Talk:Comparison of multi-model databases: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Table structure: new section |
m →Table structure: sign |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* The "Key-value" column should be added. |
* The "Key-value" column should be added. |
||
* Perhaps the "Object" column should be removed. Otherwise, the [[InterSystems Caché]] row should be added. |
* Perhaps the "Object" column should be removed. Otherwise, the [[InterSystems Caché]] row should be added. |
||
-- [[User:Luitzen|Luitzen]] ([[User talk:Luitzen|talk]]) 17:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:45, 15 February 2019
Definitions
Are "Text" and "Spatial" capabilities significantly different enough to count as different database types? --Indolering (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Indolering: Like many other new hype terms, it seems really difficult to pin down a useful criteria for what actually is a "multi-model database" and what isn't. Like https://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2013/02/08/neither-fish-nor-fowl/ mentions, most classical RDBMSes also qualify as multi-model databases. These days it seems every RDBMS supports document storage (XML or JSON), full-text search, spatial queries and SQL. So perhaps in order to highlight the absurdity of this term, I would say yes, most databases are multi-model databases. -- intgr [talk] 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Intgr: But spatial and full-text search capabilities don't alter how one structures the schema of the database. These are instances of data-types, like integers and dates.
Table structure
- The "Key-value" column should be added.
- Perhaps the "Object" column should be removed. Otherwise, the InterSystems Caché row should be added.