Noons wrote:
> mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0410200902.53af24b9_at_posting.google.com>...
>>I alway wondered what is the true value of those bells and whistles.
> Because you reject that they can be useful?
Because often they are not useful, or priceworthy, for a given specific
application. I think a core point of this, carefully flame free, thread
so far has been that on eneeds to know ones requirements to knwo which
"bells and whistles" are needed in a specific case.
>>Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and
> Most definitely not. That is a file system. A *database* (that is what the
> "D" in RDBMS stands for) is not even necessarily a SQL execution engine:
> it could be an execution engine for many other languages. And then there
> is the *relational* bit attached to it: the "R". IF you don't know what that
> means and what it can do *way beyond* SQL itself ever will, then there
> is no point in going there. Just use it as a "SQL engine". While others laugh.
Uhm.. while splitting hair one must be careful not to cut ones fingers.
A database is a repository. Its just sits there. Quiet and dumb.
It's that MS (management system) part that does all the work. To the
best of my knowledge neither Oracle nor IBM are in the business of
selling databases.
Now that R correlates, for all major RDBMS that I know, quite well with
SQL as it's access language. Do you know of other languages commonly
used in an RDBMS? Yes, there could be, but there aren't.
Now products have a tendency to evolve beyond the original purpose.
All major vendors support procedural extensions of some sort which are
more or less interacting with the relational engine.
And different vendors have different opinion on how many extensions to
the core should be part of that core RDBMS or stay components to be
added on.
Each his/her religion I 'spose. In the end RDBMS integrate with other
middleware and apps. Be it as the killer product or a component of one.
There is a lot of bloat going on in the market (and I'm not excluding
any vendor)
and that's where the open source products come in...
>>everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
>>fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
>>itemized:
> Your primary purpose is totally wrong. You don't need a RDBMS,
> you need only a SQL engine. Obviously, you can do everything
> else the database can do, yourself, and better. What can I say?
He may be part of a significant part of the customer base for RDBMS.
Not everyone needs a Winnebago. Some folks just want to commute to
work... Mind you that doesn't make Winnebagos bad
Cheers
Serge
Received on Thu Oct 21 2004 - 07:31:39 CDT
