Cees de Groot wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:41:20 -0600, Jimmie Houchin 
> <jhouchin at cableone.net>  wrote:
> 
>> It seems that for productions sites with larger database needs that  
>> Relational databases are currently preferred. At least this is how I  
>> interpret what I've read. Please feel free to correct.
>>
> I disagree. I put the cut only w.r.t. the complexity of the domain 
> model.  Simple domain model -> relational; complex domain model -> OODB. 
> No matter  what people say, there's a chasm between the OO and 
> relational models and  it will hurt your ability to create a flexible 
> domain model, which IMNSHO  is one of the most important things about 
> any moderately complex app.

Okay. Let me see if I understand you correctly.
For a simple model, no joins or complex relational modeling, use of a 
RDBMS is fine maybe preferrable.

For something in which in a RDBMS you have multiple joins and complex 
modeling in which to represent or store your data, go OODBMS.

Close? Correct?

> OmniBase is a very good option for Squeak as long as you stick to  
> commercial projects (some 400 dollars per developer seat; you can't  
> possibly call that expensive), because the free version of OmniBase is  
> slightly crippled (and needs updating). I don't know about GOODS or 
> Magma,  I tend to stick with what works :)

The price is fine. Is the commercial version on Linux current, working 
and complete? Or does it have the file locking problems discussed? I use 
Linux and like Daniel have nothing to do with Windows.

>> The primary options of those it seems are PostgreSQL 7 and MySQL 4.
>>
> Forget MySQL for anything serious. It works fine if you have small 
> amounts  of data, but everyone I know ran into big trouble when trying 
> to put it  behind high-volume, high-traffic websites - it will crash, 
> screw up  indexes, and do bad things to your data. Don't believe the 
> marketing and  the hype, it's a low end RDBMS nice for low end 
> applications.

Not really interested in MySQL anyway. :)

> PostgreSQL always has been more robust, supports a way better locking  
> model, and has mostly closed the performance gap with MySQL. As far as  
> free RDMSes go, I think it's the preferred choice for any situation 
> where  the use of third-party stuff (PHP apps come to mind) doesn't 
> mandate MySQL.

Agreed.

>> I also think that SQLite 3 looks interesting and much more along the  
>> lines for comparison with Magma and GOODS. It is small, embeddable, 
>> and  to my understanding performs very well.
>>
> As you started talking about 'production sites with larger database  
> needs'... SQLite is probably even lower end than MySQL :)

Oh come on Cees, tell me what you really think. :)

I really don't know quite to where SQLite scales. But it seems it would 
scale anywhere Goods or Magma would. Yes? No? Just a thought.

Thanks for your experienced opinion. I find the expertise and experience 
of you professional developers and Squeakers very valuable. That's why I 
am willing to lay myself out and play the fool here occasionally. :)

Jimmie