Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    İstanbul-TÜRKİYE
    Posts
    2

    Unanswered: SQL Server vs Cache

    I'm very confused about which dbms to use. I've two choices: MS SQL Server 2000 and Intersystems Cache. Although Cache is post relational I don't know anything about it. However it has object oriented features, I know how to do things in SQL Server.
    Can anyone give me the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in this situation?
    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    Microsoft has offices in your area. They have lots of online support. They have a proven track record.

    While object orientation can be a good thing in code, just exactly what does the term mean to a database?

    -PatP

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    yeah

    so what's the deal with object-oriented database, it's supposedly the next generation database. any one know much about it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    İstanbul-TÜRKİYE
    Posts
    2
    yes, ms almost has everything.
    the important thing is that: oodbms will carry my projects.
    simply oodbms takes the classes in db and manages data with them.
    sure, all these have advantages and disadvantages.
    i think ms wins the competition.
    anyway, thanks in advance.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    While it mangles both the original Greek and the spirit of the quotation:

    The battle isn't always to the strong, nor the race always to the swift... But that is how the smart money will bet.

    -PatP

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    111
    I am not sure whether MS has everything, but i certainly see significant advantage of Oracle over MS, any one like to dispute me?

    But then again, i haven't worked with MS for very long tho I think I have used most of its features which a programmer would use plus some dba features.

    It sounds like OODBMS is just a higher level of abstraction from relational database, but wouldn't it inherently still need to implement relationships between objects, only at a higher level that's all?

    James

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Dark Planet
    Posts
    1,401
    Would you venture to elaborate on the comment ???

    but i certainly see significant advantage of Oracle over MS, any one like to dispute me
    Get yourself a copy of the The Holy Book

    order has no physical Brett in The meaning of a Kaiser . -database data

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    706

    Re: SQL Server vs Cache

    Originally posted by Barbun
    I'm very confused about which dbms to use. I've two choices: MS SQL Server 2000 and Intersystems Cache. Although Cache is post relational I don't know anything about it. However it has object oriented features, I know how to do things in SQL Server.
    Can anyone give me the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in this situation?
    Thanks in advance.
    The only way to resolve conundrums like this is to do a very systematic, business-like analysis of "your situation" and then a comparison of various products in relation to it, ascertaining the pluses and minuses of each. This report should be written down and studied very carefully by all of the stakeholders in the game.

    Obviously your familiarity with one product vs. another is an important issue ... one of several to be included in the study ... but "staff can be trained, even you." So it's not the only factor.

    Likewise, the presence or absence of a Microsoft field office in your area is ... really not much of a valid issue at all. This is not IBM. They're not gonna show up on your office doorstep wearing blue suits and promising to help. (And if they did, they'd charge just as much as IBM would!) All of those costs will exist, and must be factored into your study although it is not true that "they have the lowest price, ergo, they are right for us." Sometimes the right way to fix your car is to take it to someone who knows what t'hell he's doin'. It's not far off to figure your own time as $100 per hour, and to take every estimate you make, double it, and double it again. Better to be guess high and be proved wrong, than to guess low.

    The so-called "FUD Factor" (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is certainly a powerful weapon that salespeople are quick to bring to bear, but the reality is that Microsoft is not the only, nor the only "legitimate," player in even 'their' marketplace. Nonetheless, their products are good and are widely used. Oracle's products are, too! MySQL! Firebird! Postgres!! All of these have their followers, and thousands of successful installations. Hence the mantra: "objective, systematic, and businesslike."

    To rip from Peter Lynch's investment mantra: "know what you bought, and know why you bought it."

    "Object orientation" may be a decision factor (one that could throw the dice toward or away from several contenders...) but once again, the forces that cause this factor to be relevant must be truly business-related. It can't simply be "a warm-fuzzy feeling you got from your college professor who told you that Object Oriented was the way to go and maybe we ought to be doing things this way..."

