We performed our own crash testing for a Riak and about a million other databases, Riak and MySQL with InnoDB were the only cases scoring more than 5 out of 10.

We performed our own crash testing for a Riak and about a million other databases, Riak and MySQL with InnoDB were the only cases scoring more than 5 out of 10. I think the problem with NoSQL is that they are targeting the wrong people - the lazy people. One of the DBs we reviewed (can't remember which) did not have single datacentre durability, lost like 80% data while crash during updating table contents and was boasting some geo-coordinate built-in datatype on their website. Its the priorities plague. Is built-in geo more important than data? Why do NoSQL databases have to be all distributed beyond sharding? I think because thats what people wrongly perceive out of them. Google, LinkedIn all use NoSQL which is distributed, so if a NoSQL DB doesn't do it, its a shame. Thats the root of misjudgment I believe. Every DB, NoSQL or not, needs to have a place. One size fits all is what will kill NoSQL, whether enforced by engineering or marketing. Thats why I think marketing "lie". CouchDB, Riak and Redis are only few exceptions I know of which seemed to have a vision and stuck to it.