That doesn't imply a NoSQL solution to me. Just parallel processing on different parts of the data. If I am wrong can you point me to a clearer example?
Now why MapReduce "might" be a better fit for a problem where data fits into one disk. Consider a program which is embarrassingly parallel. It just reads a tuple and writes a new tuple back to disk. The parallel IO provided by map/reduce can offer a significant benefit in this simple case as well.
Also NoSQL != parallel processing.
Note both MapReduce and NoSQL are overhyped solutions. They are useful in a handful of cases, but often applied to problems they are not as good.
How do you parallelise your long running tasks otherwise?
And even if you improve the DS/Algorithm first, usually that is usable by the MapReduce port and you save a lot of time/costs.
What matters is the running data structure. For example, you can have Petabytes of logs but you need a map/table of some kind to do aggregations/transformations. Or a sparse-matrix based model. There are types of problems that can partition the data structure and work in parallel in the RAM of many servers.
Related: it's extremely common to confuse for CPU bottleneck what's actually a problem of TLB-miss, cache-miss, or bandwidth limits (RAM, disk, network). I'd rather invest time in improving the basic DS/Algorithm than porting to Map/Reduce.