Re: What is the logic of storing XML in a Database?
Date: 29 Mar 2007 12:13:51 -0700
On 29 mar, 21:04, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Mar 29, 10:01 am, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> > > "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:1175112245.717262.275350_at_d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > I'm sure there are many people who have been through the same
> > > > experience as myself using xml as a transport format:
> > > > 1) Observe the popularity of XML and the supporting libraries in the
> > > > language you are working in.
> > > > 2) Implement a transport layer using XML to parse messages/data etc.
> > > > 3) Realise that your server/application is now over ten times slower
> > > > than it was before.
> > > > 4) Remove XML and replace with something far simpler, far less verbose
> > > > and vitally far /quicker to parse/.
> > > > 5) Curse XML for wasting your bloody time and never let it darken your
> > > > door again.
> > > There are really two discussions going on in parallel in this thread.
> > > One is about using XML for data transfer outside of a DBMS. I'm saying
> > > "DBMS" rather than "Database" intentionally here. A DBMS can move data
> > > across a network link, and even pass it to an inter-DBMS gateway.
> > > The other, the one actually asked by the OP, is about declaring columns
> > > type XML in tables.
> > > I use CSV for data tranfer between one DBMS and another, when I don't
> > > a workable gateway between the two DBMSes. It works just fine for me,
> > > I see no reason to add the complexity of XML.
> > > I see no reason to store XML database inside an SQL table. Perhaps if
> > > wanted to keep an accurate record of the incriminating evidence.
> > > Also, in your precis above, you implicitly refer to the "thundering
> > > argument. I buy the thundering herd argument as a reason for
> conforming, at
> > > times. I don't buy it as the path to excellence. Excellent solutions
> > > almost always beyond the reach of the thundering herd.
> > > The trick is to figure out when good enough is good enough, and when
> > > not.
> > Agreed. But I am afraid that discussing the use of XML or CSV quickly
> > becomes a sterile debate. I did it in the purpose to trigger some
> > questions about XML.
> Agreed. The first question you asked in this regard said it all: what
> would you do with XML that you couldn't do just as easily with CSV? For
> simple transport layer between two DBMSes, CSV suffices just fine. And,
> for those who must use a text editor, it's text based!
> (A little humor, here).
> You've gotten lots of answers to that question, but all of those answers
> beg the following question: why would you want to do those things outside
> the context of a DBMS, if you could do them inside the context of a DBMS?
I believe from these lasts comments that you begin to understand my real intent into triggering answers from XML proponents. See the *advantages* of XML listed by XML proponents. (Yes I made a list based on responses I received)...
Regards... Received on Thu Mar 29 2007 - 21:13:51 CEST