[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Since we're talking about databases...

• From: len bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:29:31 -0600

Take a look at the papers of Dr. Michael Stonebraker (www.informix.com)
on the design of relational databases with object support designed 
into the kernel which enable user-defined extensions, support for 
complex types, etc.  His claim is that this approach is the new 
generation of db.

He posits arguments and figures for the performance of this 
approach over middleware that might be interesting.  I find 
myself wondering about how this approach would work if 
XML support were built into the kernel.  Stonebraker posits 
it would be far superior for 3D.  Since we have some 
experience with geodata and the performance problems of keeping 
this in the relational db (not the way to go), 
I wonder if architectural issues with XML systems that 
rely on middleware will be similar.

len bullard

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Since we're talking about databases...
    • From: "Jeffrey E. Sussna" <jes@k...>

• References:
  • Since we're talking about databases...
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Since we're talking about databases...
    • From: Clark Evans <clark.evans@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Another errata?
• Next by Date: RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Previous by thread: Re: Since we're talking about databases...
• Next by thread: RE: Since we're talking about databases...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread