Nested structures
From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:57:02 -0700
Message-ID: <1158116222.115928.103830_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Some, but not all, of you will find this new IDC paper entitled "Because Not All Data is Flat: IBM's U2 Extended Relational DBMSs" to be of interest.
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:57:02 -0700
Message-ID: <1158116222.115928.103830_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Some, but not all, of you will find this new IDC paper entitled "Because Not All Data is Flat: IBM's U2 Extended Relational DBMSs" to be of interest.
Other than the fact that the term "flat" is used, which I know can be inflammatory in this NG, are there other logical responses?
I think the term "embedded" is misleading, given the number of companies that use these DBMS's for their enterprise systems. But I do understand that IBM has to be careful to position each of their offerings somewhat differently.
The information about the embedded market growing faster than the relational market is quite interesting. Perhaps there is and should be a different theory related to those DBMS's currently called "embedded"?
Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Sep 13 2006 - 04:57:02 CEST