Hacker News
SQLite as a Document Database (2020)
stanac
|next
[-]
Also the repo class stores write and delete timestamps as separate columns so I can have CDC. CDC is used for building cached view models and is pushed to object storage every 5 minutes for backup as NDJSON. Another process on home server is restoring the db every couple of minutes for second backup and ready to use DB in case it's needed.
I know there are things like Litestream, I wanted something in process and something that can send alerts on failed backups.
WhitneyLand
|next
|previous
[-]
QuantumNomad_
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
> We write software to improve our lives and the lives of others. Usually this involves taking some mundane information—such as contacts, invoices, or receipts—and manipulating it using a computer application. CouchDB is a great fit for common applications like this because it embraces the natural idea of evolving, self-contained documents as the very core of its data model.
> Self-Contained Data
> An invoice contains all the pertinent information about a single transaction—the seller, the buyer, the date, and a list of the items or services sold. As shown in Figure 1, “Self-contained documents”, there’s no abstract reference on this piece of paper that points to some other piece of paper with the seller’s name and address. Accountants appreciate the simplicity of having everything in one place. And given the choice, programmers appreciate that, too.
> Yet using references is exactly how we model our data in a relational database! Each invoice is stored in a table as a row that refers to other rows in other tables—one row for seller information, one for the buyer, one row for each item billed, and more rows still to describe the item details, manufacturer details, and so on and so forth.
https://guide.couchdb.org/editions/1/en/why.html
Iow, a document database stands in contrast to a relational db in that these JSON things we store in them are more stand-alone “documents” compared to storing data in rows and columns in a relational db like PostgreSQL or SQLite.
SOLAR_FIELDS
|root
|parent
[-]
fipar
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
What the model calls relations are sets of n-tuples where each attribute value has a domain.
SQL databases call their version of relations tables, and, in that view, a database with a single table is still relational.
Now I don't think SQL databases are relational but the analogy still holds (I'd just say that a relational database can have just a single relation)
If you meant it this way and I misunderstood you, apologies, though I'm not sure I'd say most data is actually inherently relational (even though I do think the relational model is the best one we have so far for databases).
However, if you meant that most data has relationships (as the ones we enforce with foreign keys in sql databases) then I agree with you, and I think using database management systems that don't have good support for representing this type of relationships between data entities will only work in niche cases and will eventually cause more trouble than benefits in general-purpose use cases.
jmalicki
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
Personally I prefer the relational stance, and there are a lot of people who don't get it who say things like "this data isn't relational", but that's not the argument GP made.
somat
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
Basically a document is a report, a large disjoint volume of information on a subject, I consider this the natural form of data because this is how it is collected and how most people think about it. relational is sort of like storing that data as vertical slices through your stack of reports. Not natural at all but much nicer for analysis across the data set.
bitwize
|root
|parent
|previous
[-]
Calavar
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
somat
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
But nothing prevents you from treating your relational database as a document database, set it up as a key-value store where each key is is the document title and each value is a large blob of document data. If your documents are fairly consistent it is also easy enough to build indexes and query features to regain some of the analytical ability of relational data.
da_chicken
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
petcat
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
bitwize
|root
|parent
|previous
[-]
2) "Document" has undergone a bit of semantic drift thanks to HTML and XML. In an informational context it means "structured, hierarchical unit of data containing mostly text". The data from forms, invoices, and the like needs to be collected and stored, even if it isn't properly normalized and relationalized (or is en route to being such) so a "document database" is thought to be suited to this task
I dunno, whatever, I'm in the "just fucking use postgres until you can justify why you shouldn't" camp.
wwalexander
|next
|previous
[-]
It would be super cool if somehow SwiftData could translate computed properties of @Model objects into these generated columns via the #Expression macro!
nchmy
|next
|previous
[-]
Here's an example i saw yesterday from mariadb, which is improving its json support in its upcoming releases.
https://mariadb.com/docs/server/ha-and-performance/optimizat...
``` CREATE TABLE t1 (json_data JSON); INSERT INTO t1 VALUES('{"column1": 1234}'); INSERT INTO t1 ... ```
In order to do efficient queries over data in JSON, you can add a virtual column, and an index on that column:
``` ALTER TABLE t1 ADD COLUMN vcol1 INT AS (cast(json_value(json_data, '$.column1') AS INTEGER)), ADD INDEX(vcol1);
```
vidarh
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
The point is exactly that it means you can selectively retrospectively add virtual columns, optionally backed with an index, as you decide which fields you need more structured access to.
The example you're giving is in principle the same as the "ALTER TABLE ... GENERATED ALWAYS AS ... VIRTUAL" example + a subsequent index in the Sqlite example.
inigyou
|root
|parent
|previous
[-]
CREATE TABLE t1 (data JSONB);
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES ('{"column1":1234}');
CREATE INDEX t1column1 ON t1(data->'column1');
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE data1->'column1' = '1234'; // not sure about data type
mayankbpatel
|next
|previous
[-]
https://youtu.be/b2F-DItXtZs?is=HlayyJ_DPb8NzbS4
(lol! couldn’t resist)
alterom
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
That was the part I really missed from my Google days.
That, insane achievement badges, and terrible-ideas-discuss (if anyone at Google is reading this, I have one word for you: dirigibles). It was like /r/NonCredibleDefense but for Google.
tolerance
|next
|previous
[-]
https://sqlite-tutorial-pycon-2023.readthedocs.io/en/latest/...
conception
|next
|previous
[-]
SleepyPenguin
|next
|previous
[-]
rcarmo
|next
|previous
[-]
JSON extensibility and virtual columns help _a lot_ with variable metadata.
retropragma
|next
|previous
[-]
Insimwytim
|next
|previous
[-]
You may construct it back on retrieval, if you need it in results.
delduca
|next
|previous
[-]
So I can have cassette.propxyz = {1, 2, “abc”, true}
And
local anotherprop = cassette.leprop
alterom
|next
|previous
[-]
In code, I could effectively mark which class members need to be stored/restored, and optionally provide a custom serialization function for them if needed.
The latter was effectively never necessary, because all the bases types and multi-dimensional arrays were handled by templates.
Really wish I open-sourced that thing then, but the corporate bureaucracy around that was tricky.
I remember sufficiently little about implementation details now that I think I can get to writing it again, without producing a copypasta of that code - and maybe I should :)