On 19.9.2016 4:40, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I agree that there is always a schema, and I don't think that anyone really
disagrees with that. It is more a matter of "rigid" or "flexible" schema.
The "rigid" world requires more process overhead to create and evolve, and
over time end up with 500 columns that are mostly empty.

Depends on how lazy the developer is in regard of keeping SQL schema up to date with application schema. That can be done with ALTER statements, which pretty much any relational DB engine has these days. The boundary between 'rigid' and 'flexible' schema is becoming blurry, since e.g. PostgreSQL has been supporting 'json' column type now for a while. I think storing data in RDB using JSON should be investigated in Zest SQL entitystore/indexing.

From my own personal experience, I would never ever use NoSQL solutions for any application I would develop - I think it is one of those useless things spread by uneducated people. Everything that NoSQL solution can do, the YesSQL solution can do better - with proper tooling and modeling support, and with "think first, do then" kind of approach. Obviously, if one's working process lacks design/modeling/specsing of the domain of one's application, NoSQL approach is more suitable.

Reply via email to