Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SQL Vs. NoSQL: Which Is Better?

Posted by samzenpus on from the pick-a-side dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "For the past 40-some years, relational databases have ruled the data world. Relational models first appeared in the early 1970s thanks to the research of computer science pioneers such as E.F. Codd. Early versions of SQL-like languages were also developed in the early 70s, with modern SQL appearing in the late 1970s, and becoming popular by the mid-1980s. For the past couple of years, the Internets have been filled with heated arguments regarding SQL vs NoSQL. But is the fight even legitimate? NoSQL databases have grown up a bit (and some, such as Google's BigTable, are now mature) and prove themselves worthy. And yet the fight continues. Tech writer (and programmer) Jeff Cogswell examines both sides from a programming perspective."

4 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Flamebait in Headline by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SQL and NoSQL are different, with different use cases.

    1. Re:Flamebait in Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last I checked, Google is not selling "their own shit" as a product.

      I am speaking here as a professional SQL developer with nearly a decade of experience and a very solid knowledge of relational theory. For many of the things we use relational DBs for, they are the best solution. But there are a lot of other applications for which a RDBMS is overkill, and a tool like BigTable is ideal. There are others where a single XML file would be better. There are others where a simple text file would be better.

      If people would stop arguing that you have to use a jack-hammer to solve a problem best suited to a ballpeen, we wouldn't have these arguments.

    2. Re:Flamebait in Headline by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because the factors for the "it depends" answer depends on other aspects, like the exact characteristics of your application. Here's some rules of thumb:

      NoSQL is good for statistics, where a few missing records won't matter. It's good for absorbing an enormous number of write operations at high speed. It's good for parallel computation across distributed data sets. It's good for when you have a lot of data to store, and little insight into how it will be queried in the future (management loves this one).

      RDBMS is good for absolute consistency. It's good for serving an enormous number of parallel reads at high speeds. It's good for legacy applications, and applications that have to interface with legacy applications. It's good for small-scale projects that just need to work now. It's good for compatibility.

      Of course there are exceptions to every statement I just made, but the nuances are subtle. Just bear in mind that NoSQL is generally more about single-record storage, where a RDBMS is by nature based around sets. If your algorithms are more easily applied to one model over the other, it might be a good indicator of what kind of storage to look at.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  2. Stupid question by adturner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Might as well just ask: Which is better a BMW M3 or Ford F350 4x4 with 6.7 diesel?

    Both are great, have their place and will get you from point A to B, but neither are a practical replacement for the other.

    My current programming project is a mixture of Cassandra and Oracle (although, to be honest, I'd rather be using PostgreSQL or even MySQL).