4 ms·

I think you misunderstood the parents use of the term "model". All the things you describe here can be described in the relational model. The parent was arguing

I think you misunderstood the parents use of the term "model". All the things you describe here can be described in the relational model. The parent was arguing that the model is general enough to cover almost all collections of data. You appear to be arguing that for specific use cases specific implementations perform badly. These arguments pass each other unseen like ships in the night.

threeseed 8y ago
Actually wide tables for example can't be done at all. And technically we can use Microsoft Excel as a photo editor. But that's just ridiculous. Just like it's ridiculous to say you can use relational models for any data structure even if the queries will never return.
- matwood 8y ago
  There may be other limitations, but MSSQL supports[1]: Columns per nonwide table 1,024 Columns per wide table 30,000 I think a lot of this RDBMs can't do X, came from using a MySQL. It has improved some, but was garbage until recently. I'm not sure how wide you're taking about, but PG support up to 1600 depending on the datatypes (there is a page size maximum). Oracle supports 1000 IIRC. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/maximum-capacity-specifications-for-sql-server?view=sql-server-2017 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/maximum-capa...
- Fins 8y ago
  As I recall, MonetDB claims "practically unlimited" number of columns per table. And in this particular use case you're probably looking for an RDBMS specialized in analytics, not a general-purpose one like Postgres. But relational model will handle it certainly better than any other.
- davidgould 8y ago
  You are still missing the point. The relational model is not about particular implementations. There is no limit on number of columns etc. It is not "ridiculous to say you can use relational models for any data structure", it is the whole point. That particular implementations may not suite your requirements is not a problem of the model, it is a problem of the particular implementations.

threeseed 8y ago

Actually wide tables for example can't be done at all. And technically we can use Microsoft Excel as a photo editor. But that's just ridiculous. Just like it's ridiculous to say you can use relational models for any data structure even if the queries will never return.

matwood 8y ago
There may be other limitations, but MSSQL supports[1]: Columns per nonwide table 1,024 Columns per wide table 30,000 I think a lot of this RDBMs can't do X, came from using a MySQL. It has improved some, but was garbage until recently. I'm not sure how wide you're taking about, but PG support up to 1600 depending on the datatypes (there is a page size maximum). Oracle supports 1000 IIRC. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/maximum-capacity-specifications-for-sql-server?view=sql-server-2017 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/maximum-capa...
Fins 8y ago
As I recall, MonetDB claims "practically unlimited" number of columns per table. And in this particular use case you're probably looking for an RDBMS specialized in analytics, not a general-purpose one like Postgres. But relational model will handle it certainly better than any other.
davidgould 8y ago
You are still missing the point. The relational model is not about particular implementations. There is no limit on number of columns etc. It is not "ridiculous to say you can use relational models for any data structure", it is the whole point. That particular implementations may not suite your requirements is not a problem of the model, it is a problem of the particular implementations.