Re: Unknown SQL

Bob Badour wrote:
> >- Relational databases need to split single objects up on multiple
 tables.
>
> No, they do not. If you made any effort to educate yourself, at all, you
> would know better. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Date's and
> Darwen's _Third Manifesto..._ or Fabian Pascal's most recent contribution.
 I
> don't remember the exact title off the top of my head.

Of course you need to take objects apart! Would you store a 10-class-deep inheritance hierarchy to 1 table?

With a non-splitting-approach there could only be tables for every top-level class.
In Java you would end up with one single table: the table "Object"

> >Passing keys back and forth to link the pieces together simply costs
> >performance.
>
> This is not necessary, which makes your point moot.

What is your personal favorite method to generate foreign keys in a multi-user environment?

> >- Object databases can analyze objects directly, without the need to
 convert
> >them to a SQL string representation. That is much faster.
>
> Bullshit.

Again:
I can prove it empirically.

What are we dealing with in IT?
Theoretical or practical advantages?

> >- Many usecases for commercially used relational databases involve
> >incredible driver overhead. Converting data over JDBC -> ODBC for
 instance,
> >drastically slows down performance.
>
> Criticisms of JDBC and ODBC are hardly valid criticisms of relational
> databases. They do not equate.

JDBC and ODBC are widely used to eliminate implementation differences between relational vendors. In practice today on hundred-thousands of computers on this planet their protocol overhead slows down work and costs efficiency.

What database interface do you preferrably use, if you program with Java?

Kind regards,
Carl

---
Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com