Re: Quote from comp.object

"DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1172776674.096197.42640_at_k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 10:37 am, Sampo Syreeni <d..._at_iki.fi> wrote:
> > [snip] Hence, the RM places little to no constraints on optimization.
[snip]
>
> I agree with Sampo's onservations, with one practical caveat.
>
> One principle objective of relational DBMS systems is to separate data
> management from application code, allowing several applications to
> share one database. This leads to situations where the DBMS is
> implemented as one set of (operating system) processes, and the
> application(s) in another(others).
>
> Most hierarchical systems--IMS, Pick etc -- share with many embedded
> data managers -- Berkeley DB, etc -- the property that the data
> management is co-resident with the application code in a single
> process. By avoiding the cost of moving data between processes,
> hierarchical data managers adopting this architecture gain
> considerable response time and throughput advantages.
>
> That said, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in practice. Business
> flexibility trumps computer performance every time (so long as
> performance meets some minimal, usually pretty low-bar, level).
>

Hear, hear!

I've never seen the above quite so well put, especially the part concening the minimal performance bar. Received on Fri Mar 02 2007 - 22:52:15 CET