Role: Data Ontologist

Polyglot Persistence Architecture

Architectural guidance for using multiple database technologies together, with emphasis on PostgreSQL/Supabase (relational), Neo4j (graph), and MongoDB (document). Demonstrates when to use each database type and how to integrate them effectively.

When This Skill Applies

Use this skill when:

• Designing data architecture for new projects
• Choosing between relational, graph, and document databases
• Integrating multiple database types
• Schema design decisions
• Query optimization across databases
• Migration strategies
• Questions about when to use which database paradigm

Core Principle

Start with the graph. Optimise from there.

Most real-world domains are fundamentally about relationships. The graph is the truest representation of how entities connect. Start by thinking in nodes and edges, then decide where to persist based on access patterns and consistency needs.

Right database for right data concern

Don't force all data into one database type. Use:

• Relational (PostgreSQL/Supabase) - Structured data, transactions, strong consistency
• Graph (Neo4j) - Relationships as primary concern, traversal queries
• Document (MongoDB) - Semi-structured data, flexible schemas, nested documents

Graph-First Modelling Process

Before choosing databases, model the domain as a graph:

1. Identify nodes: What are the entities? (Users, Courses, Organisations, Products)
2. Identify edges: How do they connect? (ENROLLED_IN, REPORTS_TO, PURCHASED)
3. Annotate edges: Do relationships carry data? (role, since, quantity)
4. Spot patterns: Trees? DAGs? Social graphs? Bipartite structures?
5. Then persist: Given the graph, which parts need relational guarantees, which need traversal, which need flexible schemas?

// Step 1-3: Model the domain as a graph first
(:User)-[:MEMBER_OF {role: 'admin', since: date}]->(:Organisation)
(:User)-[:ENROLLED_IN {status: 'active'}]->(:Course)
(:Course)-[:REQUIRES]->(:Course)
(:User)-[:COMPLETED {score: 0.85}]->(:Module)
(:Module)-[:BELONGS_TO]->(:Course)

Then decide:

• Users and Organisations → PostgreSQL (transactional, auth, billing)
• MEMBER_OF, ENROLLED_IN, REQUIRES → Neo4j (traversal, recommendations, paths)
• Course content, Module materials → MongoDB (flexible nested content)

When to Use Relational (PostgreSQL/Supabase)

Strong Fit

Transactional Data:

• User accounts and authentication
• Order processing
• Financial records
• Inventory management

Structured Records:

• Clear schema with defined fields
• Data fits naturally into tables
• ACID guarantees required
• Standard CRUD operations
• Strong data integrity constraints

Examples:

-- Users table
CREATE TABLE users (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
  email TEXT UNIQUE NOT NULL,
  name TEXT,
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW()
);

-- Orders table
CREATE TABLE orders (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
  user_id UUID REFERENCES users(id),
  total DECIMAL(10,2),
  status TEXT,
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW()
);

Weak Fit

Highly Connected Data:

• Social networks (many-to-many relationships)
• Recommendation engines
• Organizational hierarchies with flexible depth

Reason: Joins become expensive, recursive queries complex.

Rapidly Evolving Schemas:

• Frequently adding new fields
• Different record types need different fields
• Exploratory data modeling

Reason: Migrations expensive, rigid structure.

When to Use Graph (Neo4j)

Strong Fit

Relationships as Primary Concern:

• Social graphs (followers, friends, connections)
• Recommendation systems (collaborative filtering)
• Knowledge graphs
• Access control with inheritance
• Dependencies and prerequisites

Variable-Depth Traversals:

• "Find all users within 3 degrees"
• "Shortest path between entities"
• "All ancestors in org chart"
• "Courses needed before advanced topic"

Examples:

// Social connections
(:User)-[:FOLLOWS]->(:User)
(:User)-[:BLOCKED]->(:User)

// Learning paths
(:Course)-[:REQUIRES]->(:Course)
(:User)-[:COMPLETED]->(:Course)

// Organizational structure
(:Person)-[:REPORTS_TO]->(:Person)
(:Person)-[:MEMBER_OF]->(:Team)

Weak Fit

Simple Lookups:

• User by email
• Order by ID
• Product details

Reason: Relational databases excel at indexed lookups.

Large Aggregations:

• Sum all orders this month
• Count users by region
• Analytics dashboards

Reason: SQL aggregations and window functions more powerful.

