Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!amdahl!rtech!wong From: wong@rtech.rtech.com (J. Wong) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Do you like your UNIX RDBMS? Summary: ? Message-ID: <2951@rtech.rtech.com> Date: 1 Jun 89 17:36:03 GMT References: <9703@dasys1.UUCP> <3378@fp.sei.cmu.edu> <2907@osiris.UUCP> Organization: Relational Technology Inc. Alameda, CA 94501 Lines: 76 In article emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes: >In article Steinar Overbeck Cook, writes: >> What is wrong with the use of embedded SQL ?. [RE: As opposed to a C language interface to the DBMS.] > >The problem with Embedded SQL is that is super lousy for browsing thru' a >database. Suppose you issue a query and there are 1000 matching records. >Are you aware that ALL the current ESQL implementations require that you >WAIT FOR THE 1000 RECORDS TO BE FOUND EVEN BEFORE YOU CAN VIEW THE 1ST ONE? I know for a fact that INGRES does not wait for all 1000 records to be found, so your claim of all is false. >Thus your client will be FORCED to wait for up to 5 minutes before he/she >gets a response from a simple query! >This certainly is NOT PROGRESS. Remember that in _LOWLY_, pseudo-relational >Dbase III you can access the 1st record of a matching set super-quickly by >using filters and the other records by doing a SKIP. >Also this can be done similarly in Informix 3.3. (I think this goes to show >that we need 2 simultaneous database models. Relational and Network!) >Also, another sore point with a DBMS like ORACLE is that you can't access >a PREVIOUS record. ie. you can't browse backwards. THIS SUCKS!! >Again, in lowly Dbase, all you have to do is SKIP -1. > >*** DO YOU NOW SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH EMBEDDED SQL!!! *** Confusingly, none of this is specific to Embedded SQL so I don't see how this is relevant to whether one uses a C interface to the DBMS or Embedded SQL. -- J. Wong wong@rtech.com **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Do you like your UNIX RDBMS? Summary: Expires: References: <9703@dasys1.UUCP> <3378@fp.sei.cmu.edu> <2907@osiris.UUCP> <427@fdmetd.uucp> Sender: Reply-To: wong@llama.UUCP (J. Wong) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA Keywords: In article emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes: >In article Steinar Overbeck Cook, writes: >> What is wrong with the use of embedded SQL ?. [RE: As opposed to a C language interface to the DBMS.] > >The problem with Embedded SQL is that is super lousy for browsing thru' a >database. Suppose you issue a query and there are 1000 matching records. >Are you aware that ALL the current ESQL implementations require that you >WAIT FOR THE 1000 RECORDS TO BE FOUND EVEN BEFORE YOU CAN VIEW THE 1ST ONE? >Thus your client will be FORCED to wait for up to 5 minutes before he/she >gets a response from a simple query! >This certainly is NOT PROGRESS. Remember that in _LOWLY_, pseudo-relational >Dbase III you can access the 1st record of a matching set super-quickly by >using filters and the other records by doing a SKIP. >Also this can be done similarly in Informix 3.3. (I think this goes to show >that we need 2 simultaneous database models. Relational and Network!) >Also, another sore point with a DBMS like ORACLE is that you can't access >a PREVIOUS record. ie. you can't browse backwards. THIS SUCKS!! >Again, in lowly Dbase, all you have to do is SKIP -1. > >*** DO YOU NOW SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH EMBEDDED SQL!!! *** I know for a fact that INGRES does not wait for all 1000 records to be found, so your claim of all is false. None of this is specific to Embedded SQL, but may be inherent in the relational model, so I don't see how this is relevant to whether one uses a C interface to the DBMS or Embedded SQL. -- J. Wong wong@rtech.com {sun|mtxinu|amdahl}!rtech!wong **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay!