[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Surely you're
> not saying that you are opposed to using RDB's for any real world
> problems requiring extensive normalization? Or maybe you're saying
> that if you've got to do extensive normalization you prefer other
> forms of databases?
Relational databases are a very useful tool, there are some jobs they are
very good at (mainly the kind of jobs that people used punched cards for 50
years ago).
But surely you're not saying that they're the only tool, that all persistent
data should be held in relational databases? How many word processors or
email servers use an RDB to store their data?
There have always been some jobs that the relational model was not well
suited to. Like any tool, you should use it when it suits the task in hand,
and not otherwise.
The need for extensive normalization is one of the features that suggests an
RDB might not be the best tool for a particular job. The need for recursive
query is another. Additional indicators are intrinsic ordering, an
intrinsic notion of object identity, the absence of a predefined schema, or
the need for non-boolean queries. You can stretch relational technology to
tackle some of these problems, but only by making it non-relational.
You seem to be adopting a position where one has to defend a decision not to
use an RDBMS. That's absurd.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
