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

Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases

• To: Matthew Terenzio <matt@j...>
• Subject: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:05:53 +1000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <552e7143f8d1284d6e03d4faada6dbe6@j...>
• References: <4277EFB2.70501@d...> <200505051230.36432.david.lyon@c...> <552e7143f8d1284d6e03d4faada6dbe6@j...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Thu, 5 May 2005 12:54 pm, Matthew Terenzio wrote:
> Just saying that while it's true that OS moves toward commodity, there
> are still just so many  who prefer to choose exactly what they run
> MySQL on, for a great number of reasons,
> some legitimate and others religious.
>
> But you are right, now that I think about it from the perspective of a
> dedicated box. I don't always have that luxury.
> I also tend to use Postgres, if the choice is mine.

For real interoperability, which database you use is less important
than the structure of the tables. The structure of the db is the thing
that really dictates interoperability, not the 'brand' of db.

This is the key point that seems to have been lost in the whole
interoperability debate..

David

-- 
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• References:
  • Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Matthew Terenzio <matt@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Previous by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread