[krobertson]

I agree. In some regards it is "oversold", but I also think part of that is from a lot of the marketing efforts we've seen with newer databases like Mongo and even Riak.

I am not saying those are bad, but with more established DBs like MySQL and PostgreSQL, you never really saw the same kind of marketing efforts towards developers, startups, etc. It is kind of a newer concept.

[narag]

...with more established DBs like MySQL and PostgreSQL, you never really saw the same kind of marketing efforts towards developers, startups, etc. It is kind of a newer concept.

That's funny because MySQL used to do exactly the same kind of marketing fifteen years ago: comparing itself to Oracle, "it's a thousand times faster" when it obviously didn't do one thousandth of what a RDBMS does.

History repeats... and has a strange humour sense.

[krobertson]

I think the style is different. I blame the brogrammers.

[perbu]

I don't think that is correct. They never compared themselves to Oracle. I spent some time with Monty parts of the team and also tried working with their business side and they never went after the Oracle workloads. Their huge popularity come with the LAMP stack and their ease of use. They went after this along with data warehousing.

[narag]

Fortunately, it was public. Don't take my word for it.

[einhverfr]

I was going to say I remember MySQL doing pretty much the same thing back in the 3.x days. Ok, a different style (I don't remember them comparing themselves to Oracle, but I do remember comments like "who needs foreign keys anyway?").

Actually I think that MySQL is essentially the fore-runner of NoSQL. People who have cut their teeth using MySQL as a single-app persistence store or were trying to code to lowest common denominator in order to be portable now see benefits in ditching the idea of a shared database altogether because, well, they never used a shared database.