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

Josip Almasi wrote:
> Ed Prochak wrote:
> >
> > Problems I've seen with network databases:
> > sometimes there is not way to get directly to a given bit of data. You
> > have to walk the network instead.
>
> But note that things differ in _object_ databases - you may have a
> repository of all object id's.

Consider a simple query. let's say the database is for real estate. You have objects for cities and homes. How about counting how many homes colored grey in each city?

>
> > Links are fast for access, but updates can be a heavy operation,
> > changing LOTS of pointers. A consequence of this is error recovery. An
> > update that is only partially completed when a system crash occurs
> > (power still gets lost even these days) can wreck the DB. Some DB have
> > functions to "rebuild the links". This can make crash recovery very
> > time consuming and error prone.
>
> Well I didn't really work with OODBs but with OR mappers. And I found
> that if I keep polymorphism, I get more error resistant db. Although I
> need to update more tables in object than in usual relational model,
> these are all cheap atomic operations based on unique id's.
>
> You are right in general of course. But object model/db is not a general
> network.
>
> Regards...

But Dmitry is claiming network Model. At least he hasn't objected to my calling his DB that and he has used the term himself.

I don't think I would have any great love for an object DB, especially if it uses the typical garbage collection cleanup as OO languages seem to be so fond.

but I note you build upon a RDBMS. leading me to think you agree that the premise of this thread is false, even in the long term.

Where's the guys from the theory group? Have you guys nothing to say on this matter?

  Have a good day.
   Ed Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 23:18:58 CEST