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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:00:18 GMT
Message-ID: <SPArg.7612$pu3.169605@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Ed Prochak wrote:

> Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
> 

>>Hello Ed,
>>
>>
>>
>>>Seems like classic network structure (I'm not sure it is a classic
>>>network model. The fact that every node is essentially independent and
>>>apparently "freeform" (knowing the structure of the parent tells you
>>>little or nothing about a child node).
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>It is illusion that RDB is better in such cases. Lets compare RDB &
>>NDB.
>>For example we need to find some instance attribute by its id.name.
>>
>>>From abstract logical point of view:
>>
>>RDB: navigate to DB, navigate to Table, navigate to Row, navigate to
>>Field, get Value

This idiot is a complete moron. 'Navigate to' with the RM?!? Total nonsense.

>>NDB: navigate to DB, navigate to Node, navigate to Field, get Value
>>NDB is "faster" ))

Certainly, NDB navigates. It is not in any way faster.

> ASSUMING you can get directly to the desired node. That's a big
> assumption. More likely it is:
> NDB: navigate to DB, navigate to root Node, navigate to branch Node,
> navigate to target Node,  navigate to Field, get Value
> 
> Or do you have one grand parent node which points to EVERY node in the
> DB?

And what is the equivalent operation for Join? Project? Union? Intersect? Existential Quantification? Universal Quantification? Restrict?

[irrelevancies snipped] Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 17:00:18 CDT