<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life - Comments on Building Scalable Databases: Are Relational Databases Compatible with Large Scale Websites?</title>
    <link>http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/</link>
    <description />
    <copyright>Dare Obasanjo</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:59:41 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 2.1.8102.813</generator>
    <managingEditor>kpako@yahoo.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>kpako@yahoo.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <author>suppressed@unknown.org (Meble)</author>
      <title>Comment by Meble on "Building Scalable Databases: Are Relational Databases Compatible with Large Scale Websites?"</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">6b1c90e0-c929-4980-9100-8de5b9839984</guid>
      <link>http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=9BBAA0A2-CC5A-4D6D-AC80-2C1176186AB4</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:59:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>I agree with Addy. btw. very interesting text about relational databases vs. hi-websites&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Posted by: &lt;a href="http://madrex.pl"&gt;Meble&lt;/a&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=9BBAA0A2-CC5A-4D6D-AC80-2C1176186AB4</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <author>suppressed@unknown.org (Addy)</author>
      <title>Comment by Addy on "Building Scalable Databases: Are Relational Databases Compatible with Large Scale Websites?"</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">4ed6f238-a712-41cd-a84a-432d1353c2c8</guid>
      <link>http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=9BBAA0A2-CC5A-4D6D-AC80-2C1176186AB4</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:51:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>While most sql vs nosql discussions typically focus on the functional and architectural differences, there are additional considerations which are just as important:
- Stability/maturity: The commercial SQL products (ORA/MSSQL) have been around for decades and are rock solid. Most NOSQL codebases have sprung up in the last 1-2 years and haven't been widely adopted.  SQL WINS.
- Documentation/knowledge: The leading SQL products are well documented and have established best practices for development and operations. NOSQL is still a nascent technology with most implementations being one-offs or at least heavily customized, which implies a longer learning curve and increased risk. SQL WINS.
- Developer availability/cost: SQL is a core competency for a large chunk of the overall developer population. NOSQL knowledge is still rare, both at the individual and the organizational levels. This means that developers with the required skillsets are hard to find, hard to qualify and hard to retain. SQL WINS.
- Cost: Commercial SQL licenses aren't cheap, especially in datacenter configurations. The per-server or per-core licensing expenses for a large scale deployment can easily reach into the millions, which makes SQL much less attractive than the NOSQL alternatives  which are typically OSS (=free).  SQL = EPIC FAIL on this one. NOSQL WINS. 
- 3rd party vendor ecosystem.  SQL products have a 20 year head start with a rich ecosystem of vendors offering supplemental SQL solutions for managability, backup/restore, monitoring, development, etc.  SQL WINS.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Posted by: Addy</description>
      <comments>http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=9BBAA0A2-CC5A-4D6D-AC80-2C1176186AB4</comments>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>