Not really. A straightforward implementation has nothing to do with database usage. A resolver is an endpoint. You can leverage that like you can in any other http backend server.
Nested resolvers can incur extra queries as you follow down the tree, unless you put extra effort into pre-fetching what child nodes need, or some kind of data loader as GP suggested.
query {
parent {
child {
field
}
}
}
A straightforward, naive implementation would resolve `parent`, then a resolver for `child` would execute, then for `field`. If `child` is a table linked by an FK, a second query would be executed, unless you pre-fetch the results through a join when resolving `parent`.