From: Marcel Weiher marcel@metaobject.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: relational for what? [was: Design Principles Behind Smalltalk,Revisited] Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:41:58 -0800
Are you serious with this (data too large to fit into memory)? And if you use a good RDBMS then you don't have to worry about disk speed or distribution.
Do you really, truly believe you don't have to worry about physical parameters such as disk speed just because there is an intermediate layer between you and your disk(s) called a RDBMS?
Well no, someone has to worry about this. I guess when I said RDBM*S* I meant RDBMS *team*.
Or are you saying that what happens is that you pay someone else to worry about those parameters?
Sort of.
I just don't see the data point of "does the data fit into memory or not" as being relavant to the discussion. If you have relational type data and you want to run various reports that look at the data in various different ways for reports, what does "have it in memory" have to do with anything? Whether it fits or not, you still have to hand write code that does relational joins and other things to deal with it.
My last (relevant) project would have easily fit in memory, but downloading MySQL, building 3 tables and loading up the data was *vastly* faster then hand writing all that stuff for about 10 reports that had to be run one time.
Of course, using a database in that scenario was actually not necessary, and the benefits that the vendor touted for their database- based system were quite irrelevant in our application context.
_________________________________________________________________ Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get it now http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get...