4 ms·
This is not a very useful statement, because there is no clear-cut border between relational and non relational data. You can map everything to a relational sch
by ntoshev 15y ago
This is not a very useful statement, because there is no clear-cut border between relational and non relational data. You can map everything to a relational schema and to most nosql models.
- noblethrasher 15y agoPeople seem to forget the MS in RDMS. It's true that anytime you write a function that maps some set to the set of logical values (true, false, null, maybe, ...) you're dealing with relational data. So while there is no clear cut border, at some point it becomes obvious that you would benefit from a Relational Data Management System. The danger is that your particular data set might out grow a particular management system. When you switch to a "NoSql" solution all you're doing is deciding that you need a more purpose built managment system for your relational data.
- ntoshev 15y agoIt's not just the data, it's also what you do with it. I think a typical social network is a reasonably good fit to the relational model. But this is mostly because any given user cares only about his friends, and at most about the friends-of-friends. If you try to do something different, like computing eigenvector centrality of clusters of people, suddenly an RDBMS is inadequate and you want a graph database or something simpler like mapreduce.