Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!gem-hy!cdm From: cdm@gem-hy.Inel.GOV (Dale Cook) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Database Comparisons Message-ID: <1991Feb12.235654.1480@inel.gov> Date: 12 Feb 91 23:56:54 GMT References: <1991Feb7.134634.26917@infonode.ingr.com> <10876@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Feb7.190050.449@inel.gov> Sender: news@inel.gov Reply-To: cdm@gem-hy.Inel.GOV (Dale Cook) Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho Lines: 67 In article , mef@Unify.Com (Marvin Fenner (att)) writes: |> In article <1991Feb7.190050.449@inel.gov> cdm@gem-hy.Inel.GOV (Dale Cook) writes: |> ... good stuff deleted ... |> > |> >Nonsense. |> > |> ... good stuff deleted ... |> > |> >Again, nonsense. |> > |> ... good stuff deleted ... |> > |> >That may be true, but you haven't given us any real examples why. |> > |> And you have given us nothing, period. How about trying your rebuttal |> again, this time with some visible content? Gee, my mistake. I had hoped one would infer that the same argument I gave against the first point (which you so kindly omitted in your post) applied to the other 2 as well. How's this? Point 1 (condensed): Non-RDBM systems have no adhoc query capability. My rebuttal (condensed): Not true. I've worked with non-RDBM systems with plenty of adhoc capability, e.g. ADABAS. Point 2 (condensed): Non-RDBMS applications are uninsulated from physical changes to the database. My rebuttal (expanded): Not true. I've worked with non-RDBM systems with provisions for physical changes to the data structures without impact to application programs which use them, e.g., ADABAS. Point 3 (condensed): There is no way to speed up non-RDBMS queries without rewriting the application doing the query. My rebuttal (expanded): Not true. I've worked with non-RDBM systems with the capability to specify indexes on fields or groups of fields to speed up queries, requiring no rewrite of existing codes, e.g., ADABAS. There are other non-RDBM systems for which this is equally true, e.g., HP's IMAGE. I do not currently use ADABAS, nor am I saying it is perfect for all uses. I was trying to say that the points made had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the DBMS is relational. There are good and bad DBMS's, both relational and non-relational. The reasons why relational may be better has nothing to do with the stated points. The "stuff" may have been "good", but it was false. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Dale Cook cdm@inel.gov The opinions are mine. The following disclaimer is my employers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip =========== Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever, implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.