Say NO to SQL: Part 3

In parts 1 and 2, we saw how relational databases need us to break up data and store it in little pieces. We specifically talked about splitting up data into different tables in part 1. In this part, we will see how we can get the different pieces of data from different tables together again and what kind of problems this merging causes. Continue reading “Say NO to SQL: Part 3”

Say NO to SQL: Part 2

In part 1, we saw how relational and non-relational databases differ in structure. Tables must have a singular, ‘unbreakable ‘ piece of information per row and column in a relational database, while non-relational databases can even contain tables inside tables (called nested data).

In this part, we will see how a relational database¬†wreaks havoc with a piece of information so fundamental, that by the end of this post, you will start wondering why relational databases have been in use for so long! We are talking about human names today. We are talking about how a term I call ‘structural¬†rigidity’ of relational databases caused an unnecessary and unwilling ‘standardisation’ in the way we look at human names today. Continue reading “Say NO to SQL: Part 2”