It is fractally amazing to see the exact same false dichotomy within data stores, DBMSes, and query engines themselves playing out in the "market view" of those

It is fractally amazing to see the exact same false dichotomy within data stores, DBMSes, and query engines themselves playing out in the "market view" of those same products. That is: The tradeoffs between all these systems has always been the effort required to create, modify, and maintain well-groomed (albeit rigid) schemas and data models versus the speed, scale and agility of a schema-on-read / "unstructured" data storage mechanism. Which is then counterbalanced by the tradeoff between getting quick, accurate (albeit rigid) answers of a well-managed data warehouse vs. having to string together fragile, complex ad-hoc wrangling and querying code. So pick your poison: a junk drawer full of Legos or a beautiful sculpture with the head and an arm missing. And the obvious answer is for most organizations you need both! Agility for bottoms-up discovery and exploration, and rigidity for top-down hard facts and shared objectives. (Maybe it's a lakehouse, maybe it's not, TBD.) And then there's this meta thing where NoSQL was pitched as a disruptor, agile, low barriers to entry, and RDBMSes and data warehouse vendors got this reputation as slow, rigid, too in love with their creations to change ... And now there's this reverse pushback - oh, actually these NoSQL vendors need to grow up and mature their products, that agility was just a lot of hype and chaos, these data warehouse vendors had the right ideas, they've learned to play the NoSQL vendors' game better than they have and their go-to-market strategies have stood the test of time .. When (again!) the answer is you need both: disruptors bringing different paradigms to market, letting organizations pick and choose capabilities based on their needs, making legacy vendors adapt and evolve. Funny to see that rhyme.