Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

>Mabel TrigØis wrote in message <01bd230c$6c367590$ec0bbac3_at_m3bj1>...
>>I am not trying to make the 'polemique'. I am preparing a paper and I
 would
>>need to clarify some points:
>>
>>Comparing relational, object oriented and objects databases.
>>
>>1) Differences.
>>2) Common points.
>>3) Future of relational, object oriented and objects databases.
>>

Take a look a this, the Cetus object link: http://www.rhein-neckar.de/~cetus/software.html

Because this was the subject of the finishing project on my Computer Science study, I'll insert my abbreviated $0.02 here:

There is no technical reason when ODBMS should not replace RDMBS. An ODBMS can easily be made a superset of RDBMS functionality. Some problems of RDBMS are:

• No (object) identity for referencing
• No duplicate handling (In RDBMS, what looks the same, is the same)
• Bad complex data handling. Everything must be broken down into rectangular tables. The relations between these smashed bits are not part of the model.
• Bad programming language integration (impedance mismatch) SQL and relational algebra are computationally incomplete and there is no fitting alternative that is.
• No extensibility. You can't add new basic data types.

Ok, ok, so I'm not very objective. the reason for this is, that I believe that relational databases are frustrating the computer evolution towards global distributed computing.

Richard Received on Sun Jan 18 1998 - 00:00:00 CST