I have to pick you up on scaling. U2 scales really well there are some staggering performance test that have been done. U2 does things differently, but it does scale. An area that NOSQL databases are not demonstrating in what I have looked at, is the transactional processing and security that a commercial database requires. It is not to say that Rocket does not have some work to do in some areas, but I don't get that something new is the be all and end all and that something that is mature is outdated. I like to try and get the best out of both.
David Jordan -----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of DavidJMurray (mvdbs.com) Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2011 1:38 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [U2] Graph DataBase I also, to some extent, agree with Dawn. The mv, NF**2, post relational, PICK, or whatever the correct model name is, it is not a relational database. There are very strict definitions to a relational database, namely, but not complete, normalisation, SQL, joins etc. Yes, the mv model can emulate a relational database. But, it you throw away the dict part of a file, the data is actually in a form of a document. And, if you go way back to the definition of a database model created for analysis - Entity-Relationship by Chen in the early 1980's, the mv model is very close to the ER model. So, if you add back the dictionaries, the database model could be a DDERDBMS - Dictionary Driven Entity-Relationship Data Base Management System. Anyway, whatever mongoDB classify themselves as, so should the PICK model. But then, U2 is not that well known, as it is not marketed to end users per se. It is an embedded database for VAR's. The focus is on the application, not the underlying database. This could be seen as a problem in some markets. So, it could be seen to be lost energy promoting the database to end users or developers within the nosql market as U2 is not open source, hence costs money, does not scale that well (sharding and/or federation) and is not really for high volume loads within a web service delivery environment. It's a good solid product for well established actively-promoted vertical market applications which need to extend to the surrounding I.T. ecosystem. Dawn Wolthuis wrote: > > I do disagree with this. If neo4j meets the not-determined criteria > (except by marketing departments) then MV products do too. MV vendors > might have suggested they are relational at varying points in their > history (again marketing depts) but they do not meet Relational or at > least SQL-only DBMS criteria. We are very much in the not-SQL-only > camp whether we proclaim it or not. No product in that mix does > everything. I put Tom del's nodal logo on a blog entry in 2006. It is > someone in the MV space that has the nodal domains. We are NoSQL, no > doubt, but we can decide to stay in our MV sandbox rather than joining > the game if we so choose. --dawn > > > ----- Learn and Do Excel and Share http://mvdbs.com http://mvdbs.com -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Graph-DataBase-tp32982649p32989774.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users