Manyenterprise systems that handle high-profile data (e.g., financial and order processing systems) are too large for conventional relational databases, but havetransactional and consistency requirements that are not practical for NoSQL systems.[5][6] The only options previously available for these organizations were to either purchase more powerful computers or to develop custommiddleware that distributes requests over conventionalDBMS. Both approaches feature high infrastructure costs and/or development costs. NewSQL systems attempt to reconcile the conflicts.
The term was first used by451 Group analyst Matthew Aslett in a 2011 research paper discussing the rise of a new generation of database management systems.[5] One of the first NewSQL systems was theH-Storeparallel database system.[7][8]
The two common distinguishing features of NewSQL database solutions are that they support online scalability of NoSQL databases and therelational data model (including ACID consistency) usingSQL as their primary interface.[11]
NewSQL systems can be loosely grouped into three categories:[2][12]
NewSQL systems adopt various internal architectures. Some systems employ a cluster ofshared-nothing nodes, in which each node manages a subset of the data. They include components such asdistributed concurrency control, flow control, and distributed query processing.
The second category are optimizedstorage engines forSQL. These systems provide the same programming interface as SQL, but scale better than built-in engines.
^Stonebraker, Michael; Cattell, R. (2011). "10 rules for scalable performance in 'simple operation' datastores".Communications of the ACM.54 (6): 72.doi:10.1145/1953122.1953144.