I hate these sorts of titles, because some of us DO work with petabyte scale datasets. I know the article does mention the types of use cases that Hadoop is good for, but the title just comes across as arrogantly dismissive.
And we cheer for you guys. We really do. You push the edge, it's the right thing to do.
Some of us though, from time to time, have these side company projects. Then ,after a round of consultants and meetings (and nobody asking us for input) we had this 500MB database, and an architect who was pushing for all the big data keyword to be on his resume, even though all math and business numbers said we'd double that in twenty years.
We are talking zookeepers and 20 servers per geo separate datacenter, spark, ml, Casandra, hadoop, MR, java everywhere, logstash, etc etc etc. Presentations in hundreds or PowerPoint slides and endless meetings about direction and future.
So the article, and MySQL, have it's places. Especially when one can finish the job in two weeks.
Of course, I am not saying that there aren't people who misuse 'big data' technology for 'small data' problems. You could even keep a provocative title like, "Are you sure you need big data?" or, "Your data must be this big to ride" or something else both cheeky and not dismissive.
It is pretentious, but it strikes me as the kind of rule that is handy because those who need to break it will KNOW they need to break it, whereas those who should follow it will be on the fence.
