Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is some good information in this article if your ignore the Oracle marketing message. It is basically a synopsis of the past 3 years of NoSQL discussion.

What it doesn't mention is that everyone who picks NoSQL generally acknowledges these downsides. So it doesn't do a good job explaining why people still pick NoSQL.

TCO is probably the biggest factor I would have in picking NoSQL. As a (Microsoft) SQL Server customer, we (developers) all hate the cost of scaling SQL Server for each customer. Each customer needs their own resource governance. This means either separate servers or a virtual machine, both tied to a SAN. Virtualization MSSQL licensing costs are large without much material benefit due to odd licensing strategies that negate most if not all financial benefit to virtualization for small IT shops like us. By comparison, the better we understand why customers use our product and the more engineering decisions we can make (get away with?) then the cheaper technologies we will be able to use (NoSQL, etc.).



Your TCO points sound more like a "commercial vs FOSS" argument than a "SQL or not" argument. Care to elaborate or refine?


I left out the part where most of our fetch operations operate on just one primary key. The data structure is very stable and the need for different kinds of analysis has disappeared after several years of refining what the product does and should be. It's an analysis app that sets market prices to hypothetical values and simulates that alternate reality. It provides very fine-grained maximum likelihood explanations for why revenue would drop or rise.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: