Why Enterprises Are Uninterested in NoSQL
September 30, 2010
Here's my two cents worth on why an estimated 61% of enterprise users are either ignorant about or uninterested in NoSQL.
Google Percolator and CloudTPS are examples of NoSQL with ACID support. Claiming that NoSQL implies no ACID capabilities is just plain wrong.
Finally enterprises uninterested in new technologies are doomed to failure. You just can't remain competive if you ignore technology advances (not trends) nowadays.
I have not worked with NoSQL system systems other than to become aware of them in recent years. However, because of my networking equipment background, I can say that it does seem possible that NoSQL databases would do well in "data plane" section of the database systems, whereas SQL databases would be required -- ACID test -- in the "control plane" section of database systems. (In networking equipment software, data plane logic needs to be blindingly fast, say 100 Gbit/s, in order not to bring down transmission efficiency; control plane software, on the other hand, does not have to deal with such speeds). In other words, where performance is a sole criterion, NoSQL databases may have an edge; however, in the overall combination system, we have the obligation to ensure ACID property.
We'd better look back on the discussion now.
Enterprise Organisations do have more and more interests on NoSQL products.
Any serious data processing in RDBMSs is done at record, not set level. Oracle's PL/SQL stands for Programming Language SQL, and it operates on cursors, which basically proceduralize SQL data sets i.e. flatten them out into records that are processed one at the time.
Lack of ACID is theoretical disadvantage ( as someone said - apps abuse ACID all the time ).
I would agree that lack of more or less standard query language is a problem for NoSQL offerings. Some NoSQL products offer limited query capabilities ( Hive, Pig ), but it is all far below what SQL gives.
Ranko Mosic, CEO