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
"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.
Replying to
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
The difference is that with open source, the size isn’t fixed. One product can be made to fit (almost) all, by customizing it freely. See also: Linux, Debian
2