> Honestly, i think graph db being more powerful is one of their more reasonable claims. Graph db trade off a more flexible data model (which some people would call power)
You can represent graphs in the relational model so that’s simply bullshit.
You can represent graphs in the relational model so that’s simply bullshit.
For certain types of queries, recommendation engines being a prime example, graph databases are awesome.
In any case you’re conflating a storage engine and a query language. There’s no reason an RDBMS implementation cannot be tuned for graphs, and there is no inherent lack of generality in the relational model which seems to be the prior posters claim. Whether Neo4j is a useful piece of software is a different topic.
Infinite self-joins are not elegant in relational algebra. They are very not elegant in SQL (recursive CTE's are soo ugly). Last of all, they are super inefficient in almost every RDBMS.
Somewhat ironic comment given the name of this site.
SQL stinks as a language in many ways, won’t argue there. However for many cases even PostgreSQL does just fine with recursive CTEs (though granted when it fails it does so hard). Oracle does better (and CONNECT BY has been around for over 40 years - someone’s been getting by with it). Graphs in RDBMSes are not uncommon.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the original claim. Are graph db implementations useful? Definitely (though often times sticking with the rdbms is the better choice). But they get their utility by being less flexible.