<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Cons against NoSQL. Part I.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.odbms.org/blog/2012/10/two-cons-against-nosql-part-i/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.odbms.org/blog/2012/10/two-cons-against-nosql-part-i/</link>
	<description>Trends and Information on New Data Management Technologies, Innovation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:47:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dražen Lučanin</title>
		<link>http://www.odbms.org/blog/2012/10/two-cons-against-nosql-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-7506</link>
		<dc:creator>Dražen Lučanin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=1785#comment-7506</guid>
		<description>I think the biggest issue with porting data from a NoSQL DB such as MongoDB to a traditional SQL DB such as MySQL is that Mongo is schemaless - i.e. it allows you to create structures which don&#039;t fit into a traditional relational DB.

Personally, I don&#039;t really see this as a drawback, because if you build your application relying on this &quot;slackness&quot; feature, you obviously did it intentionally by skipping some strict organisation in the beginning. You would have to do it later on before fitting this data in a more firmly structured DB.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the biggest issue with porting data from a NoSQL DB such as MongoDB to a traditional SQL DB such as MySQL is that Mongo is schemaless &#8211; i.e. it allows you to create structures which don&#8217;t fit into a traditional relational DB.</p>
<p>Personally, I don&#8217;t really see this as a drawback, because if you build your application relying on this &#8220;slackness&#8221; feature, you obviously did it intentionally by skipping some strict organisation in the beginning. You would have to do it later on before fitting this data in a more firmly structured DB.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
