Anyway, the 451 Group noted that "like NoSQL, NewSQL is not to be taken too literally: the new thing about the NewSQL vendors is the vendor, not the SQL." So, does that help clear things up?

The post references an extensive Slashdot article by experienced programmer Jeff Cogswell, who writes: "Tech pros debate the merits of SQL vs. NoSQL. It's a fight worth examining on the programming ...

Relational databases (SQL) have been used for decades by nearly every type of business around the world. The technology is reliable, based on stable standards, and has been mature for more than 20 ...

SQL database is a relational database. The basic quality of NoSQL is that it may not require fixed table schemas, usually avoid join operations, and typically scale horizontally.

So-called “NoSQL” technology seems to run counter to those strengths. But in reality, NoSQL is building momentum of its own, and providing the familiarity and power of SQL is how it’s being ...

Sytze Harkema explains how to save and retrieve relational SQL data into a NoSQL key-value store as implemented by FoundationDB, an open source, scalable, fault tolerant and ACID database.

Even the biggest names in the NoSQL space — MongoDB and Hadoop — were in use with only 10 and 8 percent, respectively, of the respondents. DBaaS also showed only a modest degree of uptake.

It's not so much a black and white, SQL vs. NoSQL situation, of course: TokBox still kept SQL databases around. That's where his team fed portions of Hadoop output for analysts to query more easily.

While the audience was comprised of NoSQL users and developers, many seemed to think Stonebraker’s SQL-friendlier approach had some merit, even if they disagreed on individual points.

Couchbase Server 4.0 addresses NoSQL’s biggest pain point with SQL-like query language for its document datastore Couchbase might seem like a bit of an outsider in the world of NoSQL datastores.