Schema-free Database (Part 2): Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)

As outlined in Part 1 of this series (, a ‘schema-free database’ is an oxymoron and in fact the notion of schema is changing from a more restrictive to a more flexible interpretation in context of NoSQL database technology.

So it is only consequential to ask the question the other way around (as a thought experiment): is it possible to build a relational database management system that does not enforce a schema, and if so, how would such a system look like on an abstract level?

Yes, it is possible to have a non-schema-enforcing RDBMS. Let’s discuss two variations next.

Definition of No-Schema-Enforcing Relational Database Management System

What functionality would be altered in order to provide a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS? If it were possible to create a table without specifying columns (aka, only a table name), and then to insert, update and delete rows, then a ‘schema-free’ RDBMS would be in place. This would mean in detail:

  • Rows do not have to comply to a schema when inserted into a table. Different rows in the same table could have different attributes (columns) and the same attributes of different rows could have different domains (flexible type system).
  • By defining a table without specifying columns (names and domains), a table would not define a primary key, either (neither a simple, nor a composite key). Applications inserting or updating rows can behave nicely and add properties with values that comply to the primary key semantics, but the RDBMS would not be aware of it and consequently would not enforce primary key compliance.
  • By the same token, foreign keys would not be enforced by the RDBMS for the same reasons.
  • Since no primary key enforcement is in place, duplicate rows will not be prevented by the RDBMS and any supervision is left to the application systems.
  • Indexes are independent of schema specification and assuming that indexes are maintained on tables, not all rows might be present in an index if the attributes defined by the index are not contained in a row.

Surprisingly (or not), defining a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS is pretty straight forward.

Variation on No-Schema-Enforcing RDBMS

An interesting variation of a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS could be that a schema, primary keys, foreign keys, etc., are specified as usual, however, without being actively enforced; instead, warnings are given by the RDBMS. For example, a row not complying to the schema can actually be inserted, but the result would not be a ‘OK’, but a warning indicating a schema violation.

This can be described as a ‘middle ground’ in widening the schema interpretation where the RDBMS is aware of a schema and warns of violations without rejecting the various DML operations.

Characterization of No-Schema-Enforcing RDBMS

Could a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS (any of the variations) be a useful database management system? Yes, as it would be the equivalent (on the relational model) to NoSQL databases (on JSON/BSON model or key value model).

For use cases where the flexible schema interpretation is key, such a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS could fit the bill (possibly better) than a NoSQL database system if the use case is fundamentally relational in nature (as opposed to e.g. hierarchical or key/value) and if SQL as the query language is important.

Further Exploration

There are additional areas in a RDBMS that will have to change their behavior in a no-schema-enforcing implementation. Only briefly (and not exhaustively), these are

  • Triggers. Triggers are specified on tables and state changes of rows. If particular attributes are referenced inside the trigger, then not every update, insert, read or delete will execute the trigger logic.
  • Stored procedures. Stored procedures often have parameters of specific types and assume a specific set of attributes when processing rows. In a no-schema-enforcing situation the stored procedure has to be able to deal with variations of rows.
  • Functions and function extensions. Functions have to be changed similarly to stored procedures. Not only from the viewpoint of parameters, but also the processing logic.
  • Aggregation. Aggregation will have to change in various ways as the various aggregation functions cannot assume that all attributes are of the same type. Neither can they assume that all attributes are actually present in all rows of a table.

In principle, every concept and every implementation aspect of a RDBMS needs to be re-examined wrt. a wider and more flexible interpretation of ‘schema’. NoSQL systems, by their definition and approach, started with a wider interpretation and consequently made all the conceptual and implementation decisions. They are one source of approach in this regard.

Contact Me

If you plan to explore or to build a no-schema-enforcing RDBMS, please contact me.

Joins: (Almost) Impossible to Avoid in Document-oriented Databases

There is a lot of ‘chatter’ about the concept and support of joins in document-oriented databases. So what is the underling issue?

Joins in RDBMS

‘Join’ in the relational world is an operation on two relations that relates the tuples in these relations with each other based on some comparison criteria on the tuples’ attributes. For example, the comparison can be ‘R1.a = R2.b’ and so for each tuple from the first relation R1 all tuples from the second relation R2 are retrieved and combined that match the comparison, meaning, the attribute ‘a’ must match the attribute ‘b’. A detailed discussion can be found here:

Joins allow to relate data from different relations and the join operator is supported by a relational database management system. A typical use case is to find all parts that a supplier supplies. And, for a given part, find all its suppliers. The suppliers and parts are usually stored in different relations and the data have an m:n relationship with each other.

Joins across Documents?

So why the chatter, then? If a document-oriented database stores data in different document collections and if the documents need to be related to each other, then a join is in order. The example of suppliers and parts applies here in the exact same way.

Now, if a document-oriented database does not support joins, what to do? Well, in reality the join will be performed in some layer above the database in a programming language. If all suppliers have to be displayed for a given part, then a program that computes this result effectively implements a join; it is not done in the database, though.

Pre-joined data in Documents?

