Re: Unknown SQL

Bob Badour wrote:
> >> I go further. It guarantees that OODBMS will never even begin to
 approach
> >> the quality, functionality and performance of a relational database.
> >
> >This statement obviously is wrong.
> >- Quality is only a function of time put into development.
>
> Wrong. Quality is a function of the principles guiding development. An
> unprincipled approach will never catch up to a principled one.

Indeed, my words to "quality" are stupid. It looks like I am getting tired of arguing with you and I am loosing patience and concentration. I should do better things at 2:30 A.M. than write 10-word-sentences, how quality is achieved in software development. Other people can't explain it in 300 page books.

Just to prove you are wrong too:
You have 15 minutes to write a relational database. :-)

> >- Performance of object databases is clearly by far superior to
 relational
> >databases for certain tasks.
>
> Wrong. Performance is a function of the physical structures used to store
> data. The relational data model makes no restrictions on these physical
> structures. As such, it can certainly achieve the same performance as any
> other data model.

For *certain tasks* I can prove the performance advantages empirically. Why bother about your theory?

• Relational databases need to split single objects up on multiple tables. Passing keys back and forth to link the pieces together simply costs performance.
• Object databases can analyze objects directly, without the need to convert them to a SQL string representation. That is much faster.
• Many usecases for commercially used relational databases involve incredible driver overhead. Converting data over JDBC -> ODBC for instance, drastically slows down performance.

Kind regards,
Carl

---
Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com