So you have mainly straw-manned on the word "schemaless" to make an argument. This is akin to attacking dynamic typing by pointing out that most things can be

So you have mainly straw-manned on the word "schemaless" to make an argument. This is akin to attacking dynamic typing by pointing out that most things can be type inferred by the code. That is, you are not wrong in that most data stored is structured in some way; but you are ignoring a ton of the benefit of the schemaless world. As I pointed out, there are benefits to specifying schema. In parts, you /have/ to do so. Specifically if you want your DB to do any work on the data. Indexing/filtering and the like. Now, you do hit largely on the benefits of the "schemaless" world. And that is that it is not undefined how it will store whatever schema you throw at it. You will have restrictions on keys, but otherwise it will store whatever you throw at it. At large, this means you can skip out on a lot of the formality of specifying all schema shapes during development and can take a much more flexible approach in your code than you are forced to if the data layer can't work with you.