Google Chooses SQL

by Brian B
The article I chose this week is “Google App Engine Goes Old School With SQL Database” by Caleb Garling. Article starts off by saying that Google was one of the leaders of the NoSQL movement. However, by choosing a typical SQL server they have reaffirmed SQL’s place in technology. They implemented this on top of their App Engine as well as their “BigTable” NoSQL database. The reason behind this was that developers did not want to have to develop on BigTable due to difficulties with translating their existing relational data models over to BigTable compliant models. The article goes on to talk briefly about the difference between NoSQL and SQL databases. Starting that NoSQL databases “are meant to “scale” across vast numbers of servers so they can accommodate the mountains of data facing companies in the internet age (Garling, 2011).” Whereas SQL databases “order data into neat rows and columns – give you more ways to slice and dice your data (Garling, 2011).”  The article finishes by saying that while Google moved back towards traditional SQL, Oracle moved towards the newer NoSQL system.

I thought that it was an interesting article because it shows that SQL is here to stay for a long time and that it will most likely remain a relevant technology for many years. This article relates nicely to another article I blogged about which talked about Amazon’s NoSQL services and Oracles sudden move away from their well entrenched SQL offerings. I thought that it tied in well and that it was relevant to our class because it offered a brief tidbit of information about the difference of NoSQL and SQL data structures and server implementations.

I found the article interesting because it shows that SQL is still very much a current technology. The more I read about NoSQL and SQL the more it makes me think that the real solution to the problem is to create a backbone with NoSQL so that you have significant amounts of flexibility when it comes to implementation and storage and then have a SQL front end that allows you to easily manipulate and view the data as you want and need it.

Garling, C. (2011, 10 07). Google App Engine Goes Old School With SQL Database. Retrieved from Wired:

5 thoughts on “Google Chooses SQL

  • November 18, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Very interesting article. Its very interesting to see how SQL is staying in the fight. I agree that SQL will most likely be around for a quite a while longer. Until a much better solution arises I believe it will still be used. Thanks for the share.

  • November 18, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    This article seems to contradict the other articles I’ve read about SQL. SQL was praised when it began but as time went by it seemed to take too many resources and have many vulnerabilities. That’s why many companies decided to go with the NoSQL movement such as Amazon. Maybe as SQL keeps updating, SQL can remain a serious contender for a while.

  • November 18, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    I agree with you that SQL is something that we need to learn because its a very fundamental topic when dealing with databases. Your article show how big companies such as GOOGLE are still making business with the SQL technology. The key of up coming technology advances between keep using SQL and NoSQL will also depend very much on understanding the basic on how SQL truly works and the things it can do to enhance our databases.

  • November 18, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    I also have blogged about companies and the choice between SQL and NoSQL. It really seems to matter on the business and the direction and size its going in. I guess the IT professionals have to weight the pros and cons of each and decide from there what would be best. As far as I can see, there needs to be a balancing point for each system and company.

  • November 19, 2012 at 1:06 am

    I think it’s hilarious that NoSQL is using the name of “SQL” to ride up in popularity, and I have to say it’s definitely working. Javascript did the same thing with “Java” when it was becoming popular and it definitely held it’s own, although not being a competing product. I also agree with you in the sense that NoSQL needs a backbone at the moment, it would be exciting to see what a competing product could bring. As we already know, especially from the analogy of Microsoft vs Apple, lousy competition will breed lousy products, as great competition breeds great products (not to mention great patent wars :). Personally I think that once an easy, or rather easier, method of translating databases from SQL to NoSQL is developed, the NoSQL bandwagon will evolve into that of something greater than even its competition. It seems like so many people are eager to hop on but can’t afford to leave the “old ways” behind.

Comments are closed.