I'd actually vote for the "sensible, forward-looking approach." The BBC
(for one) is already using CouchDB in a production:
That said, NoSQL as a "movement" is as wide and varied as the RDBMS
world, and there are pros and cons to each. I'm personally a proponent
(or Erlang, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc) map/reduce view engine. If your
project need replication at all (whether for scaling, data sharing,
etc), I'd take a good hard look at CouchDB as that's it's core
distinction among the other NoSQL databases.
Hope that helps,
On 4/12/10 10:55 AM, Thomas Dowling wrote:
So let's say (hypothetically, of course) that a colleague tells you he's
considering a NoSQL database like MongoDB or CouchDB, to store a couple
tens of millions of "documents", where a document is pretty much an
article citation, abstract, and the location of full text (not the full
text itself). Would your reaction be:
"That's a sensible, forward-looking approach. Lots of sites are putting
lots of data into these databases and they'll only get better."
"This guy's on the bleeding edge. Personally, I'd hold off, but it could
"Schedule that 2012 re-migration to Oracle or Postgres now."
Or something else?
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL> is a good jumping-in point.)