Re: columnstores non relational?
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:52:44 -0000
Message-ID: <1189162364.119204.55900_at_d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
On 7 sep, 08:36, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> 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.
That is not really what Michael Stonebraker is saying. He is only trying to make the point that it might not necessarily be a good idea to have one tightly integrated DBMS for all your data storage and data manpulation needs. Not only because in different situations you might want very different storage strategies, but also because a more specialized DBMS might be easier to configure, tune and maintain for the task at hand. Which data model such DBMSs would have at the logical level is less relevant for that discussion, although of course also not completely irrelevant.
> A free columnstore dbms in motion:http://monetdb.cwi.nl/
Yep. Amsterdam rules! ;-)
- Jan Hidders