Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!odi!jack From: jack@odi.com (Jack Orenstein) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Extended RDB vs OODB Message-ID: <1989Aug17.141620.24941@odi.com> Date: 17 Aug 89 14:16:20 GMT References: <3560052@wdl1.UUCP> <408@odi.ODI.COM> <3324@rtech.rtech.com> <1989Aug11.143036.24703@odi.com> <1765@ethz.UUCP> Reply-To: jack@odi.com (Jack Orenstein) Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA Lines: 34 In article <1765@ethz.UUCP> marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) writes: >With respect to the ongoing debate concerning OODBs vs extended RDBs, >I'd like to see proof (make that circumstatial evidence, if you prefer) >that an OODB which supports traditional basic DBMS features such as >concurrency control, transactions, set-oriented data manipulation, >the ability to define views and to dynamically add new tables/columns, >etc. is > >1) faster than a relational system for typical technical/engineering > applications than a relational system, and > >2) not much slower than a relational system for traditional business > oriented applications. > >How about some benchmarks, controversial as they may be? Speaking for the system we're building at Object Design: The system is based on C++. Concurrency control, transactions, and set-oriented data manipulation (as well as one-at-a-time processing) will all be present in our system. View definition is tricky to define - how does it differ from simply writing another C++ object class? As for dynamically adding tables and columns: We have set-valued types, modeled as C++ classes (which are analogous to relational tables), instances of which can be dynamically allocated, as is the case with any C++ object class. "Adding columns" is a relational notion that does not have a clear OO counterpart, (I'd be interested in hearing about analogies that anyone would care to offer.) No benchmarks (yet), but a forthcoming posting addresses one aspect of the performance issue for CAx applications. Jack Orenstein Object Design, Inc.