Re: Relational and multivalue databases

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c16836$jht$1_at_news.netins.net...
> Yes, it is simply a key-value -- that is function(key) = value type of
data
> storage. In fact, it makes more sense to call it a file structure than a
> database. When I first saw PICK (as a manager at a new place of
employment)
> I remarked "that is NOT a database"! I don't care what we call it, but I
> wouldn't want to go back to the DBMS's that my teams and I had worked with
> in the past. It would simply not be stewardly (in terms of dollars and
> people time) to do so. But I'll keep working at determinig whether this
is
> a fluke or whether there really is a good logical reason for
non-relational
> data storage to be advisable in more instances than, perhaps, a relational
> model is appropriate.

Dawn,

Relational is not about the cost. It is not about storage either. Some folks say it's about data management, but I would disagree. It's just a high level programming model. Unless, you demonstrate some innovative Pick methods in that area, you'll have hard time finding good listeners here on cdt.

Speaking about cheap solutions, there are open source databases... Received on Sat Feb 21 2004 - 02:13:56 CET