tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2420860529344694449.post7416491851635372952..comments2008-02-05T07:42:19.193-08:00Dr JTSnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2420860529344694449.post-45179670439834656032008-02-05T07:42:00.000-08:002008-02-05T07:42:00.000-08:00Stonebraker has been preaching this one for a couple of years now. He has some very good points, but I'm not convinced by every point in the argument.<BR/><BR/>For example, the thesis, seems to overlook the reason (IMO) why Relational Databases are ubiquitous today. Relational databases are never the "best" solution. They've never been - if the very best performance is required, it has always been possible to develop a custom-made solution that outperforms a database by an order of magnitude. That's one reason, for instance, why my workplace has lots of old flat-file implementations.<BR/><BR/>What the "traditional" database excels at is providing a general solution that is flexible enough to do a "good enough" job. It is a major advantage, not having to deal with 20 different databases/systems, just because you have 20 different applications. Metal (bigger, faster servers) is always cheaper than meat (people having to maintain the systems).<BR/><BR/>The interesting part that I found in his talks, is his belief that free databases like PostgreSQL and MySQL will take over the "general" database market, with the "Pay-for-Software" databases (Oracle, DB2, MSSQL) needing to look more toward the specialized markets to compete.Michael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05321078010906346868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2420860529344694449.post-64823455359423341552008-01-31T13:11:00.000-08:002008-01-31T13:11:00.000-08:00wow.. you are right: this Stonebraker has a bunch of interesting papers/works (INGRES, POSTGRES, O-R-DBMS, Stream-Monitoring)<BR/><BR/>And if more surprising: I have met one of the co-authors N. Tatbul (small world)mentaerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06337822862621103715noreply@blogger.com