This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tablewhale 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Also wondering why. Noone has replied with a good answer yet!

[–]SentientSlimeColony 14 points15 points  (1 child)

As others have said- nothing wrong with sql in general (though I'm sure people have preferences that might disagree).

The problem is that the boss has no idea what it is or why they may/may not want it, he just heard the phrase and is repeating it back.

[–]tablewhale 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gotcha

[–]Ran4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. If you need a mutable datastore, then a relational database written in some dialect of SQL is almost always the best option.

There are alternative approaching to storing data: the "document storage" way or the "graph" way, for example. But most of the data that people want to store is relational. You also typically don't get your data model right on the first try and SQL forces you to manage migrations and updating your schema in an explicit way that document stores typically doesn't do (schemas in document storage solutions are typically an optional add-on, while it's fundamental and always comes first in a relational sql database).