Since OpenStreetMap has migrated from CC BY-SA to the newly created ODbL for its database, I have lived under the impression that the CC-family of licenses are - at least - not ideal for use with data. Here a little more background story, abridged from the post "Why CC BY-SA is unsuitable" [for the OSM database] on the OSM Foundation blog.
Lack of Copyright Protection in some jurisdictions (e.g. USA), difficulties in Combining CC BY-SA with Other Data. While the Share-Alike requires map tiles to stay open, modified/improved data does not have to be shared. Finally, there was Uncertainty and doubt over extent of derived work before the license change: with thousands of copyright holders (i.e. all contributors), the OSM foundation could not easily make an authoritative statement about what consituted a derived work (which would trigger the "SA" part in the CC license).
Fast-forward to CC 4.0
In the OSM discussion (in times of CC 2.0 licenses), I remember having read about the CC creators explicitely not recommending the use of CC licenses for databases. A quote-quote from the license change announcement:
"Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases."
This notion seems to have changed. The current Creative Commons FAQ says:
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to databases?
Yes. CC licenses can be used on databases. In the 4.0 license suite, applicable sui generis database rights are licensed under the same license conditions as copyright. Many governments and others use CC licenses for data and databases.
With all that said, does this mean that today Creative Commons licenses can be recommended for use with databases/data sets? What recent statements/blog posts/opinions/judgements have you heard of?