Re: Relational Databases Lack Relationships

On 2015-10-23, Nicola <nvitacolonna_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-10-22 16:20:18 +0000, Eric said:
>
>> Following a recent catastrophic computer failure I found myself having
>> to browse the internet with the interruption of many more advertisements
>> than I am used to. One amazingly pervasive ad offered me a free download
>> of a book about graph databases. Obviously from a company that makes a
>> "graph database system", whatever that is. Still, after about the 47th
>> viewing, why not, I might learn something.
>>
>> What I have learnt so far is that they use the subject of this post as a
>> section heading, followed by:
>>
>> "For several decades, developers have tried to accommodate connected,
>> semi-structured datasets inside relational databases. But whereas
>> relational databases were initially designed to codify paper forms
>> and tabular structures - something they do exceedingly well - they
>> struggle when attempting to model the ad hoc, exceptional relationships
>> that crop up in the real world. Ironically, relational databases deal
>> poorly with relationships."
>>
>> Aside from needing to find out what on earth they mean by
>> "semi-structured" and "ad-hoc, exceptional relationships", has anyone
>> ever heard, from any other source, that codifying paper forms and tabular
>> structures is what relational databases were designed to do?
>
> Alas, often. A part of the XML community had a similar mindset, for
> instance. And I work with people who dismiss the relational model as a way
> to have data uncomfortably spread across different tables.

And unable to even consider that they have missed a point somewhere?

> Alas, I happen to have read the chapter you cite. The whole section is a
> pearl. It may be previewed on Google Books (Section 2):
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=jzvcCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover

I know what you mean but I wouldn't want anyone to think that it was as pretty or valuable as a pearl!

> You must realize that when they say "relational databases", they
> really mean MySQL. Just to put things in perspective.

MySQL - My Little [young animal of choice]! Like the graph stuff, created by people with no perspective on anything except their own immediate concern. The problem is, they are all programmers with no idea that data has an independent existence and may be used by some program other than the one they are writing right now. If you tell them this they, almost without exception, offer you an API which will never provide the data accessibility or performance that will inevitably be needed.

To be fair, MySQL has improved a bit over the years, though never to the point that I would choose to use it.

> And as a cherry on the cake, I find it kind of ironic that their example
> is about social networks, when (a heavily customized and distributed
> version of) MySQL was used to build Facebook!

Indeed.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry