> Traditional ACID SQL databases have more or less peaked. Data stores like
> the NoSQL ilk are pretty much done feature wise as well. Stonebreaker's
> next project is getting very little traction.
>
> Have databases become just another "word processor" like application where
> almost all the standard offerings are really good enough?   I mean, jeez,
> tomcat, apache, php, etc. are all jus good enough and there are no new
> "must have" features as well.
>
> I guess the real question is what's left or are infrastructure components
> pretty much done?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



-- 
Eric Chadbourne
617.249.3377
http://theMnemeProject.org/
http://WebnerSolutions.com/