Is Google's Fusion Tables really a "paradigm shift?"

Question

Boy, there's a lot of hype about the release of Google's Fusion Tables.

The collaborative editing is something that seems fantastic, and might interface well with Google Wave. The visualization seems to shine mostly in it's ease of use. Aggregation over multiple disparate data sources is also just a really great and timely idea.

Still, how much of the hype is warranted? I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the implications of this most recent Labs edition, specifically, are there implications for other database/data aggregation systems (I've heard that Oracle "is shaking," is that even likely?). Yes, I understand the difference in the database structure and the benefits, but will it fundamentally change anything we are currently doing (especially at the enterprise level)?

Answer 1

Why does everyone seem to believe that new technologies are a death knell for old, proven technologies?

It’s great that there are innovative new solutions for tasks that are difficult with RDBMS. But I question whether these new solutions are better at tasks for which RDBMS are well-suited.

The myth here is that there’s a zero-sum game. We don’t need to abandon technology that works, just because something new is invented. Let’s use new technologies for exotic tasks, but let’s use RDBMS when that is the most appropriate solution.

Keep in mind that spreadsheets are also still around, and they are quite useful — indispensable, in fact, for certain kinds of work.

PS: this is the comment I posted to a blog article "Google Fusion Tables…Threatening Databases?"