For a while you could do everything in the database.. everything. And since the DB was able to deliver results consistently, they got the power (deservedly so). This is why Oracle can convince companies to pay large sums of money which in turn helps them to wither alternatives. Now that the hardware/app landscape is changing the big problems is the RDB can no longer deliver like it has in the past yet they still have the power in the organization but with more strategic acquisitions, it won't matter. Oracle can still provide a large stack of stuff for a large stack of cash. It's brilliant.
As for technical details of OODBMS I think I can safely say that at some level of detail, the good ones worked all most the same an an RDB. Data was stored on pages which you'd fault in. Cluster buckets were used in an attempt to maintain locality (like or related things on the same page). Stable views were provided by the database (something db4o didn't have the last time I checked) which only changed on transactional boundaries. Throughput was limited by the write-write set conflict resolution along with time to write the tranlog record. Indexing on fields was available but no OOQL to really take advantage of this and consequently, no SQL by example like features (a maturity issue). I could go on. I think the best db technology that I've ever touched was network db technology. It seemed to be the most flexible and supported many different types or relationships in the data (relational and hierarchical). That said, no one understood them so they failed. People understand tables so non-technical people can understand RDB technology and they like that.. gives them a warm a fuzzy.. you don't have to say and now magic happens and you get your results. Kirk On May 15, 6:28 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with that - except for the bit about most enterprise data > suiting a relational model - I think its quite the opposite but years > of DBA brainwashing has convinced everyone otherwise. Very few uses of > RDBMS I have seen really make much use of the R bit to good effect (at > best its just a data quality thing). > > On May 15, 11:52 am, Christian Catchpole <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think there are heaps of reasons including the ones you mention. > > But I think the main thing is that dev's might like the idea of a > > clean object DB, but in practice, the data held by an organization > > does not (or should not) match the objects used by a program. And > > this data shouldn't be tied to any one app. And relational people > > will argue that most enterprise data suits a relational model more > > than an OO one. > > > Then there is the whole investment in DB technologies, admin, tuning, > > reporting, backup, replication etc. > > > I don't know much about OO databases so I can't say how they compare. > > > On May 15, 6:12 am, Nico <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to hear the posse discuss why technologies such > > > ashttp://www.db4o.com/ > > > has not yet taken over from the traditional Relational Databases like > > > Oralce, SQL Server, MySQL.. > > > > Is it because the technology is not mature enough or is it because of > > > vested interest both political and monetary in large enterprises? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
