Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Extended RDB vs OODB
Message-ID: <1989Aug18.141453.29427@odi.com>
Date: 18 Aug 89 14:14:53 GMT
References: <28@dgis.daitc.mil> <1989Aug17.180057.2623@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 15
In-reply-to: hughes@math.berkeley.edu's message of 17 Aug 89 18:00:57 GMT

In article <1989Aug17.180057.2623@agate.berkeley.edu> hughes@math.berkeley.edu (Eric Hughes) writes:

   "Inherently bad performance" is a slippery term.  It is important to
   remember that a database model is an abstraction, and that there are
   many different implementations of the same abstraction.

Yes, indeed.  My colleague Jack Orenstein also pointed this out.
Performance is usually not inherent in an abstract data model.  The
most interesting performance differences between conventional DBMS's,
and the new CAx-oriented DBMS's, have less to do with the abstract
model and more to do with the implementation of the model.  The
claimed benefits of using an object-oriented model have more to do
with such areas as expressiveness and abstraction than performance.

Dan Weinreb		Object Design, Inc.		dlw@odi.com