Blindingly Obvious

Some situations are just blindingly obvious, and not worth the time to type up. The futility of NoSql datastores (I refuse to elevate them to "database") is one such. Except for single user, single use (a wordprocessor program on your unconnected PC, for example), where some application specific file structure is sufficient, in any multi-user setting the coders who go the NoSql route end up having to build a TPM from scratch. Or cadge one from some OS kiddies. Say what one wishes about DB2/Oracle/SQLServer, they've been actively developed for decades. There's thousands of person-years of experience on offer. While I use Postgres, it simply isn't up to snuff relative to DB2.

Well, someone has bothered. The piece is short on details, but the trend is clear: with QaD datastores, you get what you pay for.

For example, when installing Couchbase, you are informed that you need a system with 4 CPUs and 4 GB of RAM. It will run on less, but when your website gets a traffic boost, be prepared to allocate more resources in a hurry.

That's just absurd. You've been warned.

The allure of NoSql is the illusion that data structure doesn't matter, and/or can be easily morphed. Fact is, with data chained to the application, change in one requires change in the other, generally far more code change. As the Fram oil filter ads used to say: "pay me now, or pay me later". Or what one hears from Professor Bunsen the first day of Econ 101: "they ain't no such thing as a free lunch".