I am pretty confident that the specialized indices we use (implemented directly in C++) are significantly faster than implementing comparable indices in an enterprise DB would be.
I'm not sure what discussion of databases has anything to do with AGI.
The discussion started with a development environment to build AGI. One of the salient points was that many teams have reinvented the wheel by developing a custom "datastore" that has no necessary requirements that couldn't have been fulfilled by a commercial off-the-shelf relatively-cheap (and more important, standardized and more feature-packed) product.
My point is emphatically not that *everything* should be done in relational DBs (insulting that you would even think I was so foolish . . . . :-) but that it is silly to re-invent the wheel and waste time (and lose features) when you don't have to.
My original point is that you need an architecture where you can *easily* integrate as much COTS and special-purpose code as possible. The AGI community is in nine million separate silos with code that will never interoperate. That's why we need a development environment that will enable us to work together regardless of what our specialties (and biases) are.
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
