Re: Is a RDBMS needed?

From: Andrew Kerber <>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:26:02 -0500
Message-ID: <>

This whole thing sounds to me like a social media application bent all out of shape for data storage. I suspect it will be slow and not secure. It occurs to me that if they want social media, they should use facebook or something rather than write their own. And if they want data storage they should use oracle or something rather than write their own. It really sounds like the development of the worst of both worlds.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Freeman <>wrote:

> It's kind of like my five kids.... they always want to go out and do things
> better than dad. Then later on, they have come back full circle and realized
> that maybe dad wasn't so wrong after all.....
> RDBMS's will stand the test of time, and will evolve as the need requires.
> Niche players will come, and they will go as soon as the standard RDBMS
> platforms catch up to new niche technology and needs. I can think of one
> particular niche player now in the content management field. Their
> "database" engine is specifiably designed for content managment and long ago
> it out shone Oracle in one niche area in terms of performance... but that
> was all it was good for, performance. You could not even do a hot backup on
> the thing or point-in-time recovery, etc...etc....etc... Now Oracle has
> caught up in this niche, performs at least as well as this player if not
> better and offers significantly more overall functionality. In the mean
> time, suckers shelled out millions of dollars for a short term solution that
> didn't offer the long term advantages of a platform with years of solid
> development and testing behind it. I project that within 5 years, this
> particular vendor will be another has-been or will be bought by someone.
> Just my 2 cents....
> RF
> Robert G. Freeman
> Master Principal Consultant, Oracle Corporation, Oracle ACE
> Author of various books on RMAN, New Features and this shorter signature
> line.
> Blog:
> just the opinion of one Oracle employee. I can be wrong, have been wrong in
> the past and will be wrong in the future. If your problem is a critical
> production problem, you should always contact Oracle support for assistance.
> Statements in this email in no way represent Oracle Corporation or any
> subsidiaries and reflect only the opinion of the author of this email.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Goulet, Richard" <>
> *To:*;
> *Sent:* Thu, June 9, 2011 12:03:40 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Is a RDBMS needed?
> Humm, Another feeble attempt to replace what 20 years+ of rdbms
> engineering has already done. Sorry to say that itís not the first and
> probably will not be the last. This is especially true with the JAVA NOSQL
> crowd who sooner or later have to give in to the RDBMS since they donít want
> to tackle the recovery, ACID compliance, and other issues that people like
> Oracle, Microsoft and PostGreSql (to name a few) have already fixed. Would
> not be the first time that a technology appeared to be the next best slice
> of bread only to die before getting off the pad, anyone ever hear of Ada?
> Few billions of US tax payer dollars went down that black hole to no good
> end and that was supported by one of the largest institutions in the world,
> the US Pentagon. So much for who supports it. BTW: If youíve ever heard of
> PL/SQL then youíve heard of Ada, by another name.
> And no, you are no dinosaur. The young have to be given their chance to
> explore, but in the end many ideas that looked good at the time donít
> withstand the test of time and some are just way before their time, like the
> old Edsel (push button transmission where the underlying technologies had
> not yet matured sufficiently).
> Richard Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA/Na Team Leader
> *From:* [mailto:
>] *On Behalf Of *Blake Wilson
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:23 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Is a RDBMS needed?
> Here at the University of Western Ontario we are looking at replacing our
> current Learning Management System. The current choices seem to be similar
> in technology and infrastructure - web tier, load balancer, application
> tier, back end RDBMS and some sort of content management system for the
> course content.
> However, the next release of one of our options will not have a RDBMS in
> the solution. It will be replaced by Apache Jackrabbit. The new system will
> have everything treated as content, including grades, test questions and
> answers, discussion threads, syllabi, personal profiles, chat messages, and
> so on.
> This seems like quite a departure from normal RDBMS based solutions. Is
> this a good idea? Am I being a dinosaur by thinking that this is not a good
> idea? Do I need to keep up with the times? Is this the future of databases?
> This really looks to me like a return to design of 20 years ago.
> Thanks,
> Blake Wilson

Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

Received on Thu Jun 09 2011 - 13:26:02 CDT

Original text of this message