Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:49:27 +0100
Message-ID: <107qufwn4i91m$.19nq5tm03gxd2$>

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:04:16 +0000, Eric wrote:

> On 2008-03-06, Dmitry A. Kazakov <> wrote:

>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:27:58 -0800 (PST), topmind wrote:
>>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:34:05 +0000, Eric wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-03-04, Dmitry A. Kazakov <> wrote:
>>>>> I don't believe that merely using an RDBMS will solve all problems. What
>>>>> I meant was that, accepting what David said above, if you keep your data
>>>>> in an RDBMS, it will be easily available for the solution of any
>>>>> possible problem that can be solved using that data.
>>>> No, this as well is wrong. Keeping "data" in RDBMS puts certain
>>>> restrictions on what can be stored there and how it can be used later.
>> [...]
>>> cannot stop you from doing anything you want to with retrieved data.
>> Yes, exactly this is wrong. (I hope you don't have in mind retrieving all
>> content and continuing without RDBMS.)
> This is how any database-using program works - it retrieves the _relevant_
> data and does what it needs to do with it.

I wrote about "all" in order to exclude an argument to completeness. If it is not all, then "anything" does not apply.

(Simple example: a stream can be accessed randomly only if all read.)

I.e. the argument is wrong.

Dmitry A. Kazakov
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 18:49:27 CET

Original text of this message