Database is organized collection of data, so a disk full of porn in different formats from json to mp4 can be a database, as long as it’s organized in some way
At a certain level all data is a pair (some name, blob of bytes). You can concatenate sequences of those pairs into a tar archive and call that a database. To access “the last object” you’d have to seek over the “first” objects. So you can build another set of (some name, blob of bytes) that serves as an index into the first set. You’ll first have to do at least one full pass over that first set, and you’ll need to make space on the books to account for twice as many sets, AND you’ll still have to do some seeking over the “first objects” in the indexing collection, but it all keeps recall times very short!
You can make an unstructured database? I thought the S in SQL stood for “structured”, that it was built into the language itself or something.
“Structured” refers to the query language.
Database is organized collection of data, so a disk full of porn in different formats from json to mp4 can be a database, as long as it’s organized in some way
I am interested in your json porn.
{ "act1": { "position": "reverse cowgirl" "etc...": {} } }Not sure what you expected
Edit: also found this https://json-porn.com/
Oh God, don’t watch the etc porn! You’ll never be able to unsee it…
It’s so straight. I prefer yaml porn
For real. Numbers are strings? Yeah, okay.
YAML is better. UCL porn though. 🥵 Things are getting niche when UCL shows up.
Right? Organized, structured, same thing, or? A database can’t have no structure, right? I don’t even know how one would create such a database.
What do you mean by “no structure”? Afaik mongodb does not enforce a schema in a collection by default
Ah yes, mongo and document databases, forgot about those. Yeah those could be a pain to get data from if there’s no structure. 😅
At a certain level all data is a pair (some name, blob of bytes). You can concatenate sequences of those pairs into a tar archive and call that a database. To access “the last object” you’d have to seek over the “first” objects. So you can build another set of (some name, blob of bytes) that serves as an index into the first set. You’ll first have to do at least one full pass over that first set, and you’ll need to make space on the books to account for twice as many sets, AND you’ll still have to do some seeking over the “first objects” in the indexing collection, but it all keeps recall times very short!
It is “structured” but not well architectured/designed/structured
SQL doesn’t actually enforce the database to be normalized at all.
Doesn’t it stand for “supposed to be structured”?
STBSQL?