Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:49:19 GMT
Message-ID: <j5sHf.480197$2k.314310_at_pd7tw1no>

Mark Townsend wrote:
> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>

>>> I agree there are people who are blind and can't see sqlserver will
>>> not have the same set of features as Oracle in even a hundred years
>>
>>
>>
>> Does it need it? SQL Server has CLR which means it can be expanded 
>> infinitely.
>>

>
> Well - Oracle also supports CLR in the database as well. However the
> ability to extend a database with stored procedures etc written in CLR,
> Java or even a database's own data processing language does not equate
> to the ability to add new features to the database.
>
> ...

I'm curious how CLR per se 'expands' (advances?) the db. I noticed something that is maybe related called Qlink or similar by one of the CLR authors but it seemed like bumpf to me. Is CLR anything more than a copycat of the JVM (the JVM seeming to me to be nothing more an interpreted version of some arbitrary low-level assembly language with a few complex operators added for an object/typing machine of some sort, which isn't necessarily relevant to database theory)?

cheers,
pc Received on Sat Feb 11 2006 - 21:49:19 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Tony Rogerson: "Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec"
Previous message: csigline_at_hotmail.com: "Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec"
In reply to Mark Townsend: "Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec"
Next in thread: murthi: "Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec"
Reply: Tony Rogerson: "Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message