From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Charles Hauser <chauser(at)duke(dot)edu>, PSQL_list <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: object oriented vs relational DB |
Date: | 2002-10-17 18:42:50 |
Message-ID: | 200210171842.51559.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 4:03 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Charles,
>
> > as far as I aware, constantly evolving schema is not one of
> > relational databases
> > strengths."
>
> All of the above issues are easily solvable by a SQL expert. "You
> show me somebody preaching about the 'limitations' of relational
> databases, and I'll show you somebody with a poor knowledge of the SQL
> standard, or who is using an inferior SQL RDBMS."
A "constantly evolving schema" is a limitation of an RDBMS to be fair. What
seems to be missed by people who have problems with this is that a constantly
evolving schema is a sign of design problems too. The schema is supposed to
represent the *meaning* of your data - if the schema is evolving your
analysis was incorrect at the start.
How would you feel about a library with "constantly evolving categories" for
filing its books?
Anyway Charles, I agree with Josh's comments and just thought I'd point you at
the following site that has plenty of discussion on relational vs object -
oriented database systems.
--
Richard Huxton
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-10-17 20:22:58 | Re: Messy Casts, Is there a better way? |
Previous Message | Hepworth, Mike | 2002-10-17 18:20:06 | Re: [pgadmin-support] hi |