Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 9 Aug 2006 08:07:50 -0700
Message-ID: <1155136070.326168.165960_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> I agree. If we are going to start somewhere and move forward, we might
> be well-served to look to what works today outside of the RM (even
> though it, of course, typically markets itself as relational). Is it
> less expensive to work with Cache' than Oracle given such and such an
> environment? If so, why?
Date: 9 Aug 2006 08:07:50 -0700
Message-ID: <1155136070.326168.165960_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
dawn wrote:
>
> I agree. If we are going to start somewhere and move forward, we might
> be well-served to look to what works today outside of the RM (even
> though it, of course, typically markets itself as relational). Is it
> less expensive to work with Cache' than Oracle given such and such an
> environment? If so, why?
Is there theory behind any of this? Any mathematical models or other
formalisms? It seems to me that comparing Cache with Oracle for
TCO is not on-topic on c.d.t.
Does any of "what works today outside of the RM" have any theory
behind it? This is a theory newsgroup after all.
Marshall Received on Wed Aug 09 2006 - 17:07:50 CEST