3 ms·
> better off just building an ontology on top of their existing datastores. I just made a view with three copypasta’d levels of joins on a parent-child relatio
by btown 5y ago
> better off just building an ontology on top of their existing datastores.
I just made a view with three copypasta’d levels of joins on a parent-child relationship table to build up an ancestor_names column to be used in an analytics. The analytics team is probably going to just use regexes or if-statements on that column in Tableau to understand our performance with top-level partner names. If it gets slow I’ll make it a materialized view.
This. Is. Fine.
You don’t need a graph database or explicit ontology or even recursive queries to answer graph questions. It’s nice to have one, of course, but not necessary.
- zozbot234 5y agoYup, database views are exactly how to do 'ontology-based' inference in SQL, in the rare cases where that makes actual sense. It can do anything that a graph or "semantic" database can do, and with on-par or better performance. Even CTE recursive queries work just as well as a general-purpose graph DB, though the latter sometimes has a more convenient query language.
- zomglings 5y agoTotally. You shouldn't be allowing people to run graph traversals of arbitrary depth in your database anyway. :)