data management

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:56:16 +0200
Message-ID: <44845403$0$31639$>

The need to support searching/finding is a reason for building fast access mechanisms, using indexes (isam, vsam, ...) or otherwise.

DBMS's use these access mechanisms and provide an easy-to-use interface to them. Anybody who has a DBMS can simply use these as features.
The ease this brings may give valid economical reasons
to use a DBMS just to take care of searching.

Like persistence/storage services - search and find services come with the product.

Maybe a little metaphor helps:
Sure you can buy an organ because it looks nice in the living room, or even just for the nice rhythm box it has built in.

But that is not what it is built for -
you are not using the organ as an organ
(even though you are using it as a musical instrument in the case of the rhythm box).

A DBMS is built to be a toolkit for

The R in RDB, for 'Relational' emphasizes that.

>>Further,  claiming that OO and RDB can coexist very nicely does not even
>>begin to demonstrate that the author is ignorant of data managment theory,
>>any more that anyone else.

> That depends on what OO means:
> - eggs
> - other orthogonals :-)
> - etc.
>>As for me,  I've seen a number of cases where OO and RDB did NOT coexist
>>very nicely,  so the claim that they CAN coexist very nicely carries some
>>element of surprise for me.  I'm skeptical, but I'm not about to dsimiss
>>it as ignorant.

OO and RM do coexist. We know how to make them coexist clumsily: Completely focus on the strengths of one of them, ignoring the strengths of the other. Now that's not a problem if you can do without coexistence; if you live on a RM or OO island. I don't.

> As for what some statements shows: they show our interpretation of our
> interpretation of them - our own foolishness.
Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 17:56:16 CEST

Original text of this message