Re: Development Trends in Web and Oracle

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4232e012$0$5486$5a62ac22_at_per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> The overhead? 36*2+1 longer to process a single byte.
> How fast a modern CPU works is completely irrelevant.

So you are saying the argument against storing XML in the database is a cost overhead for a bit of verbosity? That can't be the basis of your argument, surely?

Hex

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4232e012$0$5486$5a62ac22_at_per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Hexathioorthooxalate apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/03/2005 11:08
> PM:
>
>> There is an inference in what you have written that
>> RIDICULOUSLYLONGTABSIGNIFYINGNOTHING occupies much space in the database
>> or significant CPU overhead to process (the hardware reference).
>
> I think there was no inference whatsoever. It is bleeding
> obvious it does have an overhead and stated as such.
> The overhead? 36*2+1 longer to process a single byte.
> How fast a modern CPU works is completely irrelevant.
>
>> Regards
>> Hex
>
> I don't get it. You abbreviate your sig above to
> "Hex" and then you add an absolutely inane disclaimer
> ten times longer than the context of your reply?
>
> Ah yes: you must be an XML evangelist...
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
Received on Sat Mar 12 2005 - 06:46:41 CST