You said, "Some industry insiders are trying to claim that the old databases cannot fit under that heading". One of the things that I am having trouble with is the definition. There seems to be many definitions and criteria for what "NoSQL" means and many of them are ambiguous at best. Bottom line, NoSQL touts faster access to data, which has been what the MV community has been saying for years. ACID guarantees seem to be the biggest hurdle I have seen so far. Do you know WHY they are saying that U2 cannot fit the ambiguous NoSQL definition? PS – I have been following Cache Intersystem for a while and (IMO) they are at the leading edge of being able to apply as many of the benefits that NoSQL is touting… 'We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.'
----- Original Message ---- From: Dawn Wolthuis <[email protected]> To: U2 Users List <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:35:35 AM Subject: Re: [U2] NoSQL I made a passionate pitch to a few folks in a meeting at Spectrum this year that we start marketing our niche that way. It wasn't met with disdain, but also not with a lot of interest, it seemed. The nosql.com and .org domains are held by an MV person since a few of us coined the term in 2006 or so (before others coined it, although there is an outside chance they saw the No SQL symbol in my 2006 blog, read by more non-MV folks than I expected, about 20,000 unique visitors). Now some industry insiders are trying to claim that the old databases cannot fit under that heading, but I sure think we can. We should get our noses in there, in my opinion. I suspect some are doing that, but not yet in a big enough way to be visible. Check out this paper that "mumps folks" did at http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.mgateway.com/docs/universalNoSQL.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGv19S_1lFurM49IDmfErFjDu1mfQ. We pickies might be well-served to do likewise. I suggested quite a while ago to InterSystems (and again more recently) that they wave the NoSQL banner, but they have such a fantastic and fast SQL product (the best in the MV space, but also great in the relational space) that they want to tout that. Their MV Query language is far faster than most because it is built on top of THEIR SQL implementation, a far cry from typical SQL performance. There needs to be a NotJustSQL designation that is clearer, I suspect. cheers! --dawn On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Shawn Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Everything I have read about the NoSQL movement in the past year has met > the > requirements of U2. Depending on who you are talking to, NoSQL means "Not > Only > SQL" or "NO" SQL. One of the advantages of U2 is that we meet both these > definitions. Has anyone been marketing themselves as a NoSQL expert? If > this > isn't just the latest "fad", this could be a huge boost for U2 > supporters... > Thoughts? > > 'We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, > when > all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.' > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Take and give some delight today _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
