Re: relational tables and objects

From: Jan Hidders <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be>
Date: 31 Oct 2002 23:17:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3dc1abe2$1_at_news.uia.ac.be>


Dm. Arapov wrote:
>"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>> Just for my understanding, your library doesn't provide persistency, does
>> it?
>
>The library neither provides persistency, nor prohibits it. It is
>parameterized with a class, which function is to provide implementation of
>tables. [...] Our design goal was to allow users have their own
>implementations of tables and indexes. RTL makes possible to have different
>implementations for different tables. [...]

Ok. But would I then not also have to override/reimplement the relational operators (like GROUP BY or JOIN) to take the specific implementation into account?

>>in almost all cases a more specific data structure will perform better.
>
>Sure. It is an axiom, that in assembly language everything can be coded to
>perform better. It simply takes too long to tailor specific data structure
>for each case.

Axioms usually don't have empirical evidence. :-) But your argument works of course in both ways. Why would I use this library if I can use RDBMSs without the need of filling in templates or defining derived classes?

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Thu Oct 31 2002 - 23:17:06 CET

Original text of this message