3 ms·
I know it's not a new idea, but I wonder if the time has come when the filesystem model is replaced with the database model. I realize that a relational databas
by RyanMcGreal 17y ago
I know it's not a new idea, but I wonder if the time has come when the filesystem model is replaced with the database model. I realize that a relational database simply trades one hierarchical structure for another, but it seems that the schema-free and arbitrary structure of a "NoSQL" model might make a better fit for the globs of data that comprise a modern storage drive. The key is in having a powerful and intuitive enough searching algorithm that you can actually find what you need.
- eru 17y agoYes. Naming and tagging and hierarchies can still be useful. They should just be optional. E.g. searching works quite well in gmail, but I still use labels for some functions (most of the time my labels are just defined as the result of a search, but not always).
- bpyne 17y agoRelational databases are not limited to hierarchies. You can create complex graphs if you want. It's all how you model your information. They were created due to the limitations of hierarchical and network db systems. There was an interesting discussion on Artima ("Software Development Has Stalled") last week that touched on the schema-free idea. One of the participants suggested that computers could use inference to determine data relationships. (In his words, the computer is hypothetical and would need to be infinitely fast.) Presumably by computer he meant some agent doing machine learning on top of the "infinitely fast" hardware. If your idea is along the inference line, then it would be interesting to see how far inference could go. However, if you mean to simply encode relationships into each program (or into a library), then it's just a re-invention of a schema.
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoMaybe a solution will lie in adaptive neural networks.