Re: Using XML and a relational database

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:42:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1098564084.100612@yasure>

Pat wrote:

> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1098423328.126517_at_yasure...
> 

>>Gregory Burd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why are you using a relational database for XML? We have a native XML
>>>database that could solve your problems.
>>>
>>>-greg
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Gregory Burd
>>>Product Manager gburd_at_sleepycat.com
>>>Sleepycat Software, Inc. http://www.sleepycat.com/
>>
>>The only problems solved by an XML database are having too much unused
>>disk space, too much bandwidth, too much scalability, and too much
>>performance.
>>
>>I'll put money on every XML database company being out of busines within
>>ten years. Or, perhaps optimistically, joining the large number of
>>successful companies selling object databases.
>>
>>And thank you for posting to every usenet group you could spell.
>>--
>>Daniel A. Morgan
>>University of Washington
>>damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
>>(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

> 
> 
> If that's the case and native XML databases no longer exist
> in this world (just like XQL?), will you perceive all XML,
> XSLT, XQuery, etc (what else?) just vanish?
> 
> Just discussion.

XML has value. XML databases are at best a niche like pure object databases and more likely a disaster.

My main objection to XML in the database is the huge number of bytes required to store a single byte of data:

<someridiculouslylongtag>1</someridiculouslylongtag>

and then you get to push this to the app server and off to the client. XML was made for a purpose. It should be used for that purpose. Not kludged into every nook and crany imaginable.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 15:42:18 CDT