It's weird that things as different as S3 and Redis all fall under the umbrella of "NoSQL". We should probably replace the SQL-NoSQL dichotomy with terms that more accurately reflect the real differences.
It's got an API, you can store data in it and retreive it later by key, since when was S3 not a database? It's a key/value store that lets you store very large values.
Comments
Color me surprised: No NoSQL? Instagram seems to be a prime candidate for such a storage method.
You don't consider Amazon/S3 or Redis NoSQL databases?
It's weird that things as different as S3 and Redis all fall under the umbrella of "NoSQL". We should probably replace the SQL-NoSQL dichotomy with terms that more accurately reflect the real differences.
Since when is S3 a 'database'?
It's got an API, you can store data in it and retreive it later by key, since when was S3 not a database? It's a key/value store that lets you store very large values.
Not really a "distinctive" one (a la mongo, couch, etc.), but I see your point.
They use Redis.
Redis is a key-value store. S3 is a distributed file system.
Can we stop labeling the set of "not a rdbms" data storage mechanisms with the stupid fucking "NoSQL" moniker.
To be fair I've hardly seen an article on the benefits of NoSQL on the frontpage for a while.
First it was No SQL. Then it was Not Only SQL. Then it was, we have to get some real work done, Need Our SQL.