5 ms·

I don't agree with calling these databases "NoSQL", because it grants the undeserved premise that SQL is somehow the center of the database universe. Politicall

by wissler 14y ago

I don't agree with calling these databases "NoSQL", because it grants the undeserved premise that SQL is somehow the center of the database universe. Politically that may be so, but technically, it's not. Nothing anoints SQL databases as being somehow intrinsically "right" or the logical starting point or standard by which all databases should be compared. SQL is merely popular.

itcmcgrath 14y ago
Not to mention SQL isn't technically a database type, just the query language most commonly used for relational DBs. Baby/bathwater and all the usual tendencies to ignore true meanings of terms when we use them...
paperwork 14y ago
I don't think the premise is undeserved. SQL IS the center of the database universe. If we use SQL to mean the general concept of relational databases, then it is true across even more dimensions of the universe. Relational databases and sql should be considered the pride and joy of computer science AND software engineering (with logic and math being the grand parents in this increasingly confused and mixed metaphor).
- wissler 14y ago
  "SQL IS the center of the database universe." Politically, yes. SQL/relational wins the popularity contest. But so what? Technically, no, it's not the center. It's merely the most popular, for the time being. This is a temporary state of affairs.
  - paperwork 14y ago
    I think the current confusion is due to the fact that relational databases are too often thought of as data stores. It is true that these DBs are not always the best solution. Sometimes it is better to store data in various NoSQL databases. Sometimes it is even better to store data in a flat file. However, relational databases provide unprecedented ability to query information. Imagine one person puts data into a black box. 100 other people can ask it questions which were never intended by the original designer, and the system is able to answer those questions fairly efficiently. The language used to query is orders of magnitude simpler than 'normal' programming languages. If you query your database and the answer takes too long, you can add an index and the exact same query will start running more quickly! Two different people can create two different tables. A third person can come in and 'join' these two tables. I see nosql being a low level technology, higher than blocks/files/b-trees but lower than relational databases. Another way to say it is that relational algebra is the theoretical model while large parts of modern nosql tools are implementation details.
  - batista 14y ago
    "Merely the most popular"? LOL. It's the only formally proven, mathematically correct representation and querying of data sets. Not that most RDBMS conform to the relational theory 100% (or even 90%), but everything else is mere re-invention of the wheel badly. As in: "Hey, let's trade ACID, security, uniform access to data by all apps" for cheap speed and ill-thought developer convenience.
    - dehora 14y ago
      > It's the only formally proven, No. RDF is formally proven via its Model Theory (as was KIF before it). That's arguably a stronger basis that relational "algebra"
    - wissler 14y ago
      "LOL. It's the only formally proven, mathematically correct representation and querying of data sets." Someone led you down the garden path. There is absolutely no proof that RDBMS is objectively correct in any meaningful sense whatsoever. Did someone invent an arbitrary standard to measure it by, and then prove that it met that standard? Sure. But that's a far cry from a claim that RDBMS's are somehow "formally proven." That's just pure mathematical silliness and marketing propaganda.
      - batista 14y ago
        Who said anything about RDBMS? It's relational algebra we're talking about, and the reasonings pertain to the relational algebra operators.
batista 14y ago
>* Politically that may be so, but technically, it's not.* Actually it's both technically AND scientifically. Relational algebra is MATH describing the properties of relational data (that is, all kinds of data one would ever care to use), based on set theory. All the other ways are just ad-hoc BS non-solutions, that happen to have this or that property because they forgot the tradeoffs.
- wissler 14y ago
  The fact that it's based on set theory is utterly irrelevant. The question is: what is the best database from an engineering perspective? It has never been proven that RDBMS's are the best in any respect whatsoever in this sense. It's irrelevant that you can concoct an arbitrary mathematical theory and then create a system to match. You must also prove that that theory is the most relevant and important way of looking at the data for the given problem at hand. RDBMS theory doesn't even bother trying to worry about the real world.
  - batista 14y ago
    This math thing: you're doing it wrong. Theories are not "arbitrary", and you cannot outbest theory "in practice". They only way to do this is if you have an ad-hoc faulty theory.

