Infobright Blog

Couchbase, the recently-released, unique Key-Value Store/Doc Store hybrid, is a powerful tool within the NoSQL Space. As with most other NoSQL data storage options, Couchbase thrives on schema-less design and scale-out architectures. They, along with Hadapt, Cassandra, and others, create good technologies that fill a very critical need within scalable architectures. Yet, I believe some of these technologies tend to drink too much of their own Kool-Aid. In a recent whitepaper, Couchbase articulates their strategic differences between relational databases and NoSQL technologies. Initially comparing to 1970s technology (see: AA's Sabre, BofA Automation System), they highlight the lack of scale in early RDBMS technologies. I agree completely -- technology from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s are probably not going to scale as well as Couchbase. Plus, I agree that system uptime requirements have ballooned considerably over the past forty years. However, that's where my agreement ends with Couchbase's assessment.

First, Couchbase seemingly ‘bucketizes’ all RDBMS technologies in one bucket. That bucketing means that MySQL, Infobright, Teradata, and VoltDB all belong to the same group; yet each of these technologies fit drastically different use cases. To ‘bucketize’ with blanket statements these systems into one group shows naiveté. Scale within some of these technologies reach into petabytes.

Secondly, once bucketed, they suggest that RDBMS technologies have no place within the future of database and data storage technologies. On page 8, the whitepaper mentions that, "changes like these [adding 1 column to a schema] are extremely disruptive and therefore frequently avoided." Untrue. Infobright can easily add columns quickly and efficiently. It appears the whitepaper assumes that all RDBMS technologies are transactional.

Thirdly, the whitepaper insinuates that optimizations found in RDBMS technologies are improper. Query sharding and data sharding are 'work-arounds', I concur. Yet, when applying appropriate business logic, the 'work-arounds' efficiently mitigate the most common of issues. Plus, many (newer) RDBMS technologies have high scalability. To suggest that current RDBMS technologies adhere to 1970's mentality is incorrect.

Finally, the most incendiary notion is that RDBMS technologies are a "disease" ("Fight symptoms but not the disease itself"). In my opinion, to say it again, Couchbase is beginning to drink a little too much of its own Kool-Aid. I am always leery of any vendor who claims their product (or, in this case, product family) is the best (and only) answer to all problems.

Couchbase should recognize that RDBMS technologies do have a strategic place in enterprise data management. I can guarantee that Couchbase does not satisfy all or even most of the use cases within the big data world. In fact, I'd further argue that NoSQL as a product family cannot satisfy all of those use cases. I look at the explosion of RDBMS technologies within the transaction and analytic worlds; their success proves the point.

I have great respect for Couchbase; I was able to meet some of their team last year at ZendCon. I am eager to get a few moments to try out the technology; in fact, I'm downloading it now.  I expect great things from Couchbase, and I look forward to watching them boom.  At this point, the only recommendation I have for Couchbase is to avoid the marketing scare tactics and be honest on the pros and cons of each technology.  

Link to Couchbase Whitepaper: http://www.couchbase.com/sites/default/files/uploads/all/whitepapers/NoSQL-Whitepaper.pdf