Non-relational databases have nothing to do with SQL, they have to do with trade-offs in data structures, consistency, availability, fault-tolerance, and distribution.

You need to understand how ignorant you are, because until you do you're going to have a calcified and incomplete understanding of databases.

Quite the opposite, I clearly recall some people from the NoSQL camp (read non-relational data stores, non SQL enabled) saying that SQL itself is bad and something else is needed.

I should have mentioned this before the zealots kicked in.

> I clearly recall some people from the NoSQL camp (read non-relational data stores, non SQL enabled) saying that SQL itself is bad and something else is needed

No, wrong, irrelevant, who said this?

I know it's wrong, you'll have to kill me to make me stop using SQL.

I wish I still had the article from 2009 - 2010 which said that SQL is too difficult and other things like that.

Anyway, this is what I was talking about when I originally replied.

I'm fond of SQL, you're either intentionally misinterpreting me or I'm not being clear. Non-relational databases are not about not using SQL, to believe so is dense and willfully ignorant.

I asked for specifics, you didn't provide them. I have to assume you're a troll at this point. I'm done here.

Ok, maybe I didn't use the right words or something: There was an article from someone in the NoSQL camp which said that SQL is bad.

I DO and DID understand that the querying language isn't restricted to relational databases.

What I was saying I REMEMBER reading something a while ago on the website of a NoSQL store or in an article which said something along the lines: "SQL is old and should be deprecated anyway, it was time for something new"

THAT was why I was amused.

If you think I was trolling or anything, ok, I'll just stop commenting on this site. It's not worth the trouble at all.

This is my last comment.

edit: I think this was it: http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate-worse...