Re: GDBM vs. RDBMS Research

if you are interested in performing simple operations like searching on a single key (typically equality searches) then gdbm might be better. for eg : LDAP uses gdbm for storing user information. it makes a lot of sense in this case because the only operation that ldap would need to do is retrieve the user information based on the user name. a full fledged rdbms is unnecessary in such a case.
as Mikito says , it is like comparing a paper airplane and 747 , just that sometimes a paper airlines is sufficient. -Asvin

On 26 Aug 2002, Mikito Harakiri wrote:

> Those are compared as paper airplan and 747. I can't name a single
> feature that RDBMS doesn't have and GDBM has.
>
> Alexey Popov <javaby_at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3D6A3587.9000409_at_yahoo.co.uk>...
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > You do not understand.
> > GDBM is GNU Database Manager. It's a library.
> >
> > Jan.Hidders wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3D6A1DD9.4090000_at_yahoo.co.uk>,
> > > Alexey Popov <javaby_at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I need public opinion about GDBM in comparison with RDBMS.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Those are not two distinct classes. A Geographical DBMS might be defined as
> > > any DBMS that has special support for geographical data in terms of
> > > querying, indexing and representing. So it could be an extended RDBMS or
> > > OODBMS, or ORDBMS, or something else entirely. In fact the extension might
> > > even stay within the particular paradigm of the DBMS and for example
> > > for the relational model define only a few extra domains with special
> > > operators. So it is a bit as if you are asking how convertibles compare to
> > > Mercedeses.
> > >
> > > -- Jan Hidders
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 27 2002 - 06:44:25 CEST