    Figure that your decision is going to influence the direction of about a quarter-million dollars, give or take. Your mission is to ascertain the factors that you consider relevant, recommend how those dollars should be spent, and be prepared to defend your decision against the Devil's Advocate (and the vendor's salespeople!). That is how you should spend a quarter-million dollars: in such a way that you can sleep good at night.
    ChimneySweep(R): fast, automatic
    table repair at a click of the
    mouse! http://www.sundialservices.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    565
    to simplify the argument i would offer the answer i give to clients who ask the same question
    It's not a vendor based question it's a question of requirements.
    every vendor can provide just about all the product you will require but at what cost?
    monetary?
    administrative?
    learning curve?

    I value a convenient administrative environment just as much as i value the ability to index a partitioned view.
    they all can do it, so the question is who makes it the easiest to do it and the easiest to administer.

    I dont play that chevy ford pissing contest that you guys sound like you are about to jump into for the 1 millionth time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    I'd love to get my hands on an Object-Oriented database system and play around with it. I learned coding on Borland's old Turbo Pascal and got hooked on it's OOP functionality.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    Object Oriented databases are interesting beasties. While I've seen a few experimental systems that offer some neat features, I haven't seen one that offers anything like a compelling reason to switch.

    Microsoft is not the only game in town by a long shot, but they are one of the biggest and best for mid-size (0.1 to 500 Gb) database applications. Microsoft offers sales presence around the world (including places that Oracle hasn't even heard about yet), support in nearly every major city on the planet, and a cost that most businesses can afford.

    IBM is more mature, and often significantly more expensive in terms of the solutions that they provide, compared to Microsoft. They go much larger on the application scale, and offer services that Microsoft is hard pressed to match. They can compete in the same markets, but they rarely do because there usually isn't enough money in any given deal to interest IBM.

    I'm a firm believer in "parts is parts". I haven't played sides in the battles between platforms since I got out of sales the early 1980s. Pick a platform, and I can work with it. Give me some choices, and I can probably work efficiently too. The business of being religiously for or against a particular product/vendor/technology is counterproductive.

    -PatP

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    Ironically, I am given a task of presenting DBMS alternatives here, in particular with Open Source-based OODBMS...I've done enough of OOP to know what's involved in FE design and that it's unquestionably more superior methodology for it. But as far as your data goes...I could see polymorphism somewhat awkwardly implemented even in 6.5, and it can do the trick to cover that aspect of OO, but what about inheritance? Encapsulation? The latter can be perceived to exist as a compbination of tables and all code-based related objects...But that's a perception, not reality! And I believe everything has its purpose, OOA/OOP for FE, and "R!!!"DBMS for the BE. Forcing one onto another is just an experiment that I don't think is succeeding yet. Even though from what I've read, the OODBMS vendors claim that the speed is hundreds and even thousands times higher than a traditional RDBMS, - I haven't seen it, nor heard of it from the real world.

    Any thoughts?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    You are correct, in that true object orientation and the basic idea of "permanent storage" are mutually exclusive. At least in my mind, objects have code associated with them, and code doesn't execute on disk.

    MUMPS did a good job of simulating object oriented databases. It blurred the distinction between disk and RAM to the point that it became meaningless. Some LISP systems work the same way.

    Some of the object wrappers for relational databases work very well. They offer all of the important features needed to commit objects to disk and to resurrect them at will, but they still retain a rock-solid differentiation between RAM and disk.

    These wrappers make the objects ride on top of the database, not exist within it. This makes it possible for OOP tools to co-exist with non-OOP tools... Without the wrapper concept, you end up with objects that can only be used in a "digital ghetto" of their own making, since none of the existing database tools could use those objects any other way!

    -PatP

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    Originally posted by blindman
    I'd love to get my hands on an Object-Oriented database system and play around with it. I learned coding on Borland's old Turbo Pascal and got hooked on it's OOP functionality.
    You can start here, but...have you finished reading the new BOL yet?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    I'm still on the "What 'What's New?' Is New?" section.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

Posting Permissions

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