4 ms·

>relational no-sql Do you mean something like edgeDB?[0] Or do you mean some non-declarative language completely? I don't see the latter making much sense. Th

>relational no-sql Do you mean something like edgeDB?[0] Or do you mean some non-declarative language completely? I don't see the latter making much sense. The issue with SQL for me is the "natural language" which quickly loses all intended readabilty when you have SELECT col1, col2 FROM (SELECT * FROM ... WHERE 1=0 AND ... which is what edgeDB is trying to solve. [0]https://edgedb.com/ https://edgedb.com/

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
"It's like a relational database with an object-oriented data model" Dear god. Send these people back to a decent computer science program to study what the relational model actually is. They're embarrassing themselves. Or I'm embarrassed for them. Talk about abusing terms and throwing the baby out with the bath water. SQL is awful. It's an aberration (but a successful one, so). BUT the relational model is beautiful. AND these people clearly don't know what relational means. They appear to have made what in the old days would have been called a "network" database, where the relationships are hard coded in the data itself, aka pointers (they're calling them "links"). Which is anathema to the relational model which is based on sets of sets where the relationships emerge from the query (with hints from schema). The relational model does not have "links" or pointers. Its "keys" are really a suggestion (or constraint) but not a hard link. Relations are sets of sets (tuples) where those tuples can be joined arbitrarily and so it represents a fundamentally more flexible model where the relationships are not fixed, but emergent from the query. It was the existence of databases like this back in the 60s and 70s, and the intrinsic problems with them, that led to Codd's development of the relational model in the first place, as a way to free data from hardcoded relationships. "Graph relational" as a term could mean something I guess (see RelationalAI's product for example, though they don't use that term). But this is not this. "Object identity" is fundamentally philosophically opposed to the relational data model. Identity in the relational algebra is available through the comparison of arbitrary tuples emerging from operations, but is not intrinsic to any "row" or "tuple" or "object". ARGH. Buzzword marketing, incoherent conceptually. The world needs a successful non-SQL relational database, but this is not what this is.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

"It's like a relational database with an object-oriented data model" Dear god. Send these people back to a decent computer science program to study what the relational model actually is. They're embarrassing themselves. Or I'm embarrassed for them. Talk about abusing terms and throwing the baby out with the bath water. SQL is awful. It's an aberration (but a successful one, so). BUT the relational model is beautiful. AND these people clearly don't know what relational means. They appear to have made what in the old days would have been called a "network" database, where the relationships are hard coded in the data itself, aka pointers (they're calling them "links"). Which is anathema to the relational model which is based on sets of sets where the relationships emerge from the query (with hints from schema). The relational model does not have "links" or pointers. Its "keys" are really a suggestion (or constraint) but not a hard link. Relations are sets of sets (tuples) where those tuples can be joined arbitrarily and so it represents a fundamentally more flexible model where the relationships are not fixed, but emergent from the query. It was the existence of databases like this back in the 60s and 70s, and the intrinsic problems with them, that led to Codd's development of the relational model in the first place, as a way to free data from hardcoded relationships. "Graph relational" as a term could mean something I guess (see RelationalAI's product for example, though they don't use that term). But this is not this. "Object identity" is fundamentally philosophically opposed to the relational data model. Identity in the relational algebra is available through the comparison of arbitrary tuples emerging from operations, but is not intrinsic to any "row" or "tuple" or "object". ARGH. Buzzword marketing, incoherent conceptually. The world needs a successful non-SQL relational database, but this is not what this is.