7 ms·
Yes, that's true. But I still have a requirement for a schemaless db, so sql doesn't cut it.
by robmnl 19y ago
Yes, that's true. But I still have a requirement for a schemaless db, so sql doesn't cut it.
- mooneater 19y agoIf by schemaless you mean the arbitrary name/attribute pairs, you could simply use SQL, with an "attribute" table with "name" and "value", and "nodeid" columns.
- bayareaguy 19y agoBy schema-less, do you mean that it's possible that every new record in the database could have a few attribute-values that no other record has, or that you simply don't know what your attributes are at this time but at some point you will know them all?