• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Liam Quin'" <liam@w...>,"'Mukul Gandhi'" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:44:48 +0100

> > Can a XQuery engine work on this table structure?
> Yes.
> 
> That is, some can and some can't, and some do it via SQL and 
> JDBC or ODBC, and some perhaps more efficiently.

My experience so far of these hybrid relational/xml systems is that your
problem as a user is not a lack of functionality, but an excess. There are
simply too many ways of doing the same thing, and they have too many
irritating differences - different sets of functions, different rules for
case independence, different conventions for escaping special characters -
and different (unpredictably different) performance. I find it hard to
believe that this ugly hybrid of SQL and XQuery represents the future of
database technology. I find databases where everything is XML (or indeed
where everything is tables) much easier to work with.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

• References:
  • XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@n...>
  • RE: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@a...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>