It's now clear that Stonebraker's prediction that "one size fits all" DBMSs will fall out of favor (see cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cac) was dead wrong. It's hard to say why, exactly - even now. But I have to wonder why ~2009 seemed like more of an "inflection point" than any other time.
Conversation
Replying to
"One size fits all" was always kind of wrong - he said so himself back then. What changed? You might think that the thesis hung on something about main memory size scaling, but that doesn't seem relevant to many of the specific kinds of workloads he mentions.
2
2
In short, it seems like he was mostly wrong because: 1.) He failed to consider performance _relative to the total cost of ownership_, 2.) Having a memory hierarchy is really helpful when you think about costs in a holistic fashion, and 3.) Minimizing complexity really matters.
1
1
10
Replying to
Looks like even 2005:
[Sto05a] M. Stonebraker and U. Cetintemel. “One Size Fits All: An Idea Whose Time has Come and Gone”. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2005.
5
Not the first and not the last one, yes.
Riding a bicycle, up and down -- this was just the first part. Then turns, inflections, -- and now riding again:) pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9730/705123a64
1