SQL has a knack for doing really easy things well, and moderately complicated things badly. I would assume by default that anything involving graphs should not involve SQL. Recursive CTEs to me scream "you're about to spend hours debugging something trivial".
That would be a questionable assumption. SQL databases are a widely tested tool, and SQL itself can allow you to augment your "graph" with constraints and semantics that many graph-focused systems have trouble with. CTE's, while not entirely trivial, are not overly complex; they're not something you'd spend "hours" debugging.
Probably not in the same kind of resource-constrained way, no. Whilst it might be a suboptimal graph database, it's also not going to require 2GB of RAM to run...
(Previous use case was converting music industry data into RDF and providing query interfaces on top. That 1.1GB TTL is a CWR file converted to RDF as a stress tester.)
Relational databases are actually quite convenient for such cases because you can model each "group" of items via a database table, including potentially an associative table which provides "linkage" between items in the database. Graph-based models are generally more limited than that, e.g. RDF and SPARQL are limited to simple triples which link a "source" and a "target" entity (both of which are essentially non-typed) according to a fixed "predicate". You can sort of materialize triples and endow them with extra information, but it gets clunky.
I believe that someone may have done this in a nice way but every time I've encountered it (3 times thus far), it's always ended with complex SQL and tables being bent out of shape to try and keep performance.
> RDF and SPARQL are limited to simple triples which link a "source" and a "target" entity according to a fixed "predicate"
But can also infer transitive relations based on those predicates - `A canSee B`, `B canSee C` => `A canSee C` - which is handy when you're trying to discover those relationships in your data.
You can do this sort of inference in a view if you use relational databases. (A view is a sort of "virtual" table based on the result of some database query. Many databases can also materialize views for improved performance, though this can make it a bit challenging to manage updates.)
You'd need to use recursive queries though, I think, and there be dragons.
> [materialized views] can make it a bit challenging to manage updates
We're not using them with Postgres because refreshing materialized views is very much a blunt hammer and it'd cause more hassle than it would solve. Which is annoying because they've been great when I've used them previously.
Because SQLite is ubiquitous. It's simply everywhere. And it doesn't need a dedicated server to run.
I've actually been considering migrating away from neo4j to sql with recursive queries for performance reasons.
A schema may have only one, or anyway, comparatively very few instances, of recursion.
In this case, using two separate data stores would be too much overhead; if the CTE doesn't do anything particularly fancy, that is, if it just retrieves records recursively associated via keys, it's not implicitly hard to debug (actually, there isn't much to debug).
A point in case is GitLab's users management, which dropped MySQL also because of the lack of CTEs (at the time).
There are pure graph stores out there, AllegroGraph, OpenLink Virtuoso (although this is a strange hybrid of SQL + Graph technologies) and others - and for more advanced graph query constructs like path finding there are optimisations that are difficult/not well supported in SQL.
SQL is an implementation of relational algebra, and databases that implement it are relational databases for storing relational data.
Pointing at the name of a thing isn't an argument, I admit it, but asking "what could go wrong if we want to use a system tailored to relational data to deal with non-relational data?" strikes me as the sort of question that might turn out to have a compelling answer 6 months in when it is too late to easily change the database.
If I were involved in a project, I would be representing very hard that the data comes out of the relational DB using "SELECT * FROM table WHERE conditions" and then the clever graph things start happening. If the data needs to be read from disk using clever graph based algorithms, then use a clever, graph-based database. There are a bunch out there according to Wikipedia.
This is the basic argument here. If the situation is delicate enough we need the database to be doing graph operations, why would we pick SQLite? If it isn't, why would we pick SQL over Python?
I don't think it is bad that SQLite supports this, just ... what are the circumstances where this is a good idea? Is there a reason to do graph-style algorithms in SQL?
I don't think it's such a far-off fit from the relational database problem. Any time you have a table with a relation to itself, there's the potential to do graph-style algorithms on that data.
> If the situation is delicate enough we need the database to be doing graph operations, why would we pick SQLite?
Perhaps it has nothing to do with the situation being "delicate" and it is just a simple matter of it being less work and less lines of code to use a graph-style query in SQL, rather than re-implementing the graph algorithms in your application code or having to bring in an entirely new database system just to process one query.
This would suggest that pretty much every existing RDBMS has made some very bad decisions since JSON/XML types, arrays, and all sorts of other non-relational features have long been supported.
Given the nature of SQLite you probably aren't dealing with petabytes of data.