Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Database Comparisons
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.001037.13484@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 12 Feb 91 00:10:37 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.134634.26917@infonode.ingr.com> <10876@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Feb7.224441.17631@infonode.ingr.com>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR)
Followup-To: comp.databases
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 21

As quoted from <1991Feb7.224441.17631@infonode.ingr.com> by tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer):
+---------------
| maybe genology data storage. Storing information about individuals
| is great for an ISAM but maintining the relationship of father / Child
| doesn't change that offen. It is more expensive to derive that relationship
| by a Join and by using tagged records or Network Sets.
+---------------

Certainly.  But nobody claimed that the relational DBMS model required that
b-trees be the only index type.  Hashed keys are common.  Unify (both the old
version and UNIFY 2000) has "explicit relationships"/"link indexes", which are
restricted versions of network pointers optimized for parent-child
relationships --- while Unify's the only one that I know does this, others may
well do so.

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			    VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		    Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN
America OnLine: KB8JRR			    AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    Delphi: ALLBERY