I suppose "somewhat orthogonal" is like being "almost pregnant", perhaps the author was just speaking loosely here. I agree that the examples were toy ones, bu

I suppose "somewhat orthogonal" is like being "almost pregnant", perhaps the author was just speaking loosely here. I agree that the examples were toy ones, but it's precisely these simple things like projections that we see folks struggling with when coming from the relational world. The answer to "can't you just do this in SQL" is always yes you can. Things change, non-relational dbs were around before relational ones and are now returning for a variety of reasons. I'd like to see some follow on posts that delve into the subtleties of rereduce, another real pain point for new users. One thing that is not emphasized enough in my mind is the flexibility that a schema-less database such as BigCouch gives you. Consider the trivial schema one would construct to support the 3 or 4 lines of SQL required for these toy examples and then consider how that schema might evolve as needs for different queries change, as the data grows, as different apps with different O-R mapping issues are brought into play and so on. A schema-less approach does push more of the complexity into the app layer for sure, but it allows the schema to evolve more naturally. After all schema-less doesn't mean the schema really goes away conceptually. I agree also that Cloudant is doing great things, that's why I joined the team, that and the free coffee :) Thanks for the feedback.