Re: columnstores non relational?
From: David Portas <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas_at_acm.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:14:10 +0100
Message-ID: <yKKdnUY757WLLHzbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:14:10 +0100
Message-ID: <yKKdnUY757WLLHzbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
news:46e0f150$0$238$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>I couldn't read the article (site was down) which is
> supposed to claim that RDBMSs "should be considered legacy technology.";
> I don't see how the storage stategy necessarily
> affects the relationalness of a DBMS. Nice reads anyway:
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/06/1527258
> http://www.databasecolumn.com/2007/09/one-size-fits-all.html
>
> A free columnstore dbms in motion:
> http://monetdb.cwi.nl/
The Computerworld headline and the remarks attributed to Stonebraker are hype. He didn't write about the model, he wrote about the implementations of it.
-- David PortasReceived on Fri Sep 07 2007 - 22:14:10 CEST