[catnaroek]

The relational model does have deficiencies, but the right way to address them is with more powerful schemas, not less. See: “categorical databases”.

(Think about it this way: SQL is Java. NoSQL is your typical extremely forgiving dynamic language. We need a database equivalent of ML and Haskell.)

NoSQL is simply the result of not wanting to think about the logical structure of data. Plain intellectual laziness.

[pjmlp]

And the millennials dislike for not wanting to learn SQL, I think.

You always see how they bash having to learn SQL on those presentations.

[jimbokun]

"NoSQL is simply the result of not wanting to think about the logical structure of data."

NoSQL was an attempt to scale by sacrificing some of the capabilities of the relational model. Key value stores scale great, at the cost of having almost no query capabilities to speak of.

Now, some developers may adopt NoSQL due to the ease of getting a new project started. But I don't think that was the main motivation of the developers of the major NoSQL databases.

(Although, NoSQL is so broad I'm sure there are counter examples.)

[catnaroek]

> NoSQL was an attempt to scale by sacrificing some of the capabilities of the relational model.

You can give up global consistency without sacrificing local (single-node) consistency. And normalization isn't an all-or-nothing proposition: you can select the kind of schema that best fits your needs. Unlike the case with NoSQL, which just says “lalala... I can't hear you” whenever you bring up consistency.

> Key value stores scale great, at the cost of having almost no query capabilities to speak of.

Far more worrisome is the loss of data integrity guarantees. It's okay to let me selectively disable these guarantees when I don't need them (say, by using a less structured schema), but a “database management system” that doesn't let me enforce the intended structure of my data, under any configuration, is simply not worthy of the name “database management system”.