5 ms·
Recursive CTEs are not what one would traditionally call 'relational' and many relational databases certainly don't have them. Some distributed graph databases
by RyanZAG 13y ago
Recursive CTEs are not what one would traditionally call 'relational' and many relational databases certainly don't have them.
Some distributed graph databases do store ids and not addresses - there is no actual requirement that they be addresses, only that they be efficient to retrieve. So not actually more accurate.
People still call object-db mappers 'ORMs' even when dealing with document databases such as Google's bigtable or MongoDB. It's just an acronym at this point. [1][2]
[1] - http://mongomapper.com/ http://mongomapper.com/
[2] - https://code.google.com/p/mongo-java-orm/ https://code.google.com/p/mongo-java-orm/
EDIT: By 'id' I'm referring to some unique hash or key that can be used to locate a document. By 'address' I'm referring to an actual on-disk location that can be directly loaded. Maybe my definitions clash with yours, I don't think this stuff is formally defined.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Recursive CTEs are not what one would traditionally call 'relational' I'm not a big fan of tradition for its own sake. > and many relational databases certainly don't have them. The only major SQL-based RDBMSs I can think of off the top my head that don't support recursive CTEs in their current version are SQLite and MySQL -- Postgres, Firebird, DB2, Oracle, and MS SQL Server all do.