2

It seems now that Google bet on NewSql solutions for big data storages.

I'm wondering if there is still some advantages of a NoSql solution comparing to a newSql solution ? (Like memory managment or others things)

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Guillaume Paris
  • 10,303
  • 14
  • 70
  • 145
  • http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8729779/why-nosql-is-better-at-scaling-out-than-rdbms is a similar thread that has some answers – clieu Jan 05 '13 at 00:40

1 Answers1

2

NewSql databases are a new "strain" of databases if you will that are attempting to take the long established benefits of the traditional Relationl Database Management System (RDBMS) and make it compete with the highlights of NoSql data stores. They are not updates or improvements to RDBMS but more often rewrites that include middleware that abstracts the practice of database "sharding" or the ability to distribute a database over a grid of computers like NoSql does.

The power of the RDBMS comes mostly from queryability via the Structured Query Language (SQL), their transactionality and adhereance to the ACID principal (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) and the powerful tools developed over time to manage them. A lesser benefit comes from the fact that the relational model eliminates repetitive storage of the same information in multiple places.

The benefits of the NoSql is high speed, the ability to scale laterally across a comuting grid, and the lack of schema to maintain. This makes them very highly performant even against hugh data stores. But they lack the benefits that you get from the traditional RDBMS in that the query language to manipulate data isn't really there (yet), they can't be transactional across a computing grid, and they lack the tools to work against them like MS Sql Server Management Studio.

NewSql is attempting to take the best parts of both worlds and I think it eventually will. Here is a great write up of the RDBMS V.s. NoSql V.s. NewSql on bananagunprogramming.com.

alexs973
  • 183
  • 1
  • 3
  • 16
daustinash
  • 496
  • 3
  • 13