Feels somewhat biased to me, only because it claims to expose the truth. It's very easy to only include metrics for things that look favourable and the points

Feels somewhat biased to me, only because it claims to expose the truth. It's very easy to only include metrics for things that look favourable and the points made there don't really help me as a developer to choose the best one for a project. Questions I think are valid when looking at NoSQL vs SQL are: - Does it enforce a schema? - Can you store nested data structures in your record? - Can you perform joins? - What replication models are available? - What patterns are available for high performance read/write operations? - Storage implications? Scores like "Is it something new" I don't see serve any purpose. Why is it important if it's new or not? If it's new and therefore not mature, then simply say "Is it mature". If it's that there is a lot of third party support, then say that. The problem is a lot of the truth comes down to the database vendor, not the general concept. SQL is a known standard, but what is NoSQL after all? As there's no standard, what are you actually comparing i to? Bottom line is, all results are moot if the database server I'm using has inherent limitations.