Comments on: NoSQL can be fast, but what if SQL were fast and flexible? http://www.truviso.com/blog/2009/12/nosql-can-be-fast-but-what-if-sql-were-fast-and-flexible/ Immediate Insight Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:56:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: albertpaul68 http://www.truviso.com/blog/2009/12/nosql-can-be-fast-but-what-if-sql-were-fast-and-flexible/comment-page-1/#comment-54 albertpaul68 Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:07:50 +0000 http://www.truviso.com/blog/?p=180#comment-54 I’ve always been amused by the many relational database enthusiasts who continue to insist that the technology is adequate for all purposes. It is a great and flexible technology and it has many applications. However, you don’t have to look far before you come across instances where <a href="http://www.testkings.net/640-802.htm" rel="nofollow">testking 640-802</a> developers have chosen not to use it. Why is it that Microsoft Word doesn’t break its documents down into chapter, section, paragraph, sentence and letter tables or columns and store them in SQL Server? It clearly could, but manipulating the data structures would be tiresome. Storing them in an object database, on the other hand, is efficient and flexible. Reading a document from disk into memory would probably only involve a few method invocations and I/Os, rather than the dozens of index, join and read operations that SQL would need. You could apply the same argument to Microsoft Exce I’ve always been amused by the many relational database enthusiasts who continue to insist that the technology is adequate for all purposes. It is a great and flexible technology and it has many applications. However, you don’t have to look far before you come across instances where testking 640-802 developers have chosen not to use it. Why is it that Microsoft Word doesn’t break its documents down into chapter, section, paragraph, sentence and letter tables or columns and store them in SQL Server? It clearly could, but manipulating the data structures would be tiresome. Storing them in an object database, on the other hand, is efficient and flexible. Reading a document from disk into memory would probably only involve a few method invocations and I/Os, rather than the dozens of index, join and read operations that SQL would need. You could apply the same argument to Microsoft Exce

]]> By: Kai Tischler http://www.truviso.com/blog/2009/12/nosql-can-be-fast-but-what-if-sql-were-fast-and-flexible/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Kai Tischler Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:04:50 +0000 http://www.truviso.com/blog/?p=180#comment-53 Hello Jeff ! This is a very interesting blog entry for me ! Because I'm considering to use native XML DBs with XQuery and/or OODBMSes and/or Kris Zyp's Persevere (uses JSONQuery). Since I'm no expert DB practioner, please allow me to ask the following questions: - You state "NoSQL systems either use a new declarative language that is much less powerful than SQL": Does this mean that SQL is more powerful than XQuery, JSONQuery, or Query Languages for OODBMSes ? - One main reason for me to use native XML DBs and/or OODBMSes is: Avoidance of ORM; what's Your take on this important topic ? Cheers and Tschüss Kai (Tischler) from Northrhine-Westfalia in Germany Hello Jeff !

This is a very interesting blog entry for me ! Because I’m considering to use native XML DBs with XQuery and/or OODBMSes and/or Kris Zyp’s Persevere (uses JSONQuery).

Since I’m no expert DB practioner, please allow me to ask the following questions:
- You state “NoSQL systems either use a new declarative language that is much less powerful than SQL”: Does this mean that SQL is more powerful than XQuery, JSONQuery, or Query Languages for OODBMSes ?

- One main reason for me to use native XML DBs and/or OODBMSes is: Avoidance of ORM; what’s Your take on this important topic ?

Cheers and Tschüss

Kai (Tischler) from Northrhine-Westfalia in Germany

]]>