[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
pop3 wrote:
> I agree that mappings among models are useful.
>
> But I wish to note that the farther one gets away from the hardware the
> less robust, slower and harder to optimize the resulting system becomes.
Oh how far we've come, that someone can claim that an rdbms is
(relatively) close to the hardware.
For you young'uns, relational advocates spent a decade or so listening
to lectures about how rdbms's would never perform well, and how
(heirarchical,network,flat-file) systems were the right choice because
they were "close to the hardware".
I guess now that relational systems are the mainstream, it's their turn
to give the lecture.
Note please, that the relational advocates may be right--I don't know
enough to say. I just find it ironic that one could replace "rdbms" with
"flat file", "XML" with "SQL" and TeraText with "Sybase" below and be
transported right back to the 1980's. (Come to think of it, I guess
you'd need to replace "terabyte" with "gigabyte" too...)
> Specifically, if the application design for a terabyte system works out
> to be a mapping between an rdbms and an XML tool like TeraText, and then
> a separate, different mapping between the XML tool set back to a rdbms,
> then my point is that the resulting system will have more failure
> points, be harder to tune, and generally less robust than a "native"
> system.
Jim
|
