Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

Just so that you know *table based* is not the same as *relational*. In most current implementations, it is actually a total antithesis for relational principle of independence between logical and physical layers. Keep in mind, they are currently NO relational DBMS implemented mainly SQL DBMS (ORACLE, DB2, SQL Server....)...

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
> > >> What exactly is the purpose of your revolutionnary technology?
> > >
> > > Primary purpose - modeling neural system with up to 2000000000 neurons.
> > > 1 neuron == 1 object instance.
> >
> > Sounds very nice, but it is not a sufficient reason to call for the
> > death of relational databases.
> >
>
> Of course it is absolutely no reason to call for RDB death just because
> i have my DB implemented. ))) As you can see earlier i had referenced
> this my experiment to show why i think that network object oriented
> databases can do all that RDB can. And what NOODB can do what RDB
> can't. It is just an example of non-relational features. Of course i
> can't kill Oracle or Microsoft by my experimental application ))) But i
> really belive that far future belongs to network databases, not to
> table-based.
>
> WBR,
> Dmitry
Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 14:35:09 CEST