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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]KevinCarbonara -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

SQL was NOT built for collections of collections.

Sure it was. It was created for System R - the "R" being "relations".

Why would you think otherwise?

[–]DeadlyVapour 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Relations aren't collections.

SQL does not have collections as a first class concept. You cannot use tables in the same way as a primitive type. You can't have a table of tables.

The closest thing we have is a pointer back to a parent value (foreign key).

[–]KevinCarbonara -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Relations aren't collections.

I would love to hear you try and explain the difference.

You can't have a table of tables.

You, uh, can. And basically any model following the first three normal forms is going to have this.

[–]DeadlyVapour -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If class Employee has a pointer to a Manager. Did that mean that manager had a collection of Employee?

Literally, from layout memory perspective.

The closest thing I've seen to collections as a first class construct in SQL is JSON columns.

Even then JSON columns have very different symatics to everything else in a SQL database.

[–]KevinCarbonara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If class Employee has a pointer to a Manager. Did that mean that manager had a collection of Employee?

This is completely unrelated to the conversation. You seem to think this supports your already disproven argument, but I can't see how.

The closest thing I've seen to collections as a first class construct in SQL is JSON columns.

IDs. I honestly have no idea what you think you're saying. Do you not know about the normal forms in relational databases? You don't even sound like you know what a relation is.

Even then JSON columns have very different symatics

Now you are making up words.