Re: SQL Server Yukon

From: Rene Nyffenegger <rene.nyffenegger_at_gmx.ch>
Date: 29 Oct 2003 17:46:13 GMT
Message-ID: <bnoud4$sql7g$2@ID-82536.news.uni-berlin.de>

> In article <3F9E884A.363B43BD_at_remove_spam.peasland.com>,
> Brian Peasland <dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote:
>

>> > > and it's gonna get worse. just wait for M$ to bundle the db with the
>> > > OS...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Not going to happen.
>> > 
>> > Microsoft is not going to give away 90+% of the revenues from SQL
>> > Server just to gain a slightly
>> > larger share of the RDBMS market on a single platform.
>> 
>> Actually, it is supposed to happen. It has been widely publicized that
>> M$ will be replacing NTFS with a database running the SQL Server engine
>> (should be appearing in Longhorn). Instead of a file system that uses
>> directories, etc., one will just put their files into a database. It
>> should be obvious to this group the advantages of this approach. 

>
> Surely you meant "disadvantages". There are plenty of obvious
> disadvantages, but very few obvious advantages to taking something
> simple (files in a directory) and making it complex (files in an
> SQL database). Just sticking a file in a "database" isn't going to
> make it searchable or locate-able in any meaningful way.

I don't think that you just 'stick' the file into the database 'somewhere'. I have no idea how the design for the os&db thingy looks like, but I assume that the files will still be hierarchically stored (so as not to confuse 97% of windows users who are used to this concept). Additionally, you can assign whatever property you fancy to each file and index these properties which would allow to find files better than with a hierarchy-only approach.

Not that I like MS's bundling of os with db, though.

Rene

-- 
  Rene Nyffenegger
  http://www.adp-gmbh.ch

Received on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 11:46:13 CST