Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.databases > #346
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.databases |
| Subject | Re: Reaction against RDBMS? |
| Date | 2013-01-25 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <amg84rFmc3gU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <fuidnU3R8MyXPGDNnZ2dnUVZ5vmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <am5ne6Faac8U1@mid.individual.net> <77qdnfWkpe0PhmPNnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <am8hfdFu0smU1@mid.individual.net> <gZmdnejSt4Ad2GLNnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
On 01/23/2013 03:05 AM, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: > >> Yes: not all applications need the strict consistency rules (ACID) which >> typical RDBMS implementations of TX handling provide and not all >> applications need immediate access to all basic data fields (i.e. >> retrieval of complete documents is OK for many applications or even more >> efficient). By abandoning these more performance can be achieved and >> replication becomes easier just to name . So NoSQL database have real >> benefits for particular use cases (same as RDBMS have as well - just >> other use cases). > > Okay, thanks for the analysis. How would you compare component files > (datatypes which are implicitly serialized to the filesystem but which > appear just as regular datatypes in the language once loaded), columnar > databases (such as VectorNova's RDBMS), and NoSQL sort of databases? I don't have enough experience with all of these to make an informed comparison. > I also > recall some databases going through a lot of effort to make XML handling go > hand-in-hand with the Relational model. I tend to think of XML objects as > complete, structured documents, so I immediately thought of that when you > mentioned the whole document retrieval method. Do you think this is a > misguided idea (mixing XML with the relational model)? Do you think it's a > completely different use case than what NoSQL is good for? Well, as you said: RDBMS with XML support can really do both - tables and structured documents. I haven't seriously worked with XML feature in RDBMS to judge fitness of this approach. It does seem to be a general approach to include non typical data types into RDBMS so there seems to be some need for this in the market - or at least vendors believe there is. Kind regards robert
Back to comp.databases | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Reaction against RDBMS? "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2013-01-21 15:11 -0500
Re: Reaction against RDBMS? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-01-21 21:40 +0100
Re: Reaction against RDBMS? "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2013-01-21 23:54 -0500
Re: Reaction against RDBMS? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-01-22 23:17 +0100
Re: Reaction against RDBMS? "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2013-01-22 21:05 -0500
Re: Reaction against RDBMS? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-01-25 21:27 +0100
csiph-web