In-Memory Databases Reaching Tipping Point

I am perplexed why InfoQ titled this article "In-Memory Databases Reaching Tipping Point." For many of us DEVs working on low latency applications, in-memory databases have been a standard component of our architecture. I think the real question is: is this now the case because MS is publicly admitting they're coming to the "in-memory" game, late yet again. There's no tipping here! Since 99% of the news-worthy, cutting edge applications and platforms rolled-out over the past 7 years do not rely on M$ tools, the article should be entitled, "MS Brings In-Memory Databases to Laggard, Slow-To-Adopt Enterprises." This is a tipping point for enterprise IS departments who are hook-line and sinker MS shops, not businesses/shops with entrepreneurial-like IT leadership. Personally, looks like this article was written on an iPhone after the author touched-based with former MS contacts. Definitely no novel reporting here. You can do better InfoQ!

Chris, thanks for the feedback.

Like you point out, the technology is not new at all. There is also no doubt that Microsoft lags others, even the likes of Oracle and SAP who themselves lag others in this field. The tipping point here however refers to a much more wide-spread adoption - this includes the slow-to-adopt enterprises (and not just MS-shops!) which are undoubtedly much larger in number.

Also the application of in-memory today is focussed primarily on caching or low-latency needs, often supplemented with a more traditional store. I would argue that it is still unusual to consider your in-memory database as a primary datastore. That has potential to change, with the hard-disk being used just like you would use back-up tape today.

This is not new. Flash drives and other quick access methods have always been out there. The press release used all the right words and phrases. Examples include "tipping point", "leveraged", "disruptive", "breathtaking"....

Okay everyone get back to work.....

.. even the likes of Oracle [..] who themselves lag others in this field ..

I was tempted to make the same point, but I figure others would notice the error.

Maybe Roopesh meant Oracle had to buy those products. Even then, Oracle bought TimesTen and Coherence a while back, so "lagging" is inaccurate.

I need to clarify - I din't mean lagging currently, meant lagging in terms of time of entry into the field. Apologies if I seemed to mean otherwise.

Well in fairness, the author wrote right at the top of the article what he meant by "tipping point": becoming widely adopted. While people like you who demand low latency may have been using in memory databases, that does not necessarily mean the technology has been widely adopted.