Some optimization is possible. If the access pattern follows an 80-20 rule, then document-oriented databases allow some hard-coded optimization. If in 80% of the cases the suppliers for a part are requested, and only in 20% the opposite, then the designer of the document layout could create for each part document a sub-collection ‘supplier’ that contains the suppliers of this part. In 80% of the cases no join is necessary any more as the suppliers are ‘pre-joined’ with the parts they supply, only in the 20% of the cases a join is necessary.

However, this causes what in the relational world is called anomalies: If a supplier is removed, then all part documents have to be searched for this supplier. Or if a supplier is added, then all those part documents have to be updated that are supplied by this supplier. Updating supplier data also requires to search the part documents. Pre-joining is effectively a specific de-normalization activity for performance reasons.

Does the type of relationship matter?

Are there relationships that by their nature can be pre-joined without penalty? A very specific relationship, the part-of relationship, falls into this category. It is a ‘clean’ approach since the life time of the part-of objects are the exact same as the containing object.

Another relationship that feels as if pre-joining makes sense is the 1:1 relationship where two objects are exclusively related to each other. However, this is not really the case as one object would be a property of the other and that then could be done the other way around, too. So the 80-20 rule case applies here, too.

In reality, however, relationship between data are usually a lot more complex then just part-of relationships. This in turn means that joins will be necessary. The only real exception is if the 80-20 rule is really a 100-0 rule. This would mean that all access are the exact same and no joins are necessary.

Underlying Conceptual Foundation

Conceptually as soon as independent entities (i.e. objects in their own right) are related to each other, and if their relationship is traversed in both directions at some point in time during the execution of the application, a join is necessary and factually taking place.

Pre-joining is the materialization of the traversal in one direction. So two pre-joins, one for each direction, are possible. If the pre-join in both directions takes place, no join has to be performed upon retrieval; however, the join functionality was applied at time of update or insert in order to accomplish the pre-joins.

As soon as pre-joins exist, possible update, insert and delete anomalies have to be carefully taken care of as pre-joins are the equivalent to de-normalization and therefore data redundancy. At insert, update and delete time all redundant copies of the objects have to be found and the appropriate functionality applied.

Pre-joins are for read-performance reasons only; they are not a conceptual matter and in fact cause additional work at insert, update or delete time instead; so the computational work shifted, but is not avoided.


‘Join’ is a database operator. The same functionality can be implemented in application code outside or ‘on top’ of the database. Most likely the method or function is not called ‘join’ even though it in fact implements that functionality. So be aware of the situation that a document-oriented database does not implement a join and the engineers claim not to need one. The functionality of a join might just be there under a different name.

Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)

Why a blog on Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)? Isn’t there enough said about this type of database? Yes, there is. This post is to call out a few aspects of the relational model that I want to refer to in context of RDBMSs for subsequent discussions. In addition, it re-establishes terminology.


Briefly, normalization attempts to remove data duplication and data dependencies so that an update of a data item has to be done only once for the whole data set to be consistent again (

Universal Relation

The Universal Relation is mostly an assumption that states: it is possible to store all data in one big, wide table. For a discussion, see Jeffrey D. Ullman: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Volume II. Computer Science Press 1989, ISBN 0-7167-8162-X.

In a way, the universal relation is the ‘opposite’ of a perfectly normalized relational schema. It also assumes that the semantically same attributes are named the same way in different relations. As a consequence, many columns might have null values. But for the thought experiment, this is perfectly valid.

Part-Of Relationship

The part-of relationship consists between an owning object and an owned one whereby the owned object’s life cycle is tightly bound to the owning one: if the owning object is deleted, the owned one will be deleted, too. The owned object exists in context of the owning object and does not have a life on its own.

In the relational model there is a choice how this can be modeled. In principle, the owned objects can be in their own relation, separate from the owning objects in their own relation. In addition, there is a foreign key relationship from the owning to the owned relationship.

Alternatively, the owned objects can be in the same relation as the owning objects. Both would be in the same row. This is basically the case when the owned object is a scalar domain value. In this case it is almost automatically in the same relation as the owning data.


De-normalization is about combining data that would otherwise be in separate relations when being fully normalized ( This introduces redundancy and dependencies in the model for the sake of access improvement and access speed.

In a sense, the universal relation is the ultimate form of de-normalization.


In the relational database management system world the data are stored as rows in tables. A table provides a fixed structure whereby every column defines one and only one data type. Any row stored in a table, therefore, must comply to the types of the columns. The only exception is ‘null’ since ‘null’ can be of any data type. The significance is that tables are well-defined in terms of data types and rows have to comply to the table definition. This makes it a strictly typed system: the set of all table definitions constitute the schema.

Schema changes are possible in most RDBMS implementations. It is possible to add, to change or to delete columns. One consequence is that all rows in the table have to change so that their values comply to the new column definitions. Adding and removing tables is possible, too. The ‘hard’ part about changing a table is that all rows have to be changed accordingly; it is not possible to only have the change apply to future rows or when rows are updated.


This blog recalled a few important concepts from the relational model and relational database management systems. These will be referred to and used in future blogs.