﻿<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>SQLServerCentral / SQL Server 2008 / SQL Server 2008 - General  / nosql vs relational database / Latest Posts</title><generator>InstantForum.NET v2.9.0</generator><description>SQLServerCentral</description><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/</link><webMaster>notifications@sqlservercentral.com</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 17:12:59 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title>RE: nosql vs relational database</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1060740-391-1.aspx</link><description>A very handy article, Jeremiah, especially the revised one.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Much reading to be done!</description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:25:23 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Evil Kraig F</dc:creator></item><item><title>RE: nosql vs relational database</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1060740-391-1.aspx</link><description>I'd suggest that you stop worrying about losing your job to something new and instead pioneer that something new. Relational databases aren't going anywhere, but they are no longer the only game in town. Non-relational databases have a lot of strengths and weaknesses that allow the to complement the strengths and weaknesses of the RDBMS.While you don't want your banking to be done with eventual consistency, it's most likely not being done with ACID transactions. Huge banks are typically going to dump your daily transactions in some kind of queue for processing at some later time. It's just not possible to easily and cheaply get the kind of throughput that we demand when you're dealing with transactions from millions of individual customers plus mortgages and commercial customers.Besides, with a properly designed eventually consistent system it's probably going to be faster and more error proof than a single server set up. Eventually consistent systems are, typically, "eventually" consistent over the period of several milliseconds, not minutes as many DBAs like to think. Werner Vogels wrote an excellent article about what eventual consistency and database durability mean: http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/12/eventually_consistent.html</description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:48:54 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Jeremiah Peschka</dc:creator></item><item><title>RE: nosql vs relational database</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1060740-391-1.aspx</link><description>It really depends on the business. There are places where nosql is going to, rightly, kick out OLTP systems. There are places where nosql does not belong. Just as an example, I really, really don't want my banking to be done with eventual consistency.</description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:37:04 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Grant Fritchey</dc:creator></item><item><title>nosql vs relational database</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1060740-391-1.aspx</link><description>Hello GurusI am a SQL-Server developer + Development DBA (Production DBA is managed by our hosting partner)While i was surfing the web, I came across NoSQL article (Link below). Is this something relational database guys has to be concerned about? I am concerned on what future holds for SQL-Developers and SQL-server DBAsAny thoughts gurus?http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQLCheers</description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:18:34 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>sqlcool</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>