what does this mean? when i design a database i don't think about "tables and rows". i think about logical relationships and statements about "what exists".

what does this mean? when i design a database i don't think about "tables and rows". i think about logical relationships and statements about "what exists". the tables and rows are just some weird implementation detail that happens to fall out of the fact that i arrange the world in terms of "when A is B then X has a Y". i guess you are saying "structured data that isn't described by relational logic". but relational logic is such a general thing that it's hard to imagine such things (and still call them structured). or alternatively, perhaps you're banging up against some practical issue like poor support for recursive relations? [edit:] or that the number of distinct relationships approaches the number of objects? i'm just trying to get my head round what kind of problems are involved. because "tables and rows" is such a reductive (low level?) way of describing databases that it doesn't give much insight into what the "real problem" is - something like saying you can't use a programming language because your algorithms don't fit well with call stacks (i'm not saying it's impossible - perhaps you need cps for example...).