from Hacker News

No-SQL databases are glorified caches

by hernantz on 4/26/21, 2:39 PM with 29 comments

• by vaughan on 4/26/21, 7:07 PM

  It's surprising that graph dbs aren't more popular.

  Just as document dbs can be derived/denormalized from SQL dbs, relational dbs can be derived from a graph.

  Conceptually, data is a graph.

  I always find the decision between 1-M and M-M is so sticky with RDBMS, and with a graph, it can be whatever you want it to be.

• by noofen on 4/26/21, 10:12 PM

  RAM is a cache for the disk. Disk is a cache for the network.

• by nine_k on 4/27/21, 2:59 AM

  Caches are fleeting. Databases are durable. This is one distinction. Caches return a value by association. Databases usually allow for range and aggregate operations on many values. This is another distinction.

  Also, "no-SQL databases" is like "non-green colors"; it encompasses a much larger spectrum than it excludes. Putting graph databases, local KV stores, distributed KV stores, document stores, time-series stores, etc in the same basket just because they are not RDBMSes is not very productive.

• by j16sdiz on 4/26/21, 6:05 PM

  I think the no-sql vs sql war have ended already. Most of us now know what they can or cannot do.

  Nothing new or interesting in this article.

• by stevefan1999 on 4/27/21, 8:46 AM

  and caches are glorified LRU based, key-value associated data structure with persistent storage to track data states