Is this any good? or fail?

http://blog.mathgladiator.com/2010/08/guide-to-databases-in-start-up.html

Another blogger jumps on teh NoSQL bandwagon.  Blah blah blah S3 blah Cassandra blah blah blah Voldemort.  Try doing a query on your fucking NoSQL.  Hard, ain't it?

SQL is fucking awesome compared to most primitive, 1970s-style key-value shit.

Go back to Reddit.

>>2
Or you could dispense with the ferusoraginus attitude and choose your solutions based on your problems. While that puts these ``NoSQL'' (terrible name) things way down the list, it's still just past RDBMS block.

For many problems, one can use non-relational databases to get awesome performance after significant effort to create custom indexing, sorting, summarization, etc. that fits the data...or one can get almost as good performance from a good relational database with a few indexes, views, etc.  Often times, this requires nothing more than running some sort of automated tool to create indexes based on the common queries and their execution cost as estimated by the query optimizer.  (Assuming the database has an optimizer.)

I think a lot of the popularity of these non-relational databases comes from people trying and failing to get adequate performance and functionality from MySQL. Those who used MyISAM won't miss transactions; those who used InnoDB won't miss any sort of advanced index features.

The inability of MySQL to provide more advanced indexing and transactions at the same time - like an ordered index for efficient sorting, or an index on a computed column or an index on a function, or a hash table index - will continue to drive people towards unsophisticated database systems that provide the flexibility to implement advanced functionality in a way that is tightly coupled to the data model - functionality that became standard out-of-the-box for every other RDBMS in the nineties.

Don't waste time on non-relational databases just because MySQL sucks.  Use something better instead - PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, etc.

I've been doing start-ups for about 3 years now
Holy shit, how many start-ups is he talking about here?? He must really fucking suck at it, otherwise he'd be doing "a startup" for 3 years.

NoSQL is a completely braindead idea for a start-up. NoSQL's only advantages are scalability. A single SQL server on commodity hardware can scale to thousands of simultaneous users for a typical web app. If you have more users than that, then you aren't a start-up anymore, and that is the point at which you should migrate to NoSQL (if at all).

>>5
there is more to programming and databases than web apps.

>>6
It was just an example use case. If a SQL server is not capable of handling your load, that means you are making some serious cash.

>>7
You're mispronouncing ``SQL'', by the way.

>>7
Maybe you should stick to /r/webdev.

Thank god there are a non-SQL relational databases out there.

>>7
It's spelled "cache".