by wissler 14y ago

itcmcgrath 14y ago

Not to mention SQL isn't technically a database type, just the query language most commonly used for relational DBs. Baby/bathwater and all the usual tendencies to ignore true meanings of terms when we use them...

paperwork 14y ago

I don't think the premise is undeserved. SQL IS the center of the database universe. If we use SQL to mean the general concept of relational databases, then it is true across even more dimensions of the universe. Relational databases and sql should be considered the pride and joy of computer science AND software engineering (with logic and math being the grand parents in this increasingly confused and mixed metaphor).

wissler 14y ago
"SQL IS the center of the database universe." Politically, yes. SQL/relational wins the popularity contest. But so what? Technically, no, it's not the center. It's merely the most popular, for the time being. This is a temporary state of affairs.
- paperwork 14y ago
  I think the current confusion is due to the fact that relational databases are too often thought of as data stores. It is true that these DBs are not always the best solution. Sometimes it is better to store data in various NoSQL databases. Sometimes it is even better to store data in a flat file. However, relational databases provide unprecedented ability to query information. Imagine one person puts data into a black box. 100 other people can ask it questions which were never intended by the original designer, and the system is able to answer those questions fairly efficiently. The language used to query is orders of magnitude simpler than 'normal' programming languages. If you query your database and the answer takes too long, you can add an index and the exact same query will start running more quickly! Two different people can create two different tables. A third person can come in and 'join' these two tables. I see nosql being a low level technology, higher than blocks/files/b-trees but lower than relational databases. Another way to say it is that relational algebra is the theoretical model while large parts of modern nosql tools are implementation details.
- batista 14y ago
  "Merely the most popular"? LOL. It's the only formally proven, mathematically correct representation and querying of data sets. Not that most RDBMS conform to the relational theory 100% (or even 90%), but everything else is mere re-invention of the wheel badly. As in: "Hey, let's trade ACID, security, uniform access to data by all apps" for cheap speed and ill-thought developer convenience.
  - dehora 14y ago
    > It's the only formally proven, No. RDF is formally proven via its Model Theory (as was KIF before it). That's arguably a stronger basis that relational "algebra"
  - wissler 14y ago
    "LOL. It's the only formally proven, mathematically correct representation and querying of data sets." Someone led you down the garden path. There is absolutely no proof that RDBMS is objectively correct in any meaningful sense whatsoever. Did someone invent an arbitrary standard to measure it by, and then prove that it met that standard? Sure. But that's a far cry from a claim that RDBMS's are somehow "formally proven." That's just pure mathematical silliness and marketing propaganda.
    - batista 14y ago
      Who said anything about RDBMS? It's relational algebra we're talking about, and the reasonings pertain to the relational algebra operators.

batista 14y ago

>* Politically that may be so, but technically, it's not.* Actually it's both technically AND scientifically. Relational algebra is MATH describing the properties of relational data (that is, all kinds of data one would ever care to use), based on set theory. All the other ways are just ad-hoc BS non-solutions, that happen to have this or that property because they forgot the tradeoffs.

wissler 14y ago
The fact that it's based on set theory is utterly irrelevant. The question is: what is the best database from an engineering perspective? It has never been proven that RDBMS's are the best in any respect whatsoever in this sense. It's irrelevant that you can concoct an arbitrary mathematical theory and then create a system to match. You must also prove that that theory is the most relevant and important way of looking at the data for the given problem at hand. RDBMS theory doesn't even bother trying to worry about the real world.
- batista 14y ago
  This math thing: you're doing it wrong. Theories are not "arbitrary", and you cannot outbest theory "in practice". They only way to do this is if you have an ad-hoc faulty theory.