This article has absolutely no value to me. You call the debate stupid and then continue on with three or four more paragraphs where none of your opinions are backed up with any information.
I understand it's a personal blog and maybe you just want to get your thoughts out there. I don't understand how it contributes to the debate. You've made two categories of databases, point out that nobody seems to be able to properly categorize them like you have, and then fail to explain how you categorized them.
I have little experience with the others under "can't scale just like MySQL", but putting CouchDB under is more wrong than it is right and unfair in any case.
First of all there's excellent single node scalability, the general architecture is built with based on clusterability with support for node disconnects and reconnects between nodes. And then there's http://tilgovi.github.com/couchdb-lounge/ which provides clustering today.
Comments
This article has absolutely no value to me. You call the debate stupid and then continue on with three or four more paragraphs where none of your opinions are backed up with any information.
I understand it's a personal blog and maybe you just want to get your thoughts out there. I don't understand how it contributes to the debate. You've made two categories of databases, point out that nobody seems to be able to properly categorize them like you have, and then fail to explain how you categorized them.
I have little experience with the others under "can't scale just like MySQL", but putting CouchDB under is more wrong than it is right and unfair in any case.
First of all there's excellent single node scalability, the general architecture is built with based on clusterability with support for node disconnects and reconnects between nodes. And then there's http://tilgovi.github.com/couchdb-lounge/ which provides clustering today.