4 ms·
Would you say that the schemaless storage debate is then similar to static/dynamic typing, with the same kind of tradeoffs?
by wlievens 16y ago
Would you say that the schemaless storage debate is then similar to static/dynamic typing, with the same kind of tradeoffs?
- prodigal_erik 16y agoSort of, but worse. If your database has no schema, any mistakes you make can accumulate subtle damage to the integrity of your data that you don't have any way of going back and fixing. I saw this happen in a Notes shop. Over time, some of the documents had been updated by many different versions of the code, until they were in such bizarre and unintended states that not even the developers could say what the correct app behavior should be anymore. If you are not migrating your data to your current schema, it will decay to garbage. If you are, you already have the old and new schema in your mind, so why not write them down and get some help from the tools? The other way out is to keep the authoritative version of your data in a store with a schema, and maintain a summary of it in your low-latency store that you can regenerate at need.
- wvenable 16y agoI think it's wrong to make the analogy to static/dynamic typing -- but this comes up a lot. It'd be closer to having a type system without any classes, structures, or prototypes -- just hashes. And once you write code to construct an object instance, you can't change that code.