MySQL vs nosql efficiency and cost)

Recently, Twitter, Digg, and other plans to use a key-value-based nosql database (E. g: Cassandra). The reason for this trend is that the architecture based on MySQL + sharding + cache has exploded with the explosive growth of data volumes, and the labor cost for restructuring is too high, replacing nosql databases with better scalability, in order to control the labor cost, thus reducing the overall cost.

With the increase in data volume and access volume, the website architecture has roughly several stages of development (taking PHP + MySQL + memcached as an example ):

1: PHP + MySQL
2: PHP + MySQL (Master + slaves)
3: PHP + MySQL (Master + slaves) + memcached (middleware)
4: PHP + MySQL (sharding + master + slaves) + memcached (middleware)
5: PHP + MySQL (sharding + master + slaves) + memcached (middleware) + nosql

From the above development history, we can see that with the increase of complexity, the development difficulty and complexity will also increase. After the increase of data size, the human cost required for each reconstruction will increase dramatically. Therefore, in order to control costs, the growth and reconstruction cycle migrates a large amount of data and fast-growing businesses to nosql storage.
Therefore, nosql will not replace mysql. Different businesses have their most suitable low-cost storage methods. The final choice of database is determined by the system cost.

Does ASP. NET have so many methods?