One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under "avoid at all costs" in my brain.
To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ?
Simon
On 8 Apr 2008, at 17:55, Robert Walker wrote: http://www.intersystems.com/cache/index.html
I don't yet know a lot about this, but from reading their feature list, systems like this may be in our near future.
Feature and Benefits:http://www.intersystems.com/cache/technology/fb/fb_02.html
On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Hi!
On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote:
Speaking of that, why do we continue the "Cargo Cult" of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears.
I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that:
1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO.
When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
Miguel Arroz
|