@alan not really an independent position...
I agree with the missed opportunity to sell "economically harnessing constantly evolving data" as a business case. Although they did pitch on "data lakes"!
Not so much 'Hadoop has failed' as 'Hadoop has failed as a replacement for traditional data warehouses'.
I'll keep this in mind. My employer is investigating replacement options for a beautifully performant but incredibly expensive set of Vertica SQL clusters.
@mike I don't think that Hadoop would get cheaper, at least not for every use case
In our case our schemas change very rarely, so based on the article it seems like Hadoop might be a poor fit.
Of course I won't base my complete judgement just on that.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!