Several folks have been pointing to this article which has some choice quotes along the lines of
If we examine the nontrivial-sized DBMS markets, it turns out that current relational DBMSs can be beaten by approximately a factor of 50 in most any market I can think of.
My employer is specifically mentioned:
Even in XML, where the current major vendors have spent a great deal of energy extending their engines, it is claimed that specialized engines, such as Mark Logic or Tamino, run circles around the major vendors
And it’s true, but don’t take my word for it. :-) The DBMS world has lots of inertia, but don’t let that blind you to seeing another way to solve problems. Particularly if that extra 50x matters. -m
Stonebraker is the PostgreSQL guy, no? Isn’t this kinda like hearing the news from the horse’s mouth (what does that mean anyway)?
It’s funny when people talk about the “decline of the DBMS” as if the need for database management systems is declining. The issue is the potential decline of the RDBMS, as fewer people take for granted that relational databases are the best way to store all data because of superior alternatives for different situations: MarkLogic, RDF triplestores, SimpleDB, CouchDB, etc.
A podcast by Stonebraker from MoneyTech gives an excellent overview of many of the issues: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail4009.html
…as well as object databases like Magma, Caché or Matisse, which have their own niche uses in intensive work-flow and real-time operation environments where speed is essential. Certainly there may be circumstances where an Oracle solution is the right one, but it always bothers me when this is treated as a given because of the ease of finding people with the appropriate certification etc.