[dba-SQLServer] SQL Server vs. NoSQL

Good points...Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Tapia" <fhtapia at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 March, 2014 7:19:04 AM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server vs. NoSQL

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru>wrote:

> Yes, but here in dba-SQL-Server "SQL Server vs. NoSQL" "holy war" thread
> would be more suitable than "Bound vs Unbound controls", should we ask
> Arthur to initiate it? ;)
>

I'll kick in with a devil's advocate argument :)
The argument for NoSQL are very attractive, speed, and scalability seems to
be about the strongest argument.  This of course hand in hand with volume
of data, but even if you do not have terabytes of data, you can still get
solid performance improvements over standard MS SQL Server solutions... I
believe that is why the 2014 SQL Server solution will feature in memory
tables, it's not noSql, it's more of a "Fusion Drive" for Sql Server, i
remember reading in the past as I have not worked with the 2014 CTP
version, that stored procedures that reference in memory tables exclusively
can be natively compiled which I think makes them faster, but I guess we
will see.

I like the arguments for NoSQL for speed, and I think this is great as it
pushes MS to come up with a new optimized solution.


-Francisco <http://twitter.com/seecoolguy>
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com