[vidarh]

"NoSQL" is generally a misnomer. It's not SQL that is/was the problem, but that there are a lot of cases where specific common properties of RDBMS' are limiting. The NoSQL moniker is a result of the fact that most of these RDBMS's uses SQL as the query language, and most of the "new" database engines does/did not.

Since then, a lot of the RDBMS's have adopted features that have reduced the gap. E.g. Postgres' rapidly improving support for indexed JSON data means that for cases where you have genuine reasons to have data you don't want a schema for, you can just operate on JSON (and best of all, you get to mix and match).

For some of the NoSQL databases that puts them in a pickle because they're not distinguishing themselves enough to have a clear value proposition any more.

But it is not the lack of SQL that has been the real value proposition.

[mason55]

I love Postgres but its support for sharding, multi-master, and most forms of scaling that aren't just "buy a bigger box" is still way behind most of the NoSQL solutions.

Lots of use cases don't need that kinds of scalability but if you do then Postgres can be more difficult to work with.

[feld]

Skype used to run entirely on a Postgres cluster before Microsoft bought them. There are lots of examples of large Postgres clusters in the wild. Have you considered hiring an experienced Postgres admin? These types of setups are not impossible.

[m_mueller]

Our current usecase for NoSQL is that CouchDB can be replicated to mobile devices - I'm not aware of Postgres being able to do this. So I think there still are cases where it can be useful.

[zackmorris]

Do you have an example of how to use this? I'm interested in analogs of the way Firebase works.

[m_mueller]

All you need is Couchbase Mobile. I'll make a blog post about its use when I get around to it.

http://developer.couchbase.com/mobile/index.html

[avtar]

http://pouchdb.com/ is one option.