3 ms·
> SQL schemas are not expressive enough to describe the data types which I want to store in the database. I'm incredibly skeptical that SQL doesn't support you
by jlarocco 12y ago
> SQL schemas are not expressive enough to describe the data types which I want to store in the database.
I'm incredibly skeptical that SQL doesn't support your data types but JSON and RethinkDB do. A quick glance at the docs for PostgreSQL and RethinkDB, and the RethinkDB types are a small subset of the PostgreSQL types. It sounds to me like you just don't want to break out nested objects into separate tables.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype.html
http://www.rethinkdb.com/docs/data-types/ http://www.rethinkdb.com/docs/data-types/
- stingraycharles 12y agoHe's saying that Sql or NoSql dont matter in this case, since he is using Haskell's type system to verify integrity. A document database is often a better fit for data structures than a relational database, if you are not using the integrity features of a relational database anyway.
- wereHamster 12y agoNeither database natively supports the types I need. The decision which database to use was not at all based on that criteria. I suspect either one would be suitable (from a purely technical perspective). It is not realistic to create a separate table for each type. You'd end up with hundreds of tables (and would have to replicate the types in two places). You can only break down the types so much, at some point you'll want to have columns with your own special types which you want to treat as primitives.