> If you need to do some kind of full table scan, what exactly is going to be faster about noSQL? The real architectural benefit we got from noSQL (remember -

> If you need to do some kind of full table scan, what exactly is going to be faster about noSQL? The real architectural benefit we got from noSQL (remember - "Not Only SQL") was dynamic horizontal scalability. Once you separate Compute and Storage then you can make choices based on your specific workload. > You are reading from disk, that is your limit. Separating Compute and Storage works around this. Instead of putting all your logs in a monolithic SQL database, stream them into object storage. When you want to run a query, you can complete it arbitrarily fast by spinning up more compute nodes. Now you're using Massively Parallel Processing and that disk limit stops mattering as much. Lots of systems do this... AWS EMR, Snowflake, Presto, etc etc So you get a much simpler storage system and faster queries. You may appear to pay more for storage in this approach, but that's mostly a cloud vs on prem accounting question.