Comparing Database Types

#1

Post by ironcutter » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

Re: Comparing Database Types

#2

Post by AlphaWeaver » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

This article comes from the team at Prisma, who are doing some really cool work building "database schema management and design with code" tools. They're working on a new version of their library right now (Prisma 2) and are regularly giving updates to the community and providing test versions.

Most everything they make is open source and really well designed. Would recommend checking it out!

Re: Comparing Database Types

#3

Post by _Understated_ » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

I'm curious... what did the author mean by this:

> Legacy database types represent milestones on the path to modern databases. These may still find a foothold in certain specialized environments, but have mostly been replaced by more robust alternatives for production environments.

I didn't notice anything that went into any detail about legacy database types.

Any idea what the author means by a "Legacy Database"?

Re: Comparing Database Types

#4

Post by tempguy9999 » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

_Understated_ wrote: post #3

I'm curious... what did the author mean by this: > Legacy database types represent milestones on the path to modern databases. These may still find a foothold in certain specialized environments, but have mostly been replaced by more robust alternatives for production environments. I didn't notice anything that went into any detail about legacy database types. Any idea what the author means by a "Legacy Database"?

He actually tells you in the article, straight after (flat file, hierarchical...)

Re: Comparing Database Types

#5

Post by AlphaWeaver » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

_Understated_ wrote: post #3

I'm curious... what did the author mean by this: > Legacy database types represent milestones on the path to modern databases. These may still find a foothold in certain specialized environments, but have mostly been replaced by more robust alternatives for production environments. I didn't notice anything that went into any detail about legacy database types. Any idea what the author means by a "Legacy Database"?

The article gives some examples of these, it seems they're mostly referring to things we wouldn't consider "databases" like flat files.

Re: Comparing Database Types

#6

Post by nikolasburk » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

AlphaWeaver wrote: post #2

This article comes from the team at Prisma, who are doing some really cool work building "database schema management and design with code" tools. They're working on a new version of their library right now (Prisma 2) and are regularly giving updates to the community and providing test versions. Most everything they make is open source and really well designed. Would recommend checking it out!

Nikolas from the Prisma team here! Thanks a lot for the endorsement, we're indeed super excited about the current database space and the tooling we see emerging.

For anyone that wants to check out what we're up to, you can find everything you need in this repo: https://github.com/prisma/prisma2

Re: Comparing Database Types

#7

Post by _Understated_ » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

tempguy9999 wrote: post #4

_Understated_ wrote: post #3

I'm curious... what did the author mean by this: > Legacy database types represent milestones on the path to modern databases. These may still find a foothold in certain specialized environments, but have mostly been replaced by more robust alternatives for production environments. I didn't notice anything that went into any detail about legacy database types. Any idea what the author means by a "Legacy Database"?

He actually tells you in the article, straight after (flat file, hierarchical...)

Aww man. I am a dumbass... I never equated that section of things like Network databases and such as legacy.

Dunno how I missed it :(

*Must read slower...

Re: Comparing Database Types

#8

Post by marknadal » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

What a lovely article!

It should be emphasized that graph databases can do all other types of databases (relational, document, key/value, etc.) as you can see demonstrated in this article (https://gun.eco/docs/Graph-Guide).

This makes graphs a superior data structure.

If you think about the math, any document is a trie, and tables are a matrix. Both trees and matrices can be represented as graphs. But not all graphs can be represented as a tree or graph.

This gets even more fun when you get into hypergraphs and bigraphs, which are totally possible with property graph databases where nodes have type!

Re: Comparing Database Types

#9

Post by muydeemer » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

Just a quick remark on graph dbs. Titan which is mentioned in the article as an example of a graph db is dead. Its successor is the Janus graph (https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph).

Re: Comparing Database Types

#10

Post by danenania » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

marknadal wrote: post #8

What a lovely article! It should be emphasized that graph databases can do all other types of databases (relational, document, key/value, etc.) as you can see demonstrated in this article ( https://gun.eco/docs/Graph-Guide ). This makes graphs a superior data structure. If you think about the math, any document is a trie, and tables are a matrix. Both trees and matrices can be represented as graphs. But not all graph…

“It should be emphasized that graph databases can do all other types of databases (relational, document, key/value, etc.)”

Not to knock graph dbs, but isn’t the reverse also true?