Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Disclaimer: This is a broad question, so it could be moved to a different source (if the admins find it appropriate). </p> <p>All the cool kids seem to be dropping relational databases in favor of their NoSQL counterparts. Everyone will have their reasons, from scaling issues to simply being on the bleeding edge of tech. And, I am not here to question their motives.</p> <p>However, what I am interested in is whether any NoSQL transitions ever validated the performance (maintenance) gains over a traditional RDBMS when relationships were dropped. Why would we want to use a RDBMS when the core reason it exists is dropped? A few reasons come to mind</p> <ol> <li>30+ years of academic and work research in developing these systems</li> <li>A well-known language in Structured Query Language (SQL).</li> <li>Stable and mature ORM support across technologies (Hibernate, ActiveRecord)</li> </ol> <p>Clearly, in the modern world where horizontal scaling is important, there is a need to make sure that shards are fault tolerant, updated within the time intervals required by the app, etc. However, those needs shouldn't necessarily be the responsibility of a system that stores data (case in point: ZooKeeper).</p> <p>Also, I acknowledge that research should be dedicated to NoSQL and that time spent in this arena will clearly lead to better more internet worthy technologies. However, a comparison of sorts between NoSQL and traditional RDBMS offerings (minus relationships) would be useful in making business decisions.</p> <p><em><strong>UPDATE 1</em></strong>: When I refer to NoSQL databases, I am talking about data stores that may not require fixed table schemas and usually avoid join operations. Hence, the emphasis in the question on dropping the relationships in a traditional SQL RDBMS</p>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USSalman Paracha
    1. USSalman Paracha
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COThe main reason I still use an RDBMS is quite simple, really: backups and restorations! No NoSQL database comes even close to PostgreSQL or Oracle for solidity. And also, most people are very bad at understanding the relational model (it defines a _relation between columns in a row_, not relations between tables) and the normal model, which means RDBMSes have a poor press on the performance front -- but it's the developers' fault, not the RDBMSes. Today, I see no reason for using NoSQL, except for text/tree-based searches which _are_ more efficient with those.
      singulars
      1. POWould relational databases scale as well (or better) than their NoSQL counterparts if we drop the relationships?
      1. USfge
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload