Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CQL: Categorical Databases

categoricaldata.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 44 posts

Re: CQL: Categorical Databases

#5

Post by js8 »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #4

Since Codd's paper showed that the relational model dominates other approaches (for data storage) I would expect a paper that shows categorical database are not affected by this and what benefit they have.

My (amateur) take. CDB model (based on functions) has three advantages over RDB model (based on relations):

1. Easier modelling sum types (inheritance) due to duality.

2. Better handling of null due to labelled null.

3. Better foundation of elementary types (they're just another table ids). (Column stores often do that already, if your question is about storage.)

Re: CQL: Categorical Databases

#6

Post by js8 »

flying_sheep wrote: post #2

Thanks for the sharing. It looks interesting but I did not dive deep into it. Just wonder how is it different from SQL trigger which can also ensure integrities?

It's not much really, CDBs are based on foreign key relationships as a fundamental building block, rather than on relation.

The difference is more in theory than in practice.

Re: CQL: Categorical Databases

#7

Post by bob1029 »

> CQL is not a database management system: it neither stores nor updates data.

The same could be said for SQL. How does CQL differ from SQL? If I squint my eyes just a tiny amount, these ideas become really difficult to separate. I was always under the impression that the relational model is based upon many concepts studied in category theory. To my mind, all of the following things are overlapping parts of the exact same monster:

  Set theory
  Category theory
  Graph theory
  Type theory
  Discrete mathematics 
  Relational algebra
  Relational calculus
  Relational modeling
  An actual sql schema

Re: CQL: Categorical Databases

#8

Post by js8 »

bob1029 wrote: post #7

> CQL is not a database management system: it neither stores nor updates data. The same could be said for SQL. How does CQL differ from SQL? If I squint my eyes just a tiny amount, these ideas become really difficult to separate. I was always under the impression that the relational model is based upon many concepts studied in category theory. To my mind, all of the following things are overlapping parts of the exact…

> How does CQL differ from SQL?

SQL is like Java, CQL is like Haskell. SQL has been around and used in production. CQL is a research language, possibly cleaner foundation but YMMV.

The math fields you list are connected, but whether they are the same monster - again it's kinda like claiming all programming languages and implementations are the same (Turing-complete?) monster.

Re: CQL: Categorical Databases

#9

Post by randomNumber7 »

js8 wrote: post #8
bob1029 wrote: post #7

> CQL is not a database management system: it neither stores nor updates data. The same could be said for SQL. How does CQL differ from SQL? If I squint my eyes just a tiny amount, these ideas become really difficult to separate. I was always under the impression that the relational model is based upon many concepts studied in category theory. To my mind, all of the following things are overlapping parts of the exact…

> How does CQL differ from SQL? SQL is like Java, CQL is like Haskell. SQL has been around and used in production. CQL is a research language, possibly cleaner foundation but YMMV. The math fields you list are connected, but whether they are the same monster - again it's kinda like claiming all programming languages and implementations are the same (Turing-complete?) monster.

SQL is not an imperative programming language.
Post reply on HN