NOSQL = Not Only SQL
Please forgive me if I wonder why we have to satisfy you? What happens if we decide not to satisfy your whims?
Posted October 30, 2009
Depending on the circles you travel in, you might be aware of the whole NoSQL "movement". If not, I'm not going try and explain it at this time (explaining it is sort of the problem), but you can get the general idea from wikipedia.
I've spent the last couple of days at nosqleast and one of the hot topics here is the name "nosql". Understandably, there are a lot of people who worry that the name is Bad, that it sends an inappropriate or inaccurate message. While I make no claims to the idea, I do have to accept some blame for what it is now being called. How's that? Johan Oskarsson was organizing the first meetup and asked the question "What's a good name?" on IRC; it was one of 3 or 4 suggestions that I spouted off in the span of like 45 seconds, without thinking.
My regret however isn't about what the name says, it's about what it doesn't. When Johan originally had the idea for the first meetup, he seemed to be thinking Big Data and linearly scalable distributed systems, but the name is so vague that it opened the door to talk submissions for literally anything that stored data, and wasn't an RDBMS.
I don't have a problem with projects like Neo4J, Redis, CouchDB, MongoDB, etc, but the whole point of seeking alternatives is that you need to solve a problem that relational databases are a bad fit for. MongoDB and Voldemort for example set out to solve two very different problems and lumping them together under a single moniker isn't very meaningful. This is why people are continually interpreting nosql to be anti-RDBMS, it's the only rational conclusion when the only thing some of these projects share in common is that they are not relational databases.
The cat is out of the bag though, and the "movement" has enough momentum that I don't think it's going anywhere. And, I'm not really advocating that, it's had the effect of bringing a lot of attention to some very interesting projects, and that's a Good Thing. Maybe Emil Eifrem has the right idea by encouraging people to overload the term with Not Only SQL.
Let''s be clear: that is your belief and perhaps the belief of a few others.
So because there are a few people that don't like the name, so be it. You can't make everyone happy.
But the horror of it – they gave me a completely inappropriate moniker – ‘NoSQL’. First and foremost I exist to promote a storage style and thats what identifies me. I work with data in its natural and arbitrary forms. Therefore to make it seem like I represent a lack of something else is utterly missing the point. The SQL in NoSQL stands for Structured Query Language, which depends upon Fixed Structure Relational Data. Since I change the very nature of the data being stored, that SQL is not required or relevant is automatic and inconsequential.
Its like calling a under-the-ocean-mountain_range as NoIgloo. Its dead obvious igloos will not be found there. But calling that mountain range NoIgloo is a big disservice to visitors. You use that as a marketing term, attract people, then tell them that NoIgloo actually has nothing to do with Igloos – its got to do with mountains and oceans, and that they need to first unwind all the confusion they created in their minds due to NoIgloo and then go through a phase of reunderstanding mountains and oceans. And while they came prepared for a possibly warmer place given the name NoIgloo – it actually is a wet place so they need to again change their garments and equipment for the journey. A wholely avoidable situation.
I don't need to explain why the status quo is better. I'm just happy with NoSql as it stands.
It seems to me you need to convince those of us that have been happy with the name, and that have added open source software to the mix that a change is necessary. You statements about the name being divisive, dismissive, etc is just your opinion and not backed by any facts.
As for turning one proponent into an opponent is pure bull. All we can
say is that we are happy with how we see things. If you see things
differently, so be it. It's impossible to make everyone happy, so why try?
Why do you feel compelled to have everyone see things your way?
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "NOSQL" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nosql-discussion/XaI4kCecFfI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to nosql-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nosql-discussion/CAPkFh0sgNnMfErpSc2jR5BqmnEu9oR8d1yO7SeWq%3DESY-04DAg%40mail.gmail.com.
On Dec 14, 2013 1:58 PM, "Lukas Eder" <lukas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the recent O'Reilly Strata Conference, Mark Madsen has coined a new interpretation of what NoSQL could mean, when he displayed his "history of databases in no-tation".
Honestly, masturbation would be more constructive than rehashing this topic yet again.
> Am Sonntag, 1. November 2009 20:31:27 UTC+1 schrieb Sam Johnston:
>> Evening all,
>> It seems to me that a sensible proposal has emerged from the discussion about the existing NoSQL moniker:
>>> NOSQL = Not Only SQL
>> I like this (a lot) and consider it a clever play on words that puts a positive spin on it without losing momentum. Conversely, NoSQL is negative, artificially limiting and manufactures contention where there is (and need be) none. I'm not alone on this and the AJAX->Ajax example is an apt comparison. I'm sure we'll all agree that one should choose the right tool for the job, and that many of us realise there are many applications for which a relational database is an appropriate option (how many of you have already been looking at/talking about Amazon RDS?).
>> My intention then is to see if we can't get some consensus around this so we can move on. The current name is exclusive and divisive and looks like a temper tantrum to outsiders (e.g. most of the existing database industry). This trivial change resolves all of my concerns (and no doubt those of many of the other commentators) and is far better than the other alternatives (e.g. alt.db and post-relational/non-relational).
Man do I agree with you... Old subject.. Rehash... And no one cares.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nosql-discussion/CAEHpzv-WtwU23de4XyrJqAFRvqh5_W55dFD57FXug3FjF9qoDw%40mail.gmail.com.