Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    14

    Relational vs object oriented

    hi, can anyone inform me of the main advantages of using relational opposed to object oriented db's and vice verca.

    Also does anyone know of any good informative links, urls, journals ect relating to answering the above.

    thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,618
    I've never actually worked with an object orientated database but from my understanding they are much more flexible then relational database, unfortunately this in turn means that they are more difficult to manage.

    Of course, this is just what I have heard and I could quite happily be proven wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    14
    Also, as relational db's are based upon 3 tier structure, are OO db's based upon a similar structure or do they have a much differing framework?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    20,002
    collection of articles and links on OO databases:

    Object databases

    registration required, but it's free


    rudy
    http://r937.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bangalore, INDIA
    Posts
    333

    Thumbs up

    Hi,

    ORDBMS Features :

    User-Defined datatypes & Objects
    Fully compatible with relational Database
    Support for Multimedia and Large objects
    High-Quality database server features
    Improved performance & Functionality of OnLine Transaction Processing (OLTP) applications.
    Better sharing os Run-time data structures
    Operaqting within the Network Computing Architecture (NCA) Framewotk
    Can scale tens of thousands of concurrent Users


    RDBMS Features :

    Its based on the Relational model proposed by Dr.E.F.Codd
    Its a collection of objects & relations.
    It contains set of operators to act on the relations
    It provides Data Integrity for accuracy & Consistency
    can be accessed & Modified by executing structured query language(SQL) statements
    SATHISH .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    14
    In what areas do the relational dbs outperform their oo counterparts?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bangalore, INDIA
    Posts
    333

    Thumbs up

    HI,

    As the name implies , Object Oriented Dbs are implementing Object Oriented Concepts in Relational Dbs. OO Dbs are fully compatible with relational Database. So there's no issue of Relational Db over Performing OO Dbs.
    SATHISH .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    14
    am i right in saying that oo primerily is for programming and as oo dbs incorporate these principles (from geared towards programming) this is a downside

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bangalore, INDIA
    Posts
    333

    Thumbs up

    Hi,

    You are right.


    Originally posted by audioviper
    am i right in saying that oo primerily is for programming and as oo dbs incorporate these principles (from geared towards programming) this is a downside
    SATHISH .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    14
    Also, am I right in saying that when mapping oo to relational db's they dont map well. - I take it that the OO classes are designed using the application (which is of oo nature) then stored on a relational database, this is when the mapping problem occurs.

    But why store on relational db, and not oo db? this would cure the mapping probleM right? im confused.

    why is there a reuqirement to store objects and map them to a relational database? can anyone explain?

    thanks.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    66
    >> why store on relational db, and not oo db?

    It is about ways we organise knowledge in our brain. From my angle, it appears RDBMS is for older people, while OO is for younger ones. Sadly, I grew to belong to the first category, but I used to think OO a few decades ago.

    As a young person, I was gathering knowledge, as if pealing an onion. There was always something new to discover, when going down from layer to layer. A human individual, or a financial transaction, or a transistor would provide ever more complex characteristics, so it was quite convenient to encapsulate such a things as "objects".

    After a while though, it turned out that real complexity lies outside the objects, in the relations which bind them together. By now, I'm less interested in the full complexity of a human being, as long as he or she behaves like a customer.

    I'm not saying OO-modeling is unnecessary. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that we already operate with well-established "objects". The concepts or Money, Account, Transaction, Customer, Legal Entity are abstractions, which reduce complex reality to a few essential attributes. These entities are understood by everyone, and they can easily be modeled with a couple of columns in a relational table. On the other hand, things like a GUI Api are (were) subject to change and internal evolution, just like the proverbial radar station of Grady Booch. When the reality is less understood, then OO comes out better.

    The relational space may be populated by bland, simple entities, but it is far from boring. A bank account is a simple model: you can only post an amount, or look at the balance. But managing the totality of accounts in a bank is quite complex. That sort of complexity appears outside the individual account. Therefore, an account record in a relational table is just as good for this purpose as an account object. It is also simpler and faster. That's why I'm reading dbForums.

    Andrew

Posting Permissions

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