[threeseed]

Again the facts simply don't agree with you. Companies have been moving away from SQL databases in droves compared to the 1990s. And why wouldn't they ? Vendors like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM etc have been screwing them over for ages. Low cost data lakes are the new norm.

Of course I am talking about middle to enterprise companies. I am sure for individuals a typical LAMP setup is still going to be fine. But then again many of those are running their apps in the cloud and hence want a database that is resilient in the face of node outages. MySQL and PostgreSQL are both a PITA to get this right compared to almost every NoSQL database.

[louthy]

> Again the facts simply don't agree with you. Companies have been moving away from SQL databases in droves compared to the 1990s.

Do you have any links to said 'facts'? Otherwise your comments are just hearsay and anecdote.

[chucksmash]

Indeed. I suppose it depends on the circles in which one runs but there are still companies actively writing COBOL (or were as of 2011 as far as I can personally verify).

And they were making millions of dollars from that one small segment of the company.

I'd wager that in the enterprise (whatever that means) that where NoSQL is used in companies more than, say, 10 years old, it is generally for non-critical, exploratory one off projects. I don't even think NoSQL is close to 50% market share among what I'll call the silent majority of more conservative, more enterprisey tech companies/IT departments. I have no figures to back that intuition up with, however.