Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Organization: Archonet Ltd
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, Charles Hauser <chauser@duke.edu>,
	PSQL_list <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: object oriented vs relational DB
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:42:50 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <web-1790006@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <web-1790006@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200210171842.51559.dev@archonet.com>

On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 4:03 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Charles,
>
> > as far as I aware, constantly evolving schema is not one of
> > relational databases
> > strengths."
>
> All of the above issues are easily solvable by  a SQL expert.  "You
> show me somebody preaching about the 'limitations' of relational
> databases, and I'll show you somebody with a poor knowledge of the SQL
> standard, or who is using an inferior SQL RDBMS."

A "constantly evolving schema" is a limitation of an RDBMS to be fair. What=
=20
seems to be missed by people who have problems with this is that a constant=
ly=20
evolving schema is a sign of design problems too. The schema is supposed to=
=20
represent the *meaning* of your data - if the schema is evolving your=20
analysis was incorrect at the start.

How would you feel about a library with "constantly evolving categories" fo=
r=20
filing its books?

Anyway Charles, I agree with Josh's comments and just thought I'd point you=
 at=20
the following site that has plenty of discussion on relational vs object -=
=20
oriented database systems.

http://www.dbdebunk.com/

--=20
  Richard Huxton