Is Nosql synonymous with an Object-Oriented Database?

Question

Nosql is synonymous with Object-Oriented Database?

If the answer is nay: What’s the difference between the two?

Answer 1

There is a confusion of concepts here in your question. But answering in essence, no, they’re not synonymous.

Nosql designates databases using technologies other than a relational database, not necessarily being object oriented. Nosql, by the way, means Not Only SQL. This means that the database in question can (or not) answer SQL sentences. Typically databases respond to sentences in their own format or in other known formats (such as the json, for example).

The Wikipedia article in English separates these databases into various taxonomies, the most important being the format in which each database stores the information:

• Como Coluna
  • Accumulo, Cassandra, Hbase
• As Document
  • Clusterpoint, Couchbase, Marklogic, Mongodb
• As a Key-value
  • Dynamo, Foundationdb, Memcachedb, Redis, Riak, Faircom c-treeACE
• As a Graph
  • Allegro, Neo4j, Orientdb, Virtuoso

An object-oriented database normally guards an object of a known language, like the Zope Object Database who keeps objects python, without necessarily having a transliteration of data.

Subtly different, a document-oriented database (which is often mistaken for an object-oriented database) stores documents in some specific format. For example, Mongodb stores documents in format bson ("Binary JSON", or "Binary JSON"), which is a variation of json. In this case, for a document to become an object, it would have to have a translation (or transliteration of data) from the document to the object of the language in question.

Additionally, there are databases that store key-value, ie a large array associative in which each index stores a complex data structure, and the databases that store columns, which are like documents, but with each column having a value of timestamp own.