4 ms·

By relational data do you mean data that has no nesting or arrays? Or data that you always want to query with a join? Something else?

• marcosdumay 5y ago
  That that you would want to query with a join and have invariants that spread through those places you would want to join. Just keeping invariants of any kind is already non-trivial and will probably break at some point in a long lived system.
  • redwood 5y ago
    I see so reference data that you want included in an object for which you're willing to pay the performance overhead of a join rather than denormalize across many object representions in your database. This model has some downsides when it comes to reasoning about scale and denormalization isn't necessarily a consistency quagmire when you can use transactions to keep multiple objects in sync. More generally you can absolutely do this types of queries in modern data systems whether or not they are "relational".
    • marcosdumay 5y ago
      Yeah, I guess I should retract my claim that people aren't claiming it's useful for relational data anymore. Anyway, I was focusing on invariants. But yes, destroying your performance every time you need an atomic change or joining values also makes it bad for relational data. That doesn't mean it's useless, just that it should not be used on the most common problem people have with their data.