Regarding scaling, the MV DBMS I use advertises as highly scalable. Even if 
typical partitioning is not by sharding there are many ways in which databases 
can scale. People looking for non-SQL-only DBMS tools will have many and varied 
requirements --dawn

Typed on a mobile keyboard

On Dec 16, 2011, at 8:37 PM, "DavidJMurray (mvdbs.com)" <nab...@mvdbs.com> 
wrote:

> 
> 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-tp32982649p32989771.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

Reply via email to