Let’s be honest, nobody is picking databases in a vacuum. You’re juggling legacy constraints, dev skills, cloud costs, and a wish-list from product that’ll change next sprint anyway. Here’s how I make the call between relational (think SQL Server, PostgreSQL) and NoSQL (MongoDB, DynamoDB) in actual .NET and cloud systems, with some "I learned this the hard way" moments included.

The Problem: Data Models Aren’t Born in Diagrams

I used to think you started with a glorious ERD and let that dictate your storage. Reality check: requirements shift, APIs evolve, and your initial "normalized" model often ends up looking like a Jackson Pollock painting after a few quarters of feature creep.

So how do I decide between SQL and NoSQL? It’s never just "scale" or "flexibility" or "modern." Here’s what actually matters in practice.

1. Shape of the Data, and How It Changes

Relational shines when:

Relationships are complex and matter (think orders, customers, invoices).

Queries need joins, groupings, or constraints.

You need ACID guarantees (banking, inventory, booking).

NoSQL fits when:

Data is document-like, deeply nested, or varies per record (think user profiles, logs, chat messages).

Schema is a moving target, or you want to avoid migrations for every little tweak.

You’re optimizing for single-entity lookups by key.

Example: A SaaS product I worked on started with SQL Server for everything. When we added "custom fields per customer," schema migrations became a nightmare. Eventually, we split out user profile storage to MongoDB, letting product teams add fields quickly, while keeping the transactional core in SQL.

2. Query Patterns: Not Just Reads, But Writes and Updates

Ask yourself: How will the data be accessed and updated, not just stored?

If you need to update tiny bits of data atomically, RDBMS is your friend.

If you’re mostly reading or writing whole documents (think JSON blobs), NoSQL is smoother.

For reporting, analytics, or any "ad hoc" queries, SQL’s maturity is hard to beat.

Not a hypothetical: We built a background job system in .NET using MongoDB for job metadata. It was perfect, until we needed to answer "give me all jobs by user X in state Y, created before Z." Suddenly, our document model felt like a straightjacket, and we missed SQL’s indexes and query language. Lesson learned: think about how you’ll query data tomorrow, not just today.

3. Consistency, Transactions, and the Myth of "NoSQL Magic"

Need multi-entity transactions? SQL is built for this. Yes, some NoSQL DBs have transactions now, but it’s rarely as robust (or as well-understood by your team).

NoSQL’s "eventual consistency" model can introduce subtle bugs, especially in distributed systems.

True story: In a multi-region Azure deployment, we used Cosmos DB for a chat feature. Message ordering and duplication across regions became a real headache. We had to build idempotency and reconciliation logic in C#. Would SQL have solved it? Not entirely, but it would have been easier to reason about consistency.

4. Scaling: Vertical, Horizontal, and Operational Reality

SQL scales vertically (bigger box) and, with some cloud magic (like Azure SQL Hyperscale), can handle a lot more than most apps need.

NoSQL is king for horizontal scaling and write-heavy workloads, but you pay with more operational complexity and trickier consistency.

My experience: We moved a telemetry ingestion pipeline from SQL Server to DynamoDB on AWS. Write throughput and cost improved dramatically. But, when we needed to cross-reference telemetry with user data (still in SQL), joins became a pain. ETL jobs and duplicating data were the only way forward.

5. Developer Experience: Don’t Underestimate the Human Factor

What does your team know today? Productivity counts.

EF Core and Dapper make SQL pleasant in .NET land.

MongoDB drivers are great, but error handling and validation are on you.

DX Gotcha: We once let React devs define new fields in a MongoDB collection via OpenAPI. Fast iteration, but eventually, we had to enforce validation in C# because data quality tanked. In SQL, the schema would have caught most of it.

6. Cost, Cloud, and Vendor Lock-In

Managed SQL (Azure SQL, AWS RDS) is straightforward, but scaling up can get pricey.

NoSQL (Cosmos, DynamoDB) is cheap at low usage, but costs can spike with unoptimized queries or "hot" partitions.

Beware features that tie you to a cloud (e.g., Cosmos DB’s unique partitioning quirks).

What bit me: Cosmos DB’s RU/s model looked simple, until a badly-designed query cost us hundreds overnight. Query cost tuning became a sprint deliverable.

7. API and System Design: Evolution Without Regret

SQL schemas force you to think about constraints, but slow you down when evolving fast.

NoSQL lets you iterate, but can lead to "schema drift" and tech debt if you’re not disciplined.

Versioning APIs? Consider storing "raw" requests and responses in NoSQL for audit/troubleshooting, while keeping business data in SQL.

Concrete Takeaways

Start with SQL unless you have a clear reason not to. The boring choice is often the right one. 1.

Use NoSQL for parts of your system that truly need flexibility, massive horizontal scale, or unstructured data. 1.

Don’t mix models in one service unless you’re ready for the complexity. When you do, draw strict boundaries (e.g., CQRS or microservices). 1.

Always model your queries and evolution over time before locking in a storage option. 1.

Budget for data validation and migration, whichever database you choose.

Your turn: What’s your biggest regret (or surprise win) choosing relational vs NoSQL in production? Have you ever had to migrate or split storage? What trade-offs did you make?

Drop your war stories, questions, or alternative solutions in the comments. If you want a practical code template for EF Core or MongoDB data models, let me know and I’ll share!

SoftwareEngineering #DotNet #SystemDesign #Cloud #APIDesign #RealWorldEngineering