this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
814 points (98.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32410 readers
385 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 35 points 4 months ago

“Structured” refers to the query language.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 16 points 4 months ago

SQL doesn't actually enforce the database to be normalized at all.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Trail@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I am interested in your json porn.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
{
  "act1": {
    "position": "reverse cowgirl"
    "etc...": {}
  }
}

Not sure what you expected

Edit: also found this https://json-porn.com/

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Oh God, don't watch the etc porn! You'll never be able to unsee it...

[–] bloubz@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's so straight. I prefer yaml porn

[–] jollyrogue@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

For real. Numbers are strings? Yeah, okay.

YAML is better. UCL porn though. 🥵 Things are getting niche when UCL shows up.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

as long as it's organized in some way

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.

[–] NicolaHaskell@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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!

[–] iarigby@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean by “no structure”? Afaik mongodb does not enforce a schema in a collection by default

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Ah yes, mongo and document databases, forgot about those. Yeah those could be a pain to get data from if there's no structure. 😅

[–] Presi300@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't it stand for "supposed to be structured"?

[–] bloubz@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It is "structured" but not well architectured/designed/structured

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

You would be amazed!