Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:10:20 -0000
Take SQL Server implementation of CLR.
You can write a User Definied scalar function in say C# that uses the regular expression library for instance to validate the EmailAddress column contains a valid email, now you can use that CLR function inside a regular CHECK constraint on your table which is very powerful. People might say, well do the validation in the application, thats true - but you could really do with integrity at the heart, what's to stop your DBA loading rubbish data?
Within SQL Server, CLR runs in-process, alongside SQL Server; the main reason for it late shipping - its so bolted into the product; it doesn't cause instability unlike using extended stored procedures because of the way .NET works.
-- Tony Rogerson SQL Server MVP http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:j5sHf.480197$2k.314310_at_pd7tw1no...Received on Sat Feb 11 2006 - 22:10:20 CET
> 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)?