Re: Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases

"Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote in message news:419104f5$0$146$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> Well, you still owe me (us) to prove your postulate :
> "Hierarchical and network databases DO have a performance edge over
> relational databases"
> The burden of proof is yours, not mine ...

I don't owe you anything at all. I didn't take on any "burden of proof" when I made my original comment.

My original comment was directed back to the OP. His original question was about how to respond to OO people who claimed that hierarchical dababases were "better than" relational ones. He went on to speculate that the comparison was based on performance, from the OO point of view.

I support that speculation. First off, I find it difficult to believe that the OO people had anything other than performance in mind. It's hard to know what other basis one would have for making such a claim. Second, my comment was an offhand one, and really doesn't need to be defended on the field of honor with pistols at 50 feet. Nor does it place a "burden of proof" on me.

But, more importantly, you've completely dismissed the major point I was making to the OP: that relational databases are STILL better than hierachical or network databases EVEN IF the point about performance is conceded. That was the real gist of my reply. I'm sorry you didn't get that, and chose to home in on a minor premise, rather than the major premise.

In short, I was trying to address the OP's original question. Are you?
>
> Now, you are free to define "orthogonal" as you like, but you are not free
> to define what I mean. <g>

I'm just trying to explain to Dan what most people use it to mean around here. If the shoe fits, wear it. Received on Tue Nov 09 2004 - 19:48:50 CET