I normally point to Michael Stonebraker as a source of information on what comes next after the RDBMS, but after reading this article on MapReduce I may have to rethink that. The very premise of the article is flawed: comparing MapReduce to a database is a category error, and the rest of the article goes down hill from there. I don't need to say much more than that as the article is pretty heavily panned in the comments. See also: Relational Database Experts Jump The MapReduce Shark
The authors of that article need to learn what a RDBMS is and what an algorithm is.
I don't know how they are making the jump but the are some how joining dots that leads them to say "map/reduce is a database". Why on earth would map/reduce be deficient because it doesn't have a bulk loader or indexing; it has nothing to do with bulk loading or indexing.
I would definitely put that article down to a moment of weakness, clouded thinking or brain fart.
Posted by Al on 2008-01-19
Posted by MikeD on 2008-01-19
Posted by Assaf on 2008-01-19