4 ms·
Agreed, they should probably include their definition of 'abstraction' in the post.
by vlunkr 4y ago
Agreed, they should probably include their definition of 'abstraction' in the post.
- adamrezich 4y agoI would've thought that everyone who has done any programming at all would be familiar with the term as used in the article—why would this not be the case?
- agentultra 4y agoI think that's part of the problem with the use of the word in programming circles: it means different things depending on whose talking.
- vlunkr 4y agoChoosing the right database technology for your application has nothing to do with abstractions as far as I understand the term. Even if you're just going with the dictionary definition, that doesn't makes sense. An ORM is an abstraction, not a database.
- PeterCorless 4y agoHere's an example of a database abstraction choice: the data model. Do you treat data as a series of normalized row-based data tables with joins optimized for strongly consistent OLTP? [PostgreSQL] Or as a denormalized row-based key-key-value single table optimized for eventually consistent OLTP? [ScyllaDB] Or as a denormalized column-based single table optimized for OLAP? [Pinot] Or as a denormalized key-value optimized for in-memory caching? [Redis] And so on for document stores, or property graphs, etc. Each of these design choices then gives way to the abstractions of implementation.