[Discuss] No-SQL Database Recommendation?

[markw at mohawksoft.com]

> On 1/11/2015 2:08 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> Again, a "relational database" is a tool that is able to support a
>> relational data model. That does not mean that it MUST be relational.
>
> The definition of a relational database is a database that uses the
> relational model. If it uses a different model then it's something other
> than a relational database.

SQL is nothing more than a grammar for compiling data access functions,
nothing less.
>
> As a point: it's not "a" relational model. It's "the" relational model.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. SQL is not a model. There are models build upon SQL, but
there is no requirement that data in the database is relational.
>
>> Calling SQL databases the "wrong tool" because it has a huge arsenal of
>> tools to examine and access data makes no sense.
>
> I'm not calling relational databases the wrong tool for this reason. I'm
> calling them the wrong tool for data that don't fit the relational
> model. Trying to shoe-horn non-relational data into a relational
> database is foolish, plain and simple.

This is absolutely wrong. A simple key/value table in SQL is perfectly
fine. Why would anyone assert otherwise? The fact that you *can* use it as
a relation is beside the point.

>
> As a point: SQL does not equal relational model or relational database.
> While the language was designed for use with relational databases, and
> while most relational databases use it exclusively, many (I don't have a
> list handy) non-relational databases have SQL bindings so you can use
> either native queries or SQL queries depending on your needs.

Exactly, you are the one who brought up "relational" and the OP only
mentioned SQL.

In this discussion, "relational" is an empty strawman and does nothing for
the discussion.
>
> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>