3 ms·

Schemas in my schema-less database? Why not just use MS SQL / Oracle / MySQL?

• needusername 11y ago
  They are not web scale.
• nevi-me 11y ago
  I think it's schemas in the sense that you start enforcing some rules at the database level for your JSON/BSON/JSONB data, instead of relying on ORMs. Defining schemas at an ORM-level means that you always have to replicate that schema (as far as you need to write back to the DB) on every project that uses the data in the database. The JSON storage route has been flexible, and I would assume that most people who use Mongo have some form of schema, even if it's very flexible. For example, a lot of my schema definitions look like: { field1: String, field2 : {} } where field2: {} means I can pretty much dump anything in there. I presume (without yet testing) that by 'schema' I'd still be able to do the above, except that I'll enforce field1 to be a String and still remain 'schema-less'/loose on field2
• romanovcode 11y ago
  JSON support.
• MehdiHK 11y ago
  I think the biggest plus here is ability to enforce schema validation when you want, unlike RDBMS, which does it from the very beginning. I can relate it to the static typed vs dynamic typed languages. Unlike static type checking languages, dynamic typed languages gives you huge productivity at start, but eventually that flexibility starts to become maintenance nuisance. Best of the both world is gradually typed systems, like hack or flow from Facebook, where you can start placing type checking later as necessary. So you can be very productive at start, and later be safe at scale.