When to Use Document (MongoDB)

Strong Fit

Semi-Structured Data:

• Content management systems (blog posts, articles)
• Product catalogs with varying attributes
• User-generated content
• Configuration data
• API responses that need storage

Nested/Embedded Data:

• Comments within posts
• Order items within orders
• Addresses within user profiles
• Metadata with varying fields

Flexible Schemas:

• Rapid prototyping
• Evolving data models
• Different document types in same collection
• Optional fields vary by record

Examples:

// Blog post with embedded comments
{
  _id: ObjectId("..."),
  title: "Getting Started with SvelteKit",
  slug: "getting-started-sveltekit",
  author: { id: "user-123", name: "Alice" },
  content: "...",
  tags: ["svelte", "javascript", "tutorial"],
  comments: [
    { id: "comment-1", userId: "user-456", text: "Great article!", createdAt: ISODate("2024-01-15") }
  ],
  metadata: { views: 1250, readingTime: "5 min" },
  publishedAt: ISODate("2024-01-10")
}

// Product with varying attributes
{
  _id: ObjectId("..."),
  name: "Laptop",
  category: "electronics",
  price: 999.99,
  specs: { cpu: "Intel i7", ram: "16GB", storage: "512GB SSD", screen: "15.6 inch" }
}

// Different product type, different fields
{
  _id: ObjectId("..."),
  name: "T-Shirt",
  category: "clothing",
  price: 29.99,
  sizes: ["S", "M", "L", "XL"],
  colors: ["black", "white", "blue"],
  material: "100% cotton"
}

Weak Fit

Complex Transactions:

• Multi-step financial operations
• Strong ACID guarantees across documents
• Complex foreign key relationships

Reason: Relational databases better at multi-document transactions.

Relationship-Heavy Data:

• Social networks
• Graph traversals
• "Friends of friends" queries

Reason: Graph databases handle this natively.

Highly Normalized Data:

• No duplication tolerance
• Frequent joins needed
• Strong referential integrity

Reason: Relational databases enforce this better.

Decision Framework

Question 1: What's the primary data concern?

RELATIONSHIPS → Neo4j (Graph): social connections, recommendations, dependency trees, path finding

STRUCTURED ENTITIES → PostgreSQL (Relational): user accounts, financial transactions, inventory, orders

DOCUMENTS/CONTENT → MongoDB (Document): blog posts, product catalogs, CMS content, API data storage

Question 2: How stable is your schema?

VERY STABLE → PostgreSQL: well-defined entities, clear field types, rare schema changes, strong typing needed

EVOLVING → MongoDB: prototyping phase, frequently adding fields, different record structures, flexible modeling

SCHEMA-OPTIONAL → Neo4j: relationships more important than structure, dynamic properties, graph structure evolves

Question 3: How is data accessed?

BY KEY/ID → PostgreSQL or MongoDB: user by email, product by SKU, order by ID

BY TRAVERSAL → Neo4j: friends of friends, shortest path, recommendations

BY CONTENT/QUERY → MongoDB: full-text search, filtering nested documents, flexible queries on varying fields

Question 4: Do you need strong consistency?

ABSOLUTE → PostgreSQL: financial transactions, ACID guarantees, multi-step operations

EVENTUAL OKAY → MongoDB or Neo4j: content updates, social interactions, non-critical data

Question 5: Is data naturally nested?

YES → MongoDB: posts with comments, orders with line items, documents with metadata

NO → PostgreSQL: flat entities, many-to-many relationships, normalized structure

Additional resources

Worked examples and mechanical detail, loaded only when needed:

• real-world-examples.md: four full worked splits (social app, learning platform, e-commerce, CMS) showing which data lives where and why
• integration-and-schema.md: shared-key/reference/embed/event-sync/aggregation integration patterns, per-database schema design, query optimisation and indexing
• anti-patterns-and-migration.md: common mistakes (document-DB transactions, over-embedding, graph for simple lookups), migration strategy and worked migration scripts

Success Criteria

Architecture is successful when:

• Each database handles what it does best
• Queries are fast (minimal cross-database operations)
• Data consistency maintained appropriately
• Clear reasoning for database placement
• Can scale databases independently
• Schema evolution manageable
• Team understands the architecture