3 ms·
> Upper layers deal with higher abstractions (objects, rows, whatever) Right, I'm waiting for standard for a level above relational databases which is Object-d
by galaxyLogic 4y ago
> Upper layers deal with higher abstractions (objects, rows, whatever)
Right, I'm waiting for standard for a level above relational databases which is Object-databases. I know there are several ones already and there are Object-Relational mapping layers.
I think the key point there is that Object databases are a level ABOVE relational databases. They are not "better" but they deal with the higher level of objects rather than "tables", just like relational databases can be seen to be are a level above key-value -stores.
I would like Object databases to become better and easier to use and more standardized.
I think there is value in being able to see both level, the objects, and the relational data that makes up the objects.
- morelisp 4y agoNeither objects nor relations are "above" the other. You can map them in a vacuous mathematical sense, but it's a massively leaky abstraction in either direction.
- eatonphil 4y agoSome concrete examples: 1. Yugabyte's relational query layer sits on top of a document store (DocDB): https://www.yugabyte.com/blog/how-we-built-a-high-performance-document-store-on-rocksdb/ https://www.yugabyte.com/blog/how-we-built-a-high-performanc.... 2. You can put documents in a PostgreSQL JSON(B) column.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoWhen I use the word "above" I mean "layers" of code. So if an Object-database was implemented by using a relational database, it would be "above" the layer of the RDBMs. I think that is what object-to-relational mappers like Hibernate do. I think it would seem quite natural to implement objects on top of, with the help of an RDBMS. But not sure if the opposite is true.