4 ms·
Neither 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 directio
by morelisp 4y ago
Neither 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.