Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    20,002

    Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete

    September 06, 2007 (Computerworld) -- As a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, in the early 1970s, Michael Stonebraker co-created the Ingres and Postgres technology that underlies many leading relational databases today: Microsoft Corp.'s SQL Server, Sybase Inc.'s Adaptive Server Enterprise, Ingres Corp.'s eponymous product, IBM's Informix, and others.

    But Stonebraker now argues that relational databases, also known as RDBMSes, are "long in the tooth" and "should be considered legacy technology."

    In an entry Tuesday at a new blog, The Database Column, Stonebraker also argued that today's relational databases lag badly in performance behind a new wave of databases that flip database tables 90 degrees.
    read more...
    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...&intsrc=kc_top
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    I thought we discouraged link dumping

    In any event - are you just hoping for a flame war? Let me know if you want flaming for daring to suggest that the relational model is anything but the greatest and purest creation in the history of computer science. As ever your servant and happy to oblige.
    Last edited by pootle flump; 09-07-07 at 04:07.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,171
    But Stonebraker now argues that relational databases, also known as RDBMSes, are "long in the tooth" and "should be considered legacy technology."
    If you link through to his blog, he says nothing of the kind! He is talking about the way data is stored "under the covers":
    ...it is possible to build a SQL DBMS engine with vertical market-specific internals...
    He (unlike ComputerWorld) understands the difference between logical and physical levels. Chris Date would heartily approve, up to a point.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    134
    I didn't look to far into this, but I believe he was referring to applications that do mostly reads benefiting from vertical storage.

    My guess is that maintaining that data (update/delete/insert) would not be as good. But I really don't know much about the issue.

    Also, someone noted that he now works for a company that deals with what he is discussing. I don't believe his is lying or anything.. but he is discussing/pushing information on what his current job is.. this is normal

    beware the shouting of newpapers/magazines/etc... they are trying very hard to sell advertising

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    710
    We've still to see a true implementation of the relational model.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    710
    What is really obsolete is mechanical storage.

    I would really go for a couple terabytes of solid state mass storage.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Baghdad, Iraq
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by certus
    We've still to see a true implementation of the relational model.
    Anyone here ever try Dataphor? I remeber it being vapor-ware for the longest time and they seem to have dropped off the face of the planet.

    In fact, doing some digging on archive.org, they haven't updated alphora.com since July and they've since lost their domain name to a squatter.

    So much for the forces of light and truth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •