Yeah, its definitely weird...and you will have to change your data mindset to conform to the hierarchical needs of XML.
I just did a google on the original poster's request, and this looked interesting. Note that I did not say "this is a good idea!". :-) Personally, I would just sack up and use MSDE, MySQL, or Access. --b Bryan Batchelder eBusiness Consultant ConnectWise, Inc. 813-935-7100 x 425 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [DOTNET] XML is not a database > > > Bryan Batchelder wrote: > > > In memory databse using XML and Xpath: > > http://www.15seconds.com/issue/010410.htm > > While this is an interesting possibility, it presents a few (perhaps > important) problems: > > 1. Significant memory consumption. For the moment, XPath > requires a DOM, and > a DOM requires the entire XML file be loaded. If you data is even > remotely large, this can be a pretty stiff penalty. > > 2. Significant performance penalty. Loading and parsing the > entire XML file > before you can perform any search can be expensive. You > can minimize this > by loading the XML once on startup, but then that grows > your in-memory > footprint significantly. If you're searching constantly, > then that's > acceptable, but if you're not, then it probably isn't. > > 3. XML is hierarchic, not relational. It may not fit the data model, > especially if you have complicated many-to-many > relationships. This could > be represented well in an object database, but XML is just > text. Those > relationships need to be stored and re-computed upon load. > > 4. No complex querying. You can find nodes if you know what > you're looking > for, but searching based on comparisons and relationships > (one of SQL's > strengths) just can't be done without significant additional code. > > In short, I find the desire to treat XML as a database a > little unusual. They aren't the same thing, and aren't meant > to be the same thing. If performance is the goal here, then > believe me when I say that Access is going to beat the snot > out of XPath for complex queries (since you'll end up writing > additional code to cover XPath's shortcomings), and with less > memory impact. Plus the code will be done a heck of a lot > sooner, which -- let's be honest -- is typically a major > factor in engineering projects. > > I wonder where this "XML is a database" sentiment comes from, > because it seems to be awfully prevalent in the engineering > community (not just the Windows community, either). I love > XML and use it all the time to transport structured data, but > this is just a little bewildering for me. > > Brad > > -- > Read my web log at http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/ > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe > from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at